Who knew we didn’t have weather before AlGore invented global warming.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Who knew we didn’t have weather before AlGore invented global warming.
How can you tell when a president has been neutered ?
When he goes to talk about droughts in California, visiting with Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Jerry Brown on Valentine’s Day.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Who knew we didn’t have weather before AlGore invented global warming.
How can you tell when a president has been neutered ?
When he goes to talk about droughts in California, visiting with Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Jerry Brown on Valentine’s Day. [/quote]
I thought it odd they spent Valentines Day apart. I wonder if a certain European Prime Minister also spent Valentines Day in CA?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Why is there a “pause” in Global Varming ? When is a “pause” not longer a “pause” and becomes a halt or a reversal ?
[/quote]
Weather = micro/macro
Climate = larger pattern
Floods, Drought, Hurricanes just that high pressure system that sits there all the time. The Cali Drought is not the issue it is a developing trend . All the South west is in a Drought we are exhausting the Colorado River supply . We are all ready to fight over water .
The Colorado River used to dump into the Sea of Cortez . It no longer does . Hate to tell you but AZ comes before CA 
Failing to recognize the term Global Warming has been changed to Climate Change is servicing the people that are financially vested in endeavors that would be harmed if Climate Change were embraced by the majority
I see this in our future
Pitt,
Compared to past years, we are having one of the wettest periods right now.
“If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene [the current geological epoch, which began about 11,000 years ago]. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren?t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.”
California Drought: Water Supply Could Tighten in Mega Droughts
They are making this bullshit up as they go along, because the evidence does not support the claim, at least not in a strong manner.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Our leading authority on almost everything here PWI .
It amazes me how all the people can disagree with the majority of scientist , why?
IMO Oil Gas and Coal have more money to infuse their campaign than do the Scientist
[/quote]
What is the percentage?
[/quote]
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
What is the % of the consensus of scientists that believe in the religion of anthropomorphic global warming? I keep hearing about this supposed consensus but I have never seen any numbers to back it up.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Our leading authority on almost everything here PWI .
It amazes me how all the people can disagree with the majority of scientist , why?
IMO Oil Gas and Coal have more money to infuse their campaign than do the Scientist
[/quote]
What is the percentage?
[/quote]
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
What is the % of the consensus of scientists that believe in the religion of anthropomorphic global warming? I keep hearing about this supposed consensus but I have never seen any numbers to back it up.
[/quote]
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt,
Compared to past years, we are having one of the wettest periods right now.
“If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene [the current geological epoch, which began about 11,000 years ago]. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren?t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.”
California Drought: Water Supply Could Tighten in Mega Droughts
They are making this bullshit up as they go along, because the evidence does not support the claim, at least not in a strong manner. [/quote]
You have to be north , I used to drive up I5 all the time those farmers had signs out pissing and moaning how that Black Muslim Kenyan was stealing their water ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Our leading authority on almost everything here PWI .
It amazes me how all the people can disagree with the majority of scientist , why?
IMO Oil Gas and Coal have more money to infuse their campaign than do the Scientist
[/quote]
What is the percentage?
[/quote]
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
What is the % of the consensus of scientists that believe in the religion of anthropomorphic global warming? I keep hearing about this supposed consensus but I have never seen any numbers to back it up.
[/quote]
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)
For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.
Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.
Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.
Stay mad.
[/quote]
I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.
This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.
The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.
I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]
How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy[/quote]
He obviously is not that bright since he confused global warming with climate change and, he doesn’t realize we have ways of knowing what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I mean, how do we know there was something called an Ice Age? [/quote]
The planet is Billions of years old, which makes even thousands of years of data a moot suggestion.
The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.
You have no idea, nor does anyone else, about how or why the Earth’s environment changes. Is it due to human activity ? No one knows, but I’m sure plenty of people on the East Coast wouldn’t mind a little Global Warming right about now. [/quote]
Actually, we know EXACTLY why the Earth’s environment changes. We just aren’t that sure about man’s role in that over the last couple hundred years. But we can study aspects of the Earth’s climate and temperature going back millions of years, not thousands.
Do not downplay the difference between global warming and climate change. Climate change is simply a term that lets global warming proponents hedge their bets a bit. Most studies indicate that the Earth’s temperature is rising. This does not lead to wholesale increases in temperature, however. Because of the way different parts of the globe heat at different rates throughout the seasons, and because jet streams and lower winds are in constant interaction with each other, a warming effect in one area can directly lead to a cooling effect in another. While the overall temperature of the globe can rise, this can still lead to massive cooling effects in certain areas, particularly the regions just above and below the poles.
The term climate change is just likely a more popular term than the older global warming simply because it is an easy way to just circumvent having to repeatedly explain to doubters how global warming can still lead to record lows in areas like the East Coast or the northern Midwest. Just call it climate change and now people don’t have to continually explain how global wind currents, the Coriolis effect, air pressure, weather fronts, and so on work.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Why?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Our leading authority on almost everything here PWI .
It amazes me how all the people can disagree with the majority of scientist , why?
IMO Oil Gas and Coal have more money to infuse their campaign than do the Scientist
[/quote]
What is the percentage?
[/quote]
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
What is the % of the consensus of scientists that believe in the religion of anthropomorphic global warming? I keep hearing about this supposed consensus but I have never seen any numbers to back it up.
[/quote]
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
97% of scientist agree.
…always believe everything you hear from your friendly government.
the only time you see 97% and know it is real is when it has to do with blacks voting for liberal democrats.
i could be wrong it might be 98%.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Since articles that support liberal causes that come from liberal news sources are regularly discredited, it’s only fair to immediately deny any legitimacy this article may have because it comes from a decidedly conservative source that clearly has an axe to grind on behalf of the conservative mainstream media.[/quote]
…and that because something was put forth by the conservative/right it has to be discredited “because that’s what all conservatives do” if something comes from the liberal/left.
I have a stack of conservative magazines and a decent size stash of liberal mags all from the mid-late 1980’s into early 2002. It is staggering to see the number of things each side professed back then that came true and those that wallowed in fear mongering and hyperbole that never came true or the opposite happened.
One can conclude that they both can’t be correct and that the facts are matters of historical record. When a big lie is repeated often enough and becomes “truth.” Unless you have the super power to read a lot and discover in the historical record it really is a lie.
Tell us DBcooper and Pittbull what are those great falsehoods that FAUX News have given the world that are now part of the historical record?
It’s not too difficult to locate falsehoods and lies from the liberal left that one can easily disprove by historical record. There are hundreds if not thousands starting with:
The Coming Age Time magazine 1972 (everybody pay a carbon footprint tax for the coming ICE AGE)
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have…
Read more: Another Ice Age? - TIME Another Ice Age? - TIME
P.S.
Liberals are more charitable and giving than rich conservatives is one of the easiest lies to debunk. Tax records for so many politicians.
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.
Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign today released 10 years’ worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.
The Bidens reported giving $995 in charitable donations last year â?? about 0.3% of their income and the highest amount in the past decade. The low was $120 in 1999, about 0.1% of yearly income.
Over the decade, the Bidens reported a total of $3,690 in charitable donations, or 0.2% of their income. Then -Vice President Al Gore came under fire when his 1997 tax return showed only $353 in donations to charity.
Senator John Kerry,presidential candidate in 2004,gave nothing to
charity in more than one year when he was a U.S.Senator.
Kerry’s liberal billionaire wife (who inherited money from her conservative husband after his death) gave less than half of 1%.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
you liberals listen one more time…
no one is denying there is climate change. OKAY?
it is the FACT that climate change is not occurring because you are turning your lights on and off in the bathroom or driving to work everyday that is THE POINT.
greenland was once green and will be again one day but that has no fuckin connection to man.
how stupid can these people be to say blame Global Warming every summer when it gets hot and then to still say the cold winters are also because of Global Warming?
these are cycles that come and go and always have since before the coal and oil were used as fuel. quit trying to take our money away in carbon footprint dollars and green energy taxes.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“There’s a sucker born every minute” and anyone, and I mean anyone who at this juncture buys into the idea that man-made activities are leading to meteorological cataclysm is the very definition of sucker.[/quote]
Our leading authority on almost everything here PWI .
It amazes me how all the people can disagree with the majority of scientist , why?
IMO Oil Gas and Coal have more money to infuse their campaign than do the Scientist
[/quote]
What is the percentage?
[/quote]
I really do not know how you could calculate the ALL KNOWING FAUX NEWS (absolute denial) of climate change to it’s adversary of the other media outlets of reasonable and trying to see if there is any truth.
[/quote]
What is the % of the consensus of scientists that believe in the religion of anthropomorphic global warming? I keep hearing about this supposed consensus but I have never seen any numbers to back it up.
[/quote]
I haven’t a clue but NASA says 97% Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
[/quote]
[/quote]
I can no speak for any one else besides me , I am open minded and it does not matter how you slice it the majority of scientist I have heard say Ma is responsible for climate change .
I have heard 3 or 4 Scientist (Accredited) come out and call it bullshit .