Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

[Rooster]

The climate changers are like the kid who can't stand the idea of losing, so they insist on doing 2 out of 3, then 3 out of 4, so on and so forth until they (hopefully) finally win. Despite the lack of real, unimpeachable evidence they keep saying, "Just wait! It's coming and it's gonna be reeeeeeeal bad!"

[Felix]

yes that would be the roy spencer that is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy* for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism." so he also considers intelligent design as a better explanation for life on this planet than evolution....
*psst, there isn't any controversy about intelligent design versus evolution.....but here's some support for intelligent design



dr. spencer was also quoted saying "The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don't. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models."

well I got news for you roy, I believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy.....prove they don't exist

yes, very scientific indeed.....any scientist that bases his conclusions on what he believes is full of shit....it's not what you believe, it's what the evidence tells you.....

[mvscal]

Nice ad hominem fallacy, you shit dipped fuckwit.

[poptart]

In the last :30 of the video, he says, "When you look at the incredible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, or the huge amount of information that has been encoded into the smallest living things, concede that there is a possibility that God made it."

Do you concede that possibility, Felix?

[mvscal]

...concede that there is a possibility that God made it.

Define "God" in specific, quantifiable terms and then we can discuss possibilities.

[Rooster]

All those scientists with their vaunted evidence of climate change, 88? Just follow the money. Get any group of scientists together, offer to fund a study with vast sums of money, let it be known what your administration's political goals are (substitute UN policies for the global stage) and oddly enough those scientists generate whatever results the guy who is handing out cash wants to see. Kinda like the so-called expert a lawyer brings in to support his client's case. Just don't expect to see unbiased results.

Just to be clear, I am not a climate change denier. Climate change is constant. In the short term the seasons are proof of that. Long term? Ice Ages and warm-ups come and go. But wholesale global catastrophe on a scale where the Four Horsemen come and destroy Earth as we know it because mankind burns coal, drives a car, or uses a wood burning fireplace in the winter? Nope, not buying it. That's just another Lefty power grab to control industry and policy.

Still, for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that man-made climate change is reality and the results are as dire as some predict. The first group to corral and toe the line should be the Chinese and the Third World. Once they get their emissions down to where the US has hers-- per capita --then we can talk about further reductions in carbon footprints, renewable energy, blah blah blah. Because unless those guys get onboard too, the little bit we in the US can do to our remaining industries is not going to avert disaster globally. So in the meantime, full speed ahead, Captains of Industry! Pollute away!

[Felix]

In the last :30 of the video, he says, "When you look at the incredible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, or the huge amount of information that has been encoded into the smallest living things, concede that there is a possibility that God made it."

Do you concede that possibility, Felix?

like mvscal asked, define god.....if you mean the god of your bible, no I won't concede that.....but the reality is that you missed the point of the video dumbass.....all of the bacterial flagellum "designed by a supreme being" are harmful and potentially deadly to human beings......the first one was cholera, the second was salmonella, the third was cancer....why would a loving "god" design bacteria that does nothing but make people sick or kill them? by the way the scientist pointing out that components of the flagellum are viable on their own was Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and an expert in evolutionary theory....

[Felix]

Just follow the money.

yes, they're all in it for the money because everyone knows that climate scientists are among the highest paid in the field of science.....contrast that with a guy like Richard Lindzen, who is paid by oil companies to expound the theory that man has no significant impact on the earth's climate.....yes, follow the money indeed.....

[Screw_Michigan]

Don't blame Rooster, Felix. It's always easier to just drag your knuckles.

[Rooster]

Precisely. Scientific research is not an endeavor one goes into to make millions (unless you can score a Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing ala Obama). In general funding for a particular field of study is always a dog-eat-dog proposition. So when Uncle Sammy or Ban Ki-Moon comes a-courtin' with a bouquet of roses and a bag of money behind his back, Mr. Scientist doesn't act all stuck up and prissy. He duly gets down on his knees and polishes the knob of Barack Hussein or the Korean dude holding his economic future in his hands. And when he's finished slurping down that load and Obama makes it rain with government grant money, and then offers even more money if he keeps giving him the climate results which please him, well, I think we know where this is going.

Like I said, it is a direct equivilent to being a lawyer's expert witness. He gets paid money for telling people the "real" truth of what his client wants them to hear. Of course, had the opposition paid more for his expert testimony, it would completely contradict what he just finished swearing to the truth of in court. Tell me you knew?

[mvscal]

Just follow the money.

yes, they're all in it for the money because everyone knows that climate scientists are among the highest paid in the field of science.....contrast that with a guy like Richard Lindzen, who is paid by oil companies to expound the theory that man has no significant impact on the earth's climate.....yes, follow the money indeed.....

You are a Grade A dumbfuck. Seriously.

The money pouring into anthropogenic climate change studies utterly dwarfs the paltry expenditures of oil companies.

$359 billion dollars was spent on climate change circle jerks last year alone.

http://www.thegwpf.org/world-spending-1 ... l-warming/

Your turn, idiot. How much did the scary, evil oil companies spend?

[Dinsdale]

Dr Richard Lindzen has forgotten more about climate science than the entire IPCC will ever know. But he got paid to speak by an oil company, so that disqualifies his knowledge, right?

And why are MOST of the "scientists" on the IPCC psychologists?

[mvscal]

And why are MOST of the "scientists" on the IPCC psychologists?

Who is better qualified to craft and disseminate propaganda?

[poptart]

like mvscal asked, define god.....if you mean the god of your bible, no I won't concede that.

Yes, God as He is defined in the Bible.
With the attributes and characteristics spoken of there.

You have decided that it is... IMPOSSIBLE that God has made living things?

ZERO possibility of that?

[poptart]

all of the bacterial flagellum "designed by a supreme being" are harmful and potentially deadly to human beings......the first one was cholera, the second was salmonella, the third was cancer....why would a loving "god" design bacteria that does nothing but make people sick or kill them?

1) The fact that cholera, salmonella, and cancer are a part of the world, and that they are harmful, does not make it therefore IMPOSSIBLE that they came about by the "hand" of a Creator.

2) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Picture of a chart I don't understand.

It's funny how you like science when it supports what you believe, but when it supports what you don't believe (evolution) then it's a bunch of hooey created by scientists with agendas.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I agree with your stance on global warming, dummy.

That doesn't change anything I just said.

[poptart]

A bull shit myth perpetrated on society to help keep the idiots under control

If I was to spend a day-or-two with you, I believe I would be able to identify your god.

[Felix]

You are a Grade A dumbfuck. Seriously.

The money pouring into anthropogenic climate change studies utterly dwarfs the paltry expenditures of oil companies.....$359 billion dollars was spent on climate change circle jerks last year alone.

how much of that came from government funding and how much from the private sector? the money spent by governments is pretty easy to track and I can tell you without a doubt, the total world government expenditures for renewable resources was no where near that amount of money, so either one of two things is true......either the majority of it is coming from the private sector, or your 359 billion dollar estimate is fucking horseshit? so which is it?

Your turn, idiot. How much did the scary, evil oil companies spend?

spend on what, trying to prove that climate change doesn't exist? how much subsidies do they receive from the government? how much on what? I can tell you how much they spent lobbying, but that doesn't tell the whole story....they've got scientists and think tanks that are paid to disprove global warming but I have no idea how much they spend on it.....but if you've got some numbers, by all means produce them and we can take a look at it.....

Dr Richard Lindzen has forgotten more about climate science than the entire IPCC will ever know. But he got paid to speak by an oil company, so that disqualifies his knowledge, right?

I knew if I dropped Lindzen's name you'd come out of the woodwork....you pull his name like a gun anytime climate science comes up....of course, never mind the fact that the majority of Lindzen's theories have been proven wrong (cloud theory which keeps resurfacing even though it's been discredited multiple times) and never mind the fact that he's paid $2,500/hour as a "consultant" to oil companies.....yeah, I'm sure there is no motivation for him to keep coming up with new theories every time the last one he came up with is shot full of holes.....

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

If that's your view, then you should be 100% consistent with it. Stop picking and choosing when you support science because it suits your argument, and just say all scientists are full of shit and looking to make a buck. You'd still be an idiot, but at least you'd be an idiot with conviction.

[Goober McTuber]

If that's your view, then you should be 100% consistent with it. Stop picking and choosing when you support science because it suits your argument, and just say all scientists are full of shit and looking to make a buck. You'd still be an idiot, but at least you'd be an idiot with conviction.

[mvscal]

I can tell you without a doubt, the total world government expenditures for renewable resources was no where near that amount of money, so either one of two things is true......either the majority of it is coming from the private sector, or your 359 billion dollar estimate is fucking horseshit?

I believe the number is total government and private sector. The only thing you can say "without a doubt" is that you have posted absolutely nothing to back up your opinion.

Post some numbers or fuck off. Nobody gives a fuck what you think.

Oh, BTW, my figure comes from a libtard source which thinks we don't spend enough on this ridiculous scam.

[Felix]

you have posted absolutely nothing to back up your opinion.

what opinion is that, that oil companies spend money trying to disprove global warming? that's a fact....between 2002 and 2008 Exxon and Koch industries spent about 560 million funding denialist groups.....then suddenly, they stopped......

Post some numbers or fuck off. Nobody gives a fuck what you think.

most of the money for climate change denial groups flows through pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital......the amount of money these companies receive has risen dramatically in the last five years....ironically enough, Exxon Mobil hasn't hasn't made a publically traceable contribution to any of the climate denial groups since 2008 and Koch Industries donations to denialist organizations has all but disappeared......yes, I'm sure it's purely coincidental......

Oh, BTW, my figure comes from a libtard source which thinks we don't spend enough on this ridiculous scam.

I didn't say the figures weren't true, but you made it sound like all of the money was coming from governments.....the fact is that only about 38% of the money comes from government sources....the remaining 224 billion comes from private sources.....

[Dinsdale]

I knew if I dropped Lindzen's name you'd come out of the woodwork....you pull his name like a gun anytime climate science comes up....of course, never mind the fact that the majority of Lindzen's theories have been proven wrong (cloud theory which keeps resurfacing even though it's been discredited multiple times) and never mind the fact that he's paid $2,500/hour as a "consultant" to oil companies.....yeah, I'm sure there is no motivation for him to keep coming up with new theories every time the last one he came up with is shot full of holes.....

Yet you're OK with the entire premise of AGW that's based completely on climate models... EVERY ONE OF WHICH EMPLOYS LINDZEN'S THEORIES. Yet he doesn't know what he's talking about... seeing the logical disconnect here?


And EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL HAS BEEN WRONG. You'd think one of the blind squirrels would have found a nut by now.

The current theory of AGW has been disproven beyond all doubt. Yet no one has offered up much of a new one (I'll entertain any scientific theory -- just bring some data, and drop it when it's disproven is all I ask).


You Cultists are a funny lot.

[mvscal]

...you made it sound like all of the money was coming from governments.....the fact is that only about 38% of the money comes from government sources....the remaining 224 billion comes from private sources.....

You say that as if it makes some sort of difference. You said follow the money and I obliged.

Assuming your unsourced figure is correct, then the scary, evil oil companies are spending .15% of what ACC cultists are spending.

So...follow the money and shut the fuck up, idiot.

[Felix]

Assuming your unsourced figure is correct, then the scary, evil oil companies are spending .15% of what ACC cultists are spending.

it's not an unsourced figure, that was money reported by Exxon and Koch to the IRS....remember, those are just two companies.....there are lots of other companies that were dumping money into the denialist movement......you want to know what the real kicker is? if you go onto the Exxon website and they say "There is growing recognition that addressing the risk of climate change will require significant efforts by both the developed and the developing world." sure we know were fucking the enviornment but we're pretending like we care yet they are still funneling dark money to the more than 115 denialist groups......so on the one hand they admit that climate change is occurring, yet they still fund organizations directed at creating doubt about climate change.....so what would you call that?

So...follow the money and shut the fuck up, idiot.

I am following the money.....what does the private sector have to gain by funding research on climate change.....sure guys like al gore (who is not a scientist) can make money, but they've already got enough data to demonstrate that climate change is occurring, so why dump more money into it if all you're interested in is making money off it? the reality is that they want to find out if in fact what we're doing is changing the climate, and what steps we might be able to take to slow it down.....there will come a point where there is nothing we can do, and they'd like to take steps to make sure we don't get to that point.....again, it's not going to have any impact on me, but I like to think in the long term.....I'd like the generations that follow to have a planet that is inhabitable.....

but what the hell, guys like you don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves so I totally get why you don't want admit that the climate is indeed changing.....it might cut into some part of your lifestyle that you don't want to give up.....

[Left Seater]

The real issue here is the prediction models. Every single one of them has been way off in their ability to predict any changes or trends. Even with decades of data points, these models still can't work backwards to get to today's reality. They cant even replicate year to year changes after the fact. Further the vast majority of these models assume humans are the basis for changes to the environment, despite the fact that has yet to be proven. Even Felix agrees:

the reality is that they want to find out if in fact what we're doing is changing the climate,

So that then leads us to consider a few options:

1) Every single one of these models was programmed with some sort of bias that leads them to grossly overstate temp increases


2) The current group of scientists studying these temperature changes do not have the academic chops to do the work


3) Humans have little to no effect on the temp swings of the planet


Of course there are other minor considerations, but these are the major ones. Of the above #1 is likely. We have plenty of evidence from emails to interviews to Techincal papers that show the authors of these models have no issue with overstating the potential of or actual changes. #2 is very unlikely as many of these scientists studying climate change have dedicated their life to this subject. #3 is the largest unknown with a slight lean towards humans having little effect. The known facts tell us the planet has had major changes for millions of years.

At the end of the day, it seems to me and many others that don't follow this closely, that the "green" types are moving the goal posts as needed. Their mantra for years was global warming. That didn't stick with the general population and was replaced with climate change. We were then told how hurricanes and other storms were just going to increase in number and intensity. That is followed up by low numbers of Atlantic hurricanes with very little intensity. Further, we have only vague guesses as to the number and intensity of hurricanes prior to the Civil War. To draw conclusions from only a fraction of a percent of a period of time is nothing but a blind guess.

So Felix, rather than attempting to point out where the money comes from, or which companies are working to discredit the "science", why not get actual models that can predict what is claimed? Why not get accurate hurricane and tornado forecasts? Once you can tell us accurately what is happening short term, then I will listen to your long term predictions. But first and foremost prove that humans are in fact responsible for the current increase in temps. You admit that the scientists are currently working to prove that, then immediately turn around and act as if it is a proven fact that we are:

the reality is that they want to find out if in fact what we're doing is changing the climate,

Everything below is an assumption based on humans causing temps to rise:

and what steps we might be able to take to slow it down.....there will come a point where there is nothing we can do, and they'd like to take steps to make sure we don't get to that point.....

If humans aren't responsible for the rise in temps how are we going to slow it down? If we aren't responsible for the rise in temps then we already are and always have been at a point where there is nothing we can do.

[Goober McTuber]

Further, we have only vague guesses as to the number and intensity of hurricanes prior to the Civil War.

Ask Wolfman.

[Mikey]

It's pretty damn hot here today.

[Left Seater]

Not so much here.

[Moving Sale]

It was raining and shitty when we got to DC and when we left, but really nice the two days we were there. I think that should be taken into consideration in this global warming debate.

[Wolfman]

I'm guessing that hurricane frequency and intensity is cyclic. There sure seem to be a lot of old shipwrecks in the ocean, many with lost treasures. Points to the likelihood of some pretty severe storms in the past. The sun pretty much drives earth's energy and one bad volcano can mess it up a lot more than a thousand years of cow farts or people using deodorant spray. My 2¢ worth.

[smackaholic]

I am still not convinced that if the planet is warming, regardless of the cause, that it is a bad thing.

Will it cause some places to be less hospitable?

Sure.

But, it seems to me that it would make an assload of places more hospitable. A good chunk of the US could benefit. Pretty much all of Canada would. How 'bout those godless heathens over on the other side of the globe. I don't give a fukk about them, but, seems to me that most all of the eurasian land mass would benefit.

And when these ginormous land masses have extended growing seasons, what is the result? More plant growth, resulting in lowered CO2 levels.

Hmmm, kinda looks like a self regulating system to me? Perhaps that has just a little to do with the fact that this festering hunk of rock has supported life since wolfie and goobs were kids. Well, maybe teens.

[mvscal]

..remember, those are just two companies.....there are lots of other companies that were dumping money into the denialist movement......

Yeah...I'll be sure to remember that. Still waiting for you to get anywhere near $359 billion. We're "following the money"...REMEMBER?

what does the private sector have to gain by funding research on climate change.....

Other than creating demand for an otherwise worthless or economically unviable product? Carbon credit exchanges? Solyndra? Are you really this pathetically stupid?

again, it's not going to have any impact on me

Of course it will, you brainless, fucking idiot. It's already impacting you. Your turd colored hero even promised you a direct hit in the form of "necessarily skyrocketing energy costs." It will impact you every day of your stupid, head stuck up your ass life. Every time you buy gas. Every time you pay your electric bill. Every time you buy groceries. Every time you buy anything at all.

And for what...exactly? You blithely propose to spend trillions on some scam when we can't even say for certain:

A. That we are even are having an effect on the climate that can be isolated from natural variability.
B. That any potential impact we might be having on the climate is actually negative.
C. That there is actually anything we could do about it without crippling our economy and destroying our way of life.
D. That you don't even seem to understand that change is the default state of "climate."

it might cut into some part of your lifestyle that you don't want to give up.....

Yes, like turning the lights on and driving to work without bankrupting myself to do it. If you are so worried about your carbon footprint, you should do the right thing and kill yourself.

[Moving Sale]

And why are MOST of the "scientists" on the IPCC psychologists?

Link?

[Felix]

Carbon credit exchanges? Solyndra? Are you really this pathetically stupid?

solyndra borrowed money not donated it you stupid fuckwit....the actual answer you should have posted was "energy storage technologies" "alternative lightning products" "new recycling technologies" etc, etc.

again, it's not going to have any impact on me

It's already impacting you. Your turd colored hero even promised you a direct hit in the form of "necessarily skyrocketing energy costs." It will impact you every day of your stupid, head stuck up your ass life. Every time you buy gas. Every time you pay your electric bill. Every time you buy groceries. Every time you buy anything at all.

i've said numerous times I don't care that I pay a few dollars more if I know those dollars are going to technological research on stemming global climate change....yeah I know I'm probably a dreamer, but I like to think that maybe those additional dollars might help.....either that or the jacked up gas prices are because Exxon is making fucking piles of cash while the US government provides them subsidies.....why should we be subsidizing an industry that is clearly making huge profits?

And for what...exactly? You blithely propose to spend trillions on some scam when we can't even say for certain:

A. That we are even are having an effect on the climate that can be isolated from natural variability.
B. That any potential impact we might be having on the climate is actually negative.
C. That there is actually anything we could do about it without crippling our economy and destroying our way of life.
D. That you don't even seem to understand that change is the default state of "climate."

what you (and your braindead ilk) don't seem to understand is that the burning of fossil fuels isn't the only impact man is having on the environment..... continual deforestation of the tropical rain forests severely diminishes the ability to process carbon dioxide into oxygen.....added carbon dioxide creates warming, which melts the polar ice caps which in turn releases more carbon dioxide (as well as methane and other green house gasses) into the air to be processed into oxygen....if it isn't being processed into oxygen, it remains as CO2 and continues to contribute to increased temperatures.....geez dude, this is science 101.....

Yes, like turning the lights on and driving to work without bankrupting myself to do it. If you are so worried about your carbon footprint, you should do the right thing and kill yourself.

the really sad thing is that you're operating under the belief that funding for climate change research is the cause of your power bill increasing and the cost of gasoline escalating.....I never thought you were this naive......why don't you do the right thing, and start thinking of others instead of simply thinking of yourself....I mean sure we're all self centered to a degree, but you take it to almost the Koch Brother level.....

[Felix]

I understand how difficult it must be for you to accept that you swallowed a truckload of bullshit for years and years. But at some point you have to accept that the shitty taste in your mouth is not because everyone else is blind, but rather because your diet of information is devoid of any substance other than complete shit.

you don't understand shit because you made up your mind that anthropomorphic climate change simply isn't possible.....me on the other hand, I've studied the science of climate change with an open mind.....just keep telling yourself it's a load of horseshit so you can justify sticking your head up your ass and ignoring what is obvious to most people that have taken the time to study the science......jeezus, do you know how selfish you sound?

[Moving Sale]

Science you say?
Isooctane (gasoline) is C8H18. When it is burned in the presence of O2 it produces CO2 and H2O, but that is when there is complete combustion. An engine in a vehicle does not completely burn the C8H12 so nasty shit like CO is produced. In addition the unburned Hydrocarbon reacts with Nitrogen oxides (that are in the air) to produce O3 which is a nasty lung irritant. Further some of the carbon remains as soot. That is the (simple) science behind why isooctane should not be used as a fuel. Any questions?

[Moving Sale]

That was an awesome non sequitur and does raise a question or four. Did you read what I wrote? Is/are there any part or parts that are scientifically inaccurate? Do you like soot and CO in your air? Does it really matter if global warming is real if you are ready to conced that gas is dirty shit when it is not completely burned and therefor it would be nice to stop using it?

[FLW Buckeye]

88, you had your chance to unclog his vaporlocked mind last week and passed... wanna borrow the DeLorean?