youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:22 pm
God will make a way. And if you get right with God, we can all meet in a more beautiful place and continue this discussion.
If bestowed upon you, use the intellect you may have been gifted with.
My intellect tells me never to trust environmental extremists who promote a cause to hide their alterior motives.
You should never trust extremists in any endeavor.
you should not trust your heroes(that is a Brooklyn term) when it comes to feeding you nonsense about why they are into the climate change movement. Someday maybe even a naive person such as yourself will realize you are being played for a fool. I give you 5 gold stars to put on your forehead. The day you can explain to me in detail how you reverse the effects of climate change and make the world right again... I'm all ears there padre. Ditch your clown face Emoji and give me some details. My suggestion to you is be a good steward of our planet. If you believe there is a God then trust the fate of planet earth is in Gods hands. Your heroes in the movement are nothing more than 21st centuries grifters. They don't give a f**k about saving the planet. They want to get rich scaring people about what they think will happen 50 years from now. My opinion has not and will never change. A person that believes they can predict anything 50 years into the future with any knowledge is either lying or an idiot. Even if you have a prestigious PhD from a major university. Did Nostradamus have a PhD? I don't know.
Enjoy your weekend....one of these may work:
I did not see where the wheel landed. My guess is lets spend trillions of dollars on whatever the UN says. That is the best of both worlds for the environmental extremists. Make trillions and still get the gold star on your forehead for being an environmental hero. What do you call that? I remember... a win/win.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
I have said this a 1000 times here. The money has corrupted everything about climate change. It is not about saving the planet. It has evolved into making money and gaining power.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
WHAT SCIENCE?
Models. All based on modeling. And we just got a real good example of models and their performance in REAL TIME not over decades..
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
WHAT SCIENCE?
Models. All based on modeling. And we just got a real good example of models and their performance in REAL TIME not over decades..
Not comparable in the least. You are talking about vastly different types of models. And vastly different purposes for them.
Such a blanket condemnation is just evidence of being ill-informed about how science works.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
I have said this a 1000 times here. The money has corrupted everything about climate change. It is not about saving the planet. It has evolved into making money and gaining power.
The recent de facto collusion between Russia and Saudi Arabia to crush the U.S. fracking industry has only hastened the inevitable: the death of the oil industry.
Even when the U.S. oil industry was booming, it was still completely dependent on the good will of the Saudis and Russians to survive. There is only one global oil price, and the Saudis and Russians control it. Trump’s impotence and failure to stop the strangling only reinforces this point.
It’s time to move fully to renewable energy like solar and wind energy, and to leave the fossil fuel industry behind. It is a matter of national security. It is an inevitability.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:17 pm
The recent de facto collusion between Russia and Saudi Arabia to crush the U.S. fracking industry has only hastened the inevitable: the death of the oil industry.
Even when the U.S. oil industry was booming, it was still completely dependent on the good will of the Saudis and Russians to survive. There is only one global oil price, and the Saudis and Russians control it. Trump’s impotence and failure to stop the strangling only reinforces this point.
It’s time to move fully to renewable energy like solar and wind energy, and to leave the fossil fuel industry behind. It is a matter of national security. It is an inevitability.
DocBarrister
You I and everyone else in the country have benefited from inexpensive and free flowing fossil fuels to make our lives FREER, and more comfortable.
If I want to drive to a park, a lacrosse game or visit my grandchildren all have to do is go to the nearest corner and fill up.
And you want to take that away from the next generations. Pretty selfish request.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
I have said this a 1000 times here. The money has corrupted everything about climate change. It is not about saving the planet. It has evolved into making money and gaining power.
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:17 pm
The recent de facto collusion between Russia and Saudi Arabia to crush the U.S. fracking industry has only hastened the inevitable: the death of the oil industry.
Even when the U.S. oil industry was booming, it was still completely dependent on the good will of the Saudis and Russians to survive. There is only one global oil price, and the Saudis and Russians control it. Trump’s impotence and failure to stop the strangling only reinforces this point.
It’s time to move fully to renewable energy like solar and wind energy, and to leave the fossil fuel industry behind. It is a matter of national security. It is an inevitability.
DocBarrister
You I and everyone else in the country have benefited from inexpensive and free flowing fossil fuels to make our lives FREER, and more comfortable.
If I want to drive to a park, a lacrosse game or visit my grandchildren all have to do is go to the nearest corner and fill up.
And you want to take that away from the next generations. Pretty selfish request.
Just because we stop using petroleum based fuels to run transportation does not mean the death of cars. So I am not sure what would be taken away...
And the real cost of those fuels - you have never borne them, nor have I.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 5:23 pm
Climate change is really about taking money from you and giving to others, which is why guys like Al Gore, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama buy multi-million dollar mansions on beaches; they know their house ain't going nowhere. Absolutely stunning to see the gullibility and/or duplicity on the part of people here who ought to know better.
I remember just yesterday when 'scientists' (but not activists, we swear!!! ) manipulated data at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, and well, move along nothing to see here...
A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files supporting their scientific work. And it declared that a chart they produced in 1999 about past climate was “misleading.”
The new report is the last in a series of investigations of leading British and American climate researchers, prompted by the release of a cache of e-mail messages that cast doubt on their conduct and raised fresh public controversy over the science of global warming.
All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics. Still, mainstream climate science has not emerged from the turmoil unscathed.
Some polls suggest that the recent controversy has eroded public support for action on climate change, complicating the politics of that issue in Washington and other world capitals. And leading climate researchers have come in for criticism of their deportment, of their episodic reluctance to share data with climate skeptics, and for not always responding well to critical analysis of their work.
Maybe some problems - but not with the underlying science.
I have said this a 1000 times here. The money has corrupted everything about climate change. It is not about saving the planet. It has evolved into making money and gaining power.
He represents the tiny fraction of scientists who are contrarian, but he has no logical reason to do so.
Guess its time to give us all just 10 more years. Just like you've done every 8 years for 5 decades.
The proof is in the pudding.
If the oceans were truly rising Barack Obama wouldn't have just spent 15 million for OCEANFRONT property on Marthas Vineyard.
Its about power. Not climate.
Indeed.
The problem here is that the dumbest people in the room are also the ones who think they're the smartest. That is such a bad formula for education when the media's narrative is set, such as:
Real estate prices on beachfront property are dropping!!!! (yikes...Howard Dean scream!!!!)
DocBarrister wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 2:17 pm
The recent de facto collusion between Russia and Saudi Arabia to crush the U.S. fracking industry has only hastened the inevitable: the death of the oil industry.
Even when the U.S. oil industry was booming, it was still completely dependent on the good will of the Saudis and Russians to survive. There is only one global oil price, and the Saudis and Russians control it. Trump’s impotence and failure to stop the strangling only reinforces this point.
It’s time to move fully to renewable energy like solar and wind energy, and to leave the fossil fuel industry behind. It is a matter of national security. It is an inevitability.
DocBarrister
You I and everyone else in the country have benefited from inexpensive and free flowing fossil fuels to make our lives FREER, and more comfortable.
If I want to drive to a park, a lacrosse game or visit my grandchildren all have to do is go to the nearest corner and fill up.
And you want to take that away from the next generations. Pretty selfish request.
Just because we stop using petroleum based fuels to run transportation does not mean the death of cars. So I am not sure what would be taken away...
And the real cost of those fuels - you have never borne them, nor have I.
6ftstick wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 3:18 pm
(omitted)
Guess its time to give us all just 10 more years. Just like you've done every 8 years for 5 decades.
The proof is in the pudding.
If the oceans were truly rising Barack Obama wouldn't have just spent 15 million for OCEANFRONT property on Marthas Vineyard.
Its about power. Not climate.
I have made no predictions of "ten more years."
What is Obama's expected life span? Another 30 years? How much sea level rise in that time?
And exactly what is the elevation of his lot? My best research is between 5 and 10 feet, and the house is in an AE flood zone. So he would be required to have flood insurance if he were to have a mortgage.
6ftstick wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 3:18 pm
(omitted)
Guess its time to give us all just 10 more years. Just like you've done every 8 years for 5 decades.
The proof is in the pudding.
If the oceans were truly rising Barack Obama wouldn't have just spent 15 million for OCEANFRONT property on Marthas Vineyard.
Its about power. Not climate.
I have made no predictions of "ten more years."
What is Obama's expected life span? Another 30 years? How much sea level rise in that time?
And exactly what is the elevation of his lot? My best research is between 5 and 10 feet, and the house is in an AE flood zone. So he would be required to have flood insurance if he were to have a mortgage.
You—meaning the collective climate change consortium you
1.In 1989, the Associated Press relayed a warning from a U.N. official:
"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."
2. The same U.N. official who predicted the loss of entire nations by the year 2000 also claimed: "the most conservative scientific estimate [is] that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.”
But looking back from 2019, the temperature rose about half of a degree Celsius since 1989, according to NASA.
3. In 2006, while promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said that humanity had only 10 years left before the world would reach a point of no return.
Gore’s movie also featured animations of water inundating Manhattan and Florida.
4. In 1982, U.N. official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program, warned:
“By the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”
5. In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
6. Economist Walter E. Williams says environmentalists have occasionally tipped their hand about what motivates their predictions.
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biology at Stanford University, said to Discover magazine in 1989. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
7. in 1988 Timothy Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado said: "We've got to ... try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong ... we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
Cooter wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 9:30 pm
What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?
I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
That is the best of both worlds for the environmental extremists. Make trillions and still get the gold star on your forehead for being an environmental hero. What do you call that? I remember... a win/win.
