More Global Warming Fraud

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:40 pm

Why not ? They are "fixing" health care in the same manner. Gear up for $4 to $5 a gallon gas and hyper-inflation by the end of next year.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:43 pm

mvscal wrote:
Yeah let's spend a couple dozen trillion dollars...

At least some of that money blends back into the economy. That's more than I can say for the billions that were shitted away in the desert.

Where's your return on that investment.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:24 pm

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Yeah let's spend a couple dozen trillion dollars...
At least some of that money blends back into the economy. That's more than I can say for the billions that were shitted away in the desert.

Where's your return on that investment.

military spending "blends" back as well, fukktard. Not that that justifies it in any way.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:49 pm

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Yeah let's spend a couple dozen trillion dollars...
At least some of that money blends back into the economy. That's more than I can say for the billions that were shitted away in the desert.

Where's your return on that investment.

thousands of dead Al Queda shitstains? :?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:38 am

Yo Jessup (punk bitch coward), or "Avi"--for the seething punk gangster Avigdor Lieberman, your wannbe doppeldanger--......uh, you are aware, I assume, that ALL of the global warming deniers are born-again literalist Christers, right? You know, mouth breathing Creationists? Right? Or...they are hired directly by the oil industry. Right?

So....explain why a drunk trailer creature like yourself would care about the Second Coming.

Ya see, p-bitch, c-ward, as a seething Survivalist Libertarian (nazi, etc), you're left caught between two positions...

As it is, with your trite propping of oil industry whores, you're solidly camped with this (disgraced) Christer lunatic

Who, as you know, stated quite seriously that "When the last tree falls, the Lord will return."

And......you're spooning this guy's lunacy...why?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 am

So the latest argument against climate change is based on the findings of admitted thieves?

Get fucked loser.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:28 pm

The real thieves are the alleged scientists who are purposely cooking the books to keep their fairy tale (and gubmint cayshe) going.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:33 pm

So much money wasted that could have gone to purchasing snazzy new fatigues for the Army's next generation of dropout, mouthbreathers. That, and funding the teaching of Creationism in schools.

These things are important.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:47 pm

So we're supposed to believe that the scientists are untruthful, but the thieves are?

If their morals allow them to steal, it also allows them to alter the contents of the emails.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:53 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:So we're supposed to believe that the "scientists" are untruthful, but the whistleblowers are?

Only if you have a brain.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:22 am

Okay, ZioDog, you take a crack at it. WHY is it that ALL of the global warming deniers are born again Christers? ALL of them are the Creationist fundamentalists. Like James Inhofe, for example. As for the scientists who deny, they are all retained by oil companies and their minions. This is all quite verified. So...what the fuck? Now, you're an unapologetic Christer--or similar--so obviously an objective opinion from you would be all but impossible. But give it a shot. Explain why the ONLY people denying are religious nuts--and corporate whores.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:53 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for the scientists who deny, they are all retained by oil companies and their minions.

Apparently they don't have a monopoly on "lacking objectivity". But of course that doesn't trouble you. You're not about TRUTH. You're just as much about a specific agenda as the people at whom your cheeto stained fingers are pointed.

I'd like to "wakey wakey" but you're starting to put me to sleep with your one sided droning on and on.

You're hitting the point of becoming "white noise", like a washing machine running. You do realize you're contributing to the crisis ? You're consuming resources to post your diatribes.

If you think for a second that somehow a Cap and Trade system a "carbon credit" system isn't going to be unfair to the "little guy" - probably moreso than the current system wherein "Big Oil" calls the shots (as you claim) you're dreaming.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:05 am

Tom In VA wrote:You're hitting the point of becoming "white noise", like a washing machine running.

That ship sailed long ago.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:18 am

Smackie Chan wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:You're hitting the point of becoming "white noise", like a washing machine running.
That ship sailed long ago.

You mean I'm not the only one who scrolls past his posts?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:19 am

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:31 am

Diego in Seattle wrote: You mean I'm not the only one who scrolls past his posts?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:05 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote: You mean I'm not the only one who scrolls past his posts?

Best LTS post evah!

RACK it!

Dr_Phibes · Post by **Dr_Phibes** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:07 am

Climate change data dumped

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

yeah, back in the 80's. All stored on paper and magnetic tape. pffft. You'd think there would be bigger endangered fish to fry given all the 'damning' evidence of the supposed fraudsters. Is that the best that can be come up with?

PrimeX · Post by **PrimeX** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:12 pm

It's snowing hard here in HOUSTON FUCKING TEXAS. It's only supposed to get worse. Up to 10 inches expected in some parts south of the city, exactly where I live.

Global warming right?

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:55 pm

PrimeX wrote:It's snowing hard here in HOUSTON FUCKING TEXAS. It's only supposed to get worse. Up to 10 inches expected in some parts south of the city, exactly where I live.

Global warming right?

A thirty-seven car pile up was reported on the Katy freeway when the first snowflake touched down in the Houston area. With record snowfall expected, houstonians will be seeking shelter under my wife before night fall.
,

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:14 pm

I'll bet there will be 5 feet or more at the summit of mt rumplewife.

godspeed rumps and watch out for avalanches.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:26 am

Rumperbell can save us from the global warm - blot out the sun, baby!

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:56 am

BSmack wrote:So the latest argument against climate change is based on the findings of admitted thieves?

Get fucked loser.

The authors of those e-mails aren't claiming that they're doctored at all. In fact, all Phil Jones, the recently deposed leader of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had to say about his role was this:

"I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart," says Jones in the statement. "I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone."

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:31 pm

PrimeX wrote:It's snowing hard here in HOUSTON FUCKING TEXAS. It's only supposed to get worse. Up to 10 inches expected in some parts south of the city, exactly where I live.

Global warming right?

You idiotic hillbilly, does your consciousness extend only as far as your fat belly?

Look, this is the first big torpedo coming in as a result of global warming.

Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem
Emissions are making the oceans more acidic, threatening sea life

By Peter G. Brewer and James Barry

Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters.

And this is just a splash of water in your sleeping, drooling face as you wake up...

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:08 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters.

So, you're telling me that the earth has shed species in the past like fleas off a dog's back? Interesting. How could that have happened since dick cheney and the jews hadn't been invented yet?

Nice yob kicking your own ass, turd.

PrimeX · Post by **PrimeX** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:03 am

88 just pwnd somebody. Ouch.

I've never in my life been called fat before. Now I see why fatties don't like it. Words hurt.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:13 am

My brain + 88's math problem = poptart is runned

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:15 am

88 wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters.

And this is just a splash of water in your sleeping, drooling face as you wake up...
I love this shit. It is as funny to me as idiots signing petitions to ban di-hydrogen oxide (i.e., water).

Let's do some math, shall we?

Sure, let's add up the hard line Christers who are ALSO Creationists and add them to the completely bought and paid for oil industry "scientific bodies" that somehow maintain a denial of global warming and its effects...and we find....?....

Well, it's just Sarah Palin and James Inofe and similar total moronic end-of-the-world Christers...and a few (very well paid!!) corporate whores. There's NO ONE ELSE denying the rising acidity of the oceans, as well as a variety of other interconnected effects of our butchering of the planet.

Who else? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE?

And...what's your paltry excuse for tagging along with the most ignorant among us?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:28 pm

LT2 et al are a group of fools and plotters out to destroy our way of life. Fact is, one monster volcanic eruption could put us very quickly into a mini ice age. Ignoring the effects of solar cycles is just plain stupidity. How in heaven or hell does religion play a role ?
Carbon dioxide a pollutant ? Balderdash !

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:55 pm

Wolfman wrote:a group of fools and plotters out to destroy our way of life.
Carbon dioxide a pollutant ? Balderdash !

Okay, this pathetic imitation of a farce indeed reflects the shallow agenda of Sen. Inhofe, at least.

88 wrote:
I'm an athiest with a chemistry degree. The evidence that man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing the climate to change in an unnatural way makes no sense whatsoever. Man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, when compared to natural CO2 emissions, is very small. Aside from flawed computer modeling, which has not produced an accurate prediction yet, there is no compelling cause and effect link between a rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and a rise of global temperatures. The data simply does not fit. CO2 generally trails global warming. It does not lead or drive global warming.

The single biggest driver of climate on planet Earth is the sun. The difference in temperature during daylight is significantly higher than during darkness. Rotation of the Earth on its axis relative to the sun changes our climate from summer to winter and back each year. If these mammoth changes in climate are affected by the sun, why wouldn't changes in solar output be expected to affect the climate on Earth? The IPCC has ignored the sun and its contribution to climate on Earth because it would not justify taxing wealthy countries and setting up a world government. Sorry bub, but that is the truth.

And while you are at it, maybe you can respond to this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... s_hid.html

88, this sort of reasoning and supposition is dreadfully similar to the bunk reasoning of the Creationists when they suggest that the odds of a complex animal form arising from loose elements is some astronomical number, etc. In your case, your suggesting of an expected corollary between CO2 build up and the seasons is bizarre and straight out of hillbilly shack/school. Absolute nonsense, and you're casually ignoring the rise in acidity of the oceans--a clear a direct result of CO2 excess.

As for your bunkered fear of some nefarious "world government" arising from efforts to address global warming, etc., this is total lunacy--and very ironic in that the same Free market philosophy (i.e., Ayn Rand gibberish) that props up the paltry facade of Libertarianism has in fact led directly to an transnational entity of bankers and corporations that is currently every bit powerful, insidious, and destructive as you've ever imagined.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:40 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:In your case, your suggesting of an expected corollary between CO2 build up and the seasons is bizarre and straight out of hillbilly shack/school.

Uhm...

uhm...

You're funny.

There's this thing called the "carbon cycle," and that's exactly how it works, you babbling idiot.

Unless of course by "hillbilly shack/school" you meant every university on Planet Earth.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:01 am

Speaking of fraud......

Gee, would Russia have any economic interest in seeing the destruction of green energy?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:55 am

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Gee, would Russia have any economic interest in seeing the destruction of green energy?
Actually they wouldn't. Their economy has totally collapsed and they could make a fortune selling carbon credits. Perhaps if you weren't balls deep in ten year old boys, you would be more familiar with the situation.

Did your stupidity come from birth or brain injury?

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:49 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:04 pm

88, your solar theory is bizarre at best. Of course the seasons change and it's colder at night. So what? It's childish nonsense to suggest...well, what are you suggesting?

Here's what your piece says: "However, it has been difficult to identify the responsible physical mechanism because the most obvious mechanism, a change in total solar irradiation, does not seem to be sufficiently effective to account for the observed variations in temperature." This supports ME, not you.

As for the increasing acidification of the oceans, your supplied link COMPLETELY SUPPORTS my assertion. Are you just a joking idiot?

As for Avi's angle on those scheming Russians, it's irrelevant. The efforts of carbon credit swapping and so forth are just half-hearted efforts to begin with. Of course industrialists will exploit whatever loopholes they can find.

The bottom line is that the global warming deniers are either oil industry whores (which is to say paid by and rendering supportive finding for) or outright Christer/Creationist lunatics.

And so far, no one has produced an example to the contrary. The hacked e-mails are cherry-picked and taken out of context.

What we really never hear is just what these deniers actually want. Is it an Ayn Rand world where industrialists just operate unfettered--with government off their backs! It's pathetic.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:15 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The bottom line is that the global warming deniers are either oil industry whores (which is to say paid by and rendering supportive finding for) or outright Christer/Creationist lunatics.

Or in the case of George Taylor, one of the most knowledgable climate scientists who has ever lived.

Since I mentioned him -- RACK the living hell out of George Taylor. Dude has had the balls to stand up to the Global Warming Bullshit Machine, and has pretty much come out and said shit like "there's no substantial evidence to indicate the previous warming trend* was anything other than a natural cycle."

Since the earth has been cooling for the last 11 years, despite the IPCC/East Anglicans' efforts to hide the data... including taking the measuring stations in northern canada offline, and replacing them with ones from warmer climates... and they still can't get the readings up where their agenda needs them to be.

This would be the greatest scam in human history, if only the Carbon Barons could get Mother Nature to cooperate.

Then again, the Carbon Barons' leader has such a firm grasp of science, he's on the record as saying "the earth's core is very hot -- MILLIONS of degrees."

No, Al -- it's a few thousand... and any burp in the core/magma (not that the core has anything to do with the question posed to Al, which was about geothermal energy) can have a dramatic æffect on atmosperic CO2 levels... but that doesn't support global taxation, and the commission Al stands to make off it).

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:34 pm

BTW - the net global temperature gain from the 1930's to the 2000's?

Take a big ol' guess what the increase is...

How's about "zero."

The 1930's were warmer than our current decade. The 1960's was a particularly cool decade... and ain't it odd where the Scammers always choose as a starting point for their deceitful "hockey sticks" and whatever other bullshit-de-jour they cook up?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:10 pm

While you were all busy staring at your thermometers, how many rivers did Union Carbide poison today?

That's the point.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:00 am

Hopefully, all the rivers that flow North.

American jobs, Canadiens poisoned... a true win/win situation.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:21 am

War Wagon wrote:Hopefully, all the rivers that flow North.

American jobs, Canadiens poisoned... a true win/win situation.

Yeah, but then all the good beer in the world will taste like shit.

:(

We all lose.