T1B

No, my sources are NASA and similar actual scientific entities. Your "experts" are shills who have been paid for their assertions. This has been clearly documented. Or..do you doubt it?

Now, SS, yours is a more disturbing default. You have just posted very clearly your supposed actual belief that if we were to completely clear the Amazon, this would only represent a "local' disturbance of the ecosystem. Surely you can understand that this is utterly assbackward reasoning? That the Amazon represents the lungs of the planet? That ours is a far more delicate and vulnerable ecosystem than we'd ever imagined--or been told in our grotesque religious national ethos?

Okay, I get it..you really are trolls...the sandmen who get paid to flood the net...and this is your watering hole where you trade tired jokes like drummers in Death Of A Salesman...and you really are just toxic fuckstains doing a shift and I've just been shining my nails all this time..well fuck me, my bad..

Papa Willie wrote:

Help me out here.....what is that graph supposed to show?
you do realize that there are a myriad of things that effect temperature right?

Let's take a look at a time period in which we know what the variables in the atmosphere were



so this is the temperature of the earth since the onset of the industrial revolution....see any correlation between the expansion of the industrial revolution and the rise in temperatures on a global scale? just coincidence I'm sure........

BTW, not even climate change skeptics deny the temperature on earth is rising.....

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Why..?...would a wide variety of industrialists--mostly oil--spend hundreds of millions of dollars to deny Climate Change...

Your indifference to the AGW propagandists who spend hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars to promote broken computer models is curious. I'm sure their motives must be pure and entirely altruistic...right?

Dinsdale wrote:
Absolute, utter, complete junk science.

STFU you stupid asshat. You can't even get your story straight for two posts in a row.

NASA has no credibility. No wait, they know they ocean isn't warming.

Go fuck a light pole ditch digger.

88 wrote: Now, as any puppy knows, you shouldn't shit where you eat.

We eat on Earth, please try and keep it clean.

This off hand refusal to even examine the work is why these so called "scientists" are so dangerous.

88 wrote: I find it astounding that someone who claims to be a scientist is simply willing to discount another's work without conducting a careful review of the basis for the work.

My position would be that you have done the very same thing. You have stated you do not think it is possible for man to create climate change. This is different than saying man is not causing CC. You have clearly stated you think it's all bunk (as you have with 911) but I have yet to read any science from you as to why the 1000s of peer review articles that 'prove' man made CC are wrong.

As for our drought, I will try and find time to read the paper. From the article it's sounds like it is not CC driven to me.

Papa Willie wrote: What you are referring to is the University of Illinois survey in 2009 that found that 97.4% of agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily debunked when one considers its selection methodology. The University of Illinois study originally included 10,257 respondents. Of that group, the researchers (Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman) concluded 10,180 “weren't qualified to comment on the issue because they were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, astronomers and the like". Of the remaining 77 scientists whose votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77, ‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated. In reality, the 75 respondents that agreed with AGW is actually only 0.73% of the original sample group.

Furthermore, in 2013 John Cook et al examined 11,944 articles from peer reviewed literature dated 1991-2011. They found that 66.4% (or 7931 of them) expressed no view whatsoever on AGW/ACC. Of the remaining 4013 articles, 97% (or 3893 of them) agreed with AGW/ACC. This again "demonstrates" a 97% consensus in their eyes. However, fundamental math would tell you the actual percentage of peer reviewed literature from this time frame endorsing AGW/ACC is actually only 32.6%. The actual numbers in both these surveys have been ignored by AGW/ACC proponents in favor of being able to cite the "97% Consensus" argument.

They don't even mention the other part of the methodology -- they used freaking Google searches to gather the evidence. Zero interviews.

As I mentioned earlier, the same methodology can be used to support a 100% "consensus" over the last couple of years that says the opposite.

^^This from a guy who thinks water can not contain heat and sand is the best thing to add to clay soils to make them drain better. Fucking idiot.

Felix wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

Help me out here.....what is that graph supposed to show?
you do realize that there are a myriad of things that effect temperature right?

Let's take a look at a time period in which we know what the variables in the atmosphere were



so this is the temperature of the earth since the onset of the industrial revolution....see any correlation between the expansion of the industrial revolution and the rise in temperatures on a global scale? just coincidence I'm sure........

BTW, not even climate change skeptics deny the temperature on earth is rising.....

that graph, assuming it is using accurate data does show an overall trend, but there are a few issues I have with it.

First off, there is a fairly lengthy stretch, from 1940-80 where temps are pretty much flat or possibly even dropping a bit. During this stretch, man's industrial flatulence increased at a staggering pace. During this period, everybody in the US bought cars and trucks and they drove the ever loving fukk out of them. Assuming there is an AGW effect, it should have accelerated during this period. It didn't. Europe also had a huge increase in activity.

Why the flatline during this period of crazy industrial expansion. And over the last twenty years, the chinks and dotheads have experienced the same sort of growth we did in the 50-60 and yet, we seem to have hit another plateau.

My take from this is, there may be a long term warming trend which began approximately 200 years ago, but it seems to have a mind of it's own and is independent of our input.

In other words, we are kind of along for the ride. And assuming it continues, the northern US, Canada and that little patch of dirt across the pond called Siberia will improve agriculturally. Some places closer to the equator will see a reduction in their agricultural potential. I am just hoping that it means I will have to shovel less white shit and my homegrown tomater crop will improve as casa de smackaholic becomes more tropical.

Will meheeeco become more arid and an even bigger shithole? Yeah, prolly. Sucks to be them.

Graph Smack.



Oh boy...I'm so glad to be living in these times. Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

P.S. ~ that was sarcasm