calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 “Obama plans to send $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries deal with the effects of climate change over the next three years, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the U.S. would spend $400 million more by 2020 on helping international climate change adaptation efforts, doubling the amount currently spent, and Obama has committed another $30 million for international climate risk assurance.” ~ Washington Examiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Cuz fuck climatologists and damn near every respected scientific group All just liberal smoke and mirrors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 no, there are thousands of scientists complaining about mmgw. If you take an apple, and you slice off a fourth of it, and throw the slice into the garbage, what you have left is not a whole apple. Bitch and complain all you want that it IS a whole apple, but it just isn't. Why that is so impossible for you to comprehend... I guess woodpeckers are denser than ironwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Everytime you post a list,amy time any digging is done, it turns out being not what you think it is. The list isn't full of climatologists, usually not even scientists. It may seem like a big number to you, but you want it to be. Truth is, in the population its representing, it isn't large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 I've posted plenty of lists of climate scientists. what now, they aren't allowed to disagree with mmgw farce, unless they are climate scientists, and they hold two fingers up in the air, have to wear pink dresses, and dance to the woodpecker song? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Your lists aren't as great as you think they are. Everything you post on this topic continues to get shot down. You ignore it and then post the same thing a few weeks later when you read it on the Blaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Does cal still think a veterinarian's opinion of climate change is as valid as any other scientists? lols. There are 'credible" scientists now that throw some shade on the debate, and they should be heard. But the improbably vast majority are still of the consensus we've done something to our environment. Anybody that's ever worked in some kind of industrial facility and been exposed to some of the chemicals and what not can also come to his/her own reasonable conclusion that there would be some kind of consequences if this stuff made into our environment. It's actually kind of ridiculous to even be discussing it. Companies give their workers reams of rules and regulations when dealing with some of this stuff, but hey it makes it into our atmosphere it's all good? "Of course" humans can impact the global environment, debating it is almost childlike at this point. The discussions should be focused on how we're altering our environment and how we can do it as little as is humanly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 A. Bullhockey. B. Your argument is losing steam more and more. C. More and more honest scientists are objecting to the mmgw fear mongering. Thought you libs hated fear-mongering? D. Read "D" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 What incentive do you have to actively refute MMGW? I don't see why you can't look at it from a practical perspective and consider ALL of the evidence (almost all of which disagrees with you) instead of selectively choosing the evidence that supports your personal idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 okie dokie, let's try it again. Take an apple, and slice maybe 1/5 of it off, and throw it in the garbage... or on your keyboard... now, is the apple absolutely whole, or, is it not complete? better yet, if 9 of 10 expert judges say an object is completely green, but it is said by the last judge to be blue-green... isn't the declaration of "abolutely green" not true? There is a lot of evidence that shows CO2 climbing....but the temps do not coorelate. AT ALL. Right there, give us all a break with CO2 directly causing us all to flood and live in a desert starting on ten years ago. Didn't happen. Ain't happening. And, the UN keeps right on talking about money from rich countries to poor developing nations because of the politically expedient and very flawed theory. More and more experts are not buyin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 17, 2015 Report Share Posted December 17, 2015 Depends maybe the part of the apple you're cutting off is covered in shit and the judge is color blind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 you mean like your reply? maybe it will sink in overnight. Or, next week, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Cal I suggest you research the effect increase co2 in the atmosphere has on not only our planet but other rocky planets. We have higher co2 in the atmosphere than we ever had since humans have existed. It's not a secret and it isn't debatable if you say "well we have the highest co2 ever but it's not affecting the temps." We know the effect it has there's no debate on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 So let's not waste too much time bickering over that site or this newscast or whether or not agree that global warming exists okay? Does anyone believe that the furor has absolutely nothing to do with a little bit redistribution of wealth? Those of the rich industrial countries slipping a few rubles or rupees or shekels to their less fortunate brethren? Come on now. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Mmgw is just more incomplete junk science. Like the whole thing about not eating fat or cholesterol. Wasn't that supposed to make people healthier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Mmgw is not fake science and the issue of corrupt government is entirely separate and a bigger problem that nobody seems to want to fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 So let's not waste too much time bickering over that site or this newscast or whether or not agree that global warming exists okay? Does anyone believe that the furor has absolutely nothing to do with a little bit redistribution of wealth? Those of the rich industrial countries slipping a few rubles or rupees or shekels to their less fortunate brethren? Come on now. WSS Stuart And these quotes mean absolutely nothing to you people? UN climate chief Christiana Figueres: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution" Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.) Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established And IPCC Chair Otto Graham: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 this is you, edw, and thanks for emotionally knee jerking, and as usual for you libs, you ignored every single one of those quotes that prove our point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm now, read that and just say you're sorry, because your opinions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 and............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/08/the-global-warming-hoax-in-charts.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/03/co2-and-global-temperature/ here's a link with some serious thoughtful analysis...to the contrary. http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 18, 2015 Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Liberal knee jerk blah blah I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2°C colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2015 take your phoney redistribution of wealth to poor countries "mmgw" theory, and shove it. it....is....not....a....fact.....it.....is.....un....political .....theater. http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.