[ATTACH]59485[/ATTACH]

 

Nothing to see here.

I agree. Hockey stick graphs were discredited several years ago.

I agree. Hockey stick graphs were discredited several years ago.

 

Dino ... just want to make sure there is no sarcasm in your posts. Are you saying there is no such thing as global warming?

Dino ... just want to make sure there is no sarcasm in your posts. Are you saying there is no such thing as global warming?

I am saying that global warming, as it is promoted as a crisis by liberals, is a socialist scheme for eroding our personal and economic liberty. The temperature data does not fit the theory, which is why the global warming models have failed miserably to predict observed temperatures. That is what happens when a group "adjusts" historic data to fit a theory. Mann's hockey stick graph model is a classic example of manipulating data to obtain federal grants.

 

There has been considerable evidence that we are headed for a prolonged period of cooling, as the result of very low sunspot activity, for several years and the evidence has been virtually ignored by the media and liberal politicians. The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age were real and they were not created by humans.

 

Scientists are only beginning to understand the periodic cycles of the Sun and their effect on temperatures on Earth. Any amateur radio operator can explain some of the effects of the 11-year solar cycle, but other events that resulted in phenomena like the Little Ice Age are likely to occur at longer intervals.

I am saying that global warming, as it is promoted as a crisis by liberals, is a socialist scheme for eroding our personal and economic liberty. The temperature data does not fit the theory, which is why the global warming models have failed miserably to predict observed temperatures. That

 

How will global warming erode our personal and economic liberty?

How will global warming erode our personal and economic liberty?

Through the persecution of so-called "climate change deniers," which is what Exxon-Mobil is facing, and increased energy costs for companies that are always passed on to consumers. When energy costs rise needlessly because of government regulation, our standard of living suffers. Excessive regulation to deal with an unproven crisis is nothing more than a hidden tax that deprives us of the money we have earned. Anything that dictates how we spend our earnings and restricts the products available in the marketplace are infringements on both our economic and personal liberty. The two are inseparable.

I agree. Hockey stick graphs were discredited several years ago.

 

 

NASA still seems to be buying in. I guess they need to read some more BGP and get their facts straight.

 

NASA still seems to be buying in. I guess they need to read some more BGP and get their facts straight.

 

[ATTACH]59488[/ATTACH]

You don't get ahead in a heavily politicized federal agency by criticizing the party doling out money to your agency for engaging in taxpayer-funded boondoggles. Hopefully, NASA will rediscover its roots as a pioneer in space exploration and discovery under the Trump administration. NASA's funding for "climate change" research needs to be eliminated with regards to planet Earth.

 

If there is any evidence that a sentient species is responsible for changing the once wet and relatively warm climate of Mars to a cold, dry desert, then I will fully support researching that climate change.

You don't get ahead in a heavily politicized federal agency by criticizing the party doling out money to your agency for engaging in taxpayer-funded boondoggles. Hopefully, NASA will rediscover its roots as a pioneer in space exploration and discovery under the Trump administration. NASA's funding for "climate change" research needs to be eliminated with regards to planet Earth.

 

If there is any evidence that a sentient species is responsible for changing the once wet and relatively warm climate of Mars to a cold, dry desert, then I will fully support researching that climate change.

 

NASA will go full "denier" the next four years?

NASA still seems to be buying in. I guess they need to read some more BGP and get their facts straight.

 

[ATTACH]59488[/ATTACH]

 

That's over such a short period, I can take graphs and cut them to fit my agenda. You have to look at tempuratures over a very long period to see that the earth goes through changes. We weren't causing them. It is normal for the earth to flucuate . Your outrageous concern over less than 1 degree when the earth has been way hotter in the past. So hot there was hardly any ice in the artic circle.

Is this the part of your link you were trying to point out to us?

 

There is considerable evidence that over the very recent period of the last 100–1000 years, the sharp increases in human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, has caused the parallel sharp and accelerating increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases which trap the sun's heat. The consensus theory of the scientific community is that the resulting greenhouse effect is a principal cause of the increase in global warming which has occurred over the same period, and a chief contributor to the accelerated melting of the remaining glaciers and polar ice.

 

"Like nothing we’ve ever seen

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

 

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. "

 

From the article. Did we read two different things

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

Stop the insanity. We contribute less than 1% of all the greenhouse gasses. They are a natural occurance.

That's over such a short period, I can take graphs and cut them to fit my agenda. You have to look at tempuratures over a very long period to see that the earth goes through changes. We weren't causing them. It is normal for the earth to flucuate . Your outrageous concern over less than 1 degree when the earth has been way hotter in the past. So hot there was hardly any ice in the artic circle.

 

It's a shift that coincides with industial world of the 20th and 21st century.

 

As a species we better hope this is man made otherwise we are screwed.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

 

Stop the insanity. We contribute less than 1% of all the greenhouse gasses. They are a natural occurance.

 

This site hasn't been updated in a decade. I have to believe our knowledge of climate change has evolved in that period.

This site hasn't been updated in a decade. I have to believe our knowledge of climate change has evolved in that period.

 

No just the spin has. " there is a sucker born every minute."

Man’s Contribution to Global Warming

 

Nicolas Loris

8 years ago

thf-perspective-ads_energy_v3

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

 

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)

 

Man's Contribution to Global Warming

 

Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

 

The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling.

 

Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

 

There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

 

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it’d be a little different.