Damn climate change!

[onthebottom]

The left is teetering on the edge of fascism on this issue…

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/s...oliticians-who-question-climate-change-video/

 

[groggy]

The left is teetering on the edge of fascism on this issue…

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/s...oliticians-who-question-climate-change-video/

That's pretty extreme, but perhaps not far off the mark. Probably they should just be sued, like the tobacco industry was sued for damages.
Since climate change extreme weather is already causing us 100s of billions in damages a year now, suing those who falsely argue that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening and work towards continuing the same behaviour, taking money from fossil fuel funds to spout disinformation is reasonable.

For idiots like moviefan, who aren't smart enough to know they are being suckered, public shaming should be enough.
But for those who take fossil fuel money, like those who publish moviefans talking points, they should be held accountable for some of the damages they are supporting.

Moviefan, who seems to buy into conspiracy theories, as he showed in his attacks on the media at the start of the Ford Gawker story.

 

[onthebottom]

That's pretty extreme, but perhaps not far off the mark. Probably they should just be sued, like the tobacco industry was sued for damages.
Since climate change extreme weather is already causing us 100s of billions in damages a year now, suing those who falsely argue that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening and work towards continuing the same behaviour, taking money from fossil fuel funds to spout disinformation is reasonable.

For idiots like moviefan, who aren't smart enough to know they are being suckered, public shaming should be enough.
But for those who take fossil fuel money, like those who publish moviefans talking points, they should be held accountable for some of the damages they are supporting.

Moviefan, who seems to buy into conspiracy theories, as he showed in his attacks on the media at the start of the Ford Gawker story.

Perhaps suing those who argue for wind and solar subsidies as a solution would then also be in order, or those who jump up and down about climate change and then argue against fracking……. or perhaps those who have a car with more than 4 cylinders because you don't really believe in global warming if you do….

 

[Insidious Von]

Another consequence of climate change.

Bee populations globally are declining, we now have to transport them to agricultural areas requiring pollination. Without bees we could lose over half of the fruits and vegetables we presently consume.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634676/20-MILLION-bees-swarm-Newark-truck-carrying-hives-overturns-interstate.html

 

[Insidious Von]

As for the tittle of this thread:

Ahhhhhh....damn prairie dogs! - Fred Ward (Tremors)

 

[Moviefan-2]

For idiots like moviefan, who aren`t smart enough to know they are being suckered, public shaming should be enough.

Well ... I`m smart enough to know that a "decade" isn`t 20 years.

And I know the difference between a table of contents and an index.

As for Groggy. Sadly, I`m afraid he was wrong on both those points: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

Moviefan, who seems to buy into conspiracy theories, as he showed in his attacks on the media at the start of the Ford Gawker story.

Actually, when that story first broke on TERB, I didn`t "attack" the media. I said Ford should resign.

As for your repeated assertion that the United Nations` IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists" who "take fossil fuel money," I`d love to know where you`re getting that from.

 

[Moviefan-2]

That's pretty extreme, but perhaps not far off the mark. Probably they should just be sued....

It's official. Groggy is "anti-science."

Meanwhile, I enjoyed Mark Steyn's take on Suzuki's latest buffoonery.

http://www.steynonline.com/6357/forest-of-sticks

 

[groggy]

As for your repeated assertion that the United Nations' IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists" who "take fossil fuel money," I'd love to know where you're getting that from.

Still putting two and two together then checking heartland for the answer, I see.

So tell us, oh not so wise one, why you think the IPCC is run by 'ex-tobacco lobbyists', based on something I said.
Just give me a minute to put the popcorn on.


(by the way, I'll apologize for the rob ford comment, I had you confused with fmahoviiich and and a couple of others)

 

[Moviefan-2]

So tell us...why you think the IPCC is run by 'ex-tobacco lobbyists', based on something I said.

I don't. But you keep saying my information comes from "ex-tobacco lobbyists" when my sources are actually the IPCC's reports.

(by the way, I'll apologize for the rob ford comment, I had you confused with fmahoviiich and and a couple of others)

I appreciate the apology but it wasn't necessary. I wasn't bothered by the Ford comment but I thought I should clarify that it wasn't me who attacked the media.

 

[groggy]

I don't. But you keep saying my information comes from "ex-tobacco lobbyists" when my sources are actually the IPCC's reports.
.

Ah, but your 'points' are gleaned from old heartland type posts, which is why you keep referring back to older reports and calling them predictions instead of projections.

You still haven't found an answer to the latest news, namely the Antarctic glacial melt and North American glacial melt, have you?
Are you still waiting for heartland to put out some talking points you can claim as your own?
Or do you have your own opinion?

 

[basketcase]

The freelance cartoonist who put together the most recent version of the bogus number (and has never worked one day of his life as a professional scientist) is an "expert"?

That's almost as funny as the suggestion the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists."

Apart from the fact it's total B.S., the reason I reject the bogus propaganda number is because I prefer empirical evidence. As I've told you before, phony claims of a "consensus" are not a substitute for evidence.

You posted in the other thread why you didn't like it. Your reason was they sent out questions to 10,000 or so in related scientific fields but the 97% number was only from a small percent of those asked. Of course it turned out that the 97% was the opinions of those who published directly related papers recently and did not include people who weren't experts.


If you want empirical evidence, I wonder why you keep ignoring actual data. For example, I just posted that April was the highest global temperature in 20 years. That sure seems to seriously undermine your claims of a pause.

Or this story from today:

China glaciers shrink 15 percent in warming
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-china-glaciers-percent.html

Seems that every day there is another news report about the CONTINUATION of global warming; evidence which you refuse to comment on.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Seems that every day there is another news report about the CONTINUATION [sic] of global warming; evidence [sic] which you refuse to comment on.

To what end?

I'll repeat what I said yesterday: "That previous thread ran for 1 1/2 months and I don't see any evidence that anyone's position changed. I can't see any reason to go through it all again."

You like to accuse me of being obstinate. But I'm not aware of anyone else who has changed his thinking as a result of previous threads on this topic -- including you.

It's been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I expect nothing to change.

 

[groggy]

I'll repeat what I said yesterday: "That previous thread ran for 1 1/2 months and I don't see any evidence that anyone's position changed. I can't see any reason to go through it all again."
....
I expect nothing to change.

Of course mine won't change, I'm right.
And my position is backed by 97% of climatologists and every legit scientific organization in North America.

The question is why yours won't and why you refuse to answer to why you think news like this isn't important:

West Antarctic ice sheet collapse 'unstoppable', says NASA

http://news.msn.com/world/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-unstoppable-says-nasa

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course mine won't change, I'm right.

The question is ... why you think news like this isn't important?

You answered your own question in the first sentence.

 

[groggy]

You answered your own question in the first sentence.

I'm glad you agree that I'm right.

Answer the question, why do you disagree with the findings of the IPCC given the disastrous melting of Antarctic glaciers?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Answer the question, why do you disagree with the findings of the IPCC given the disastrous melting of Antarctic glaciers?

Au contraire. I don`t disagree with the findings that were reported by the IPCC.

The problem is that when I compare those findings with the IPCC`s predictions -- sorry, projections -- it is impossible to reach any other conclusion than the conclusion that the predictions/projections were spectacularly wrong.

I`m sure we covered this before: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

 

[groggy]

The problem is that when I compare those findings with the IPCC's predictions -- sorry, projections -- it is impossible to reach any other conclusion than the conclusion that the predictions/projections were spectacularly wrong.

The only conclusion we reached was that your claim was based on cherry picking and easily taken apart.
You abandoned it in shame, if you want to restate it I can shame you all over again.

And you're still refusing to answer to why you think the Antarctic glacial melt isn't important evidence of climate change.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And you're still refusing to answer to why you think the Antarctic glacial melt isn't important evidence of climate change.

See post #55.

Or better yet, heed the words of James Lovelock, who says environmentalism is a religion that doesn't pay enough attention to facts.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion

Says Lovelock: "You just can't tell what's going to happen."

 

[groggy]

See post #55.

Or better yet, heed the words of James Lovelock, who says environmentalism is a religion that doesn't pay enough attention to facts.

Post #55 only refers to a thread in which you left in embarrassment.

Speaking of not paying attention to facts, I gave you a fact, a new fact since the last thread, and you still can't answer to it.
Are you still too embarrassed to be able to answer?

 

[basketcase]

To what end?....

To discuss the empirical evidence you keep claiming to want? Pretty much every day there is a news story; more scientists discussing the impacts of climate change and the role we play in it and you ignore them because they don't fit your agenda.

You spent pages and pages in that other thread calling predictions a colossal failure because observations only met the extremities of the projections for a couple years. You said that flaw invalidated the whole concept of anthropogenic climate change and claimed that the world is in a cooling phase. Now we have data released that that last month was the hottest in 20 years. I guess that invalidates your whole anti-science view.