If this doesn’t prove that environmentalists are crazy...

[Rooster]

...nothing will.

There is so much wrong with this story. A gay lawyer guy who is a whacked out climate change groupie lights himself on fire to protest fossil fuels. Gay? Check. Environmentalist? Check. Lawyer? Check. Self immolates? Double check. Never mind the whole disastrous climate change thing— if it were true —was only added to by him using petroleum based accelerants to set himself on fire, thus contributing to the imaginary problem he envisioned was going to kill us all.

This guy had so many snakes in his head it’s a wonder there was any room for lawyer stuff.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/15/da ... rming.html

[Bucmonkey]

The irony of you posting this...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The energy of his burning corpse should have been harnessed to power Screwey's washing machine.



On "gentle cycle" of course.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

What a flamer.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

...nothing will.

There is so much wrong with this story. A gay lawyer guy who is a whacked out climate change groupie lights himself on fire to protest fossil fuels. Gay? Check. Environmentalist? Check. Lawyer? Check. Self immolates? Double check. Never mind the whole disastrous climate change thing— if it were true —was only added to by him using petroleum based accelerants to set himself on fire, thus contributing to the imaginary problem he envisioned was going to kill us all.

This guy had so many snakes in his head it’s a wonder there was any room for lawyer stuff.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/15/da ... rming.html

This nutjob aside, what about climate change don't you believe? Are you merely skeptical, or you 100% believe it does not exist? If so, what research have you done to debunk it? I would love to read your findings.

[smackaholic]

I believe he is in the same camp as most of us.

There is climate change. Always has been, always will be.

It's cause is unknown.

What is known is that we have direct evidence that there was hella climate change prior to our burning carbon based fuels on a large scale.

It seems to be on a warming trend that predates the industrial revolution buy many hundreds of years. We do have evidence that over the last few millenia, warming has tended to improve man's state. Cooling has harmed it.

Warming today will harm a few areas, but improve others. Giant chunks of North America and Eurasia will become better at growing food. I was listening to some climate dude on the radio a year or two ago who said higher temp means more water vapor has a moderating effect, meaning it could actually cool really hot areas and warm really cold areas. He said that the Sahara was forested during a period with a warmer overall climate.

[Rooster]

What Smackie said.
I don’t dispute that climate change occurs. What I do dispute is that humans are the biggest cog in the climate change machine and that we need to enact policies to counter our supposed negative interaction with such change. Furthermore, if humans were the culprit in causing climate change, being the ingenious creatures that we are, we’d create solutions to counter any bad effects that are maybe going to show up 100 years from now, necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

This goes back to the other thread about science. Like so many other objects of scientific examination, the results of such study are bound to change as more or different evidence and knowledge becomes available. Back in the ‘70s it was global cooling. Then in the ‘90s it was global warming. Now, to cover their bases and obsfucate their alarmism, it is now called climate change just in case opinion swings in another direction again. However, in all these circumstances, had we preemptively and precipitously acted when the hue and cry was for immediate action, the response would have either been completely wrong or would have seriously damaged our economy— and by extension, the environment.

This gay lawyer fellow is a prime example of such alarmism. Instead of using a means of death which would result in an equally permanent condition, he chose to use the fossil fuel which he was so adamantly opposed to us using, producing the very thing he was so upset about, regardless the minuscule amount of carbon he put into the atmosphere. Even the very act of setting himself on fire is so... flamboyantly gay and dramatic. And it too smacks of alarmism by the urgent nature of having to die this very instant lest anybody miss his point about the oh-so-serious nature of the problem.

You can only cry wolf so many times before I grow jaded and cynical. There are so many other actual and immediate problems pressing in on us as humans that dealing with something which is unlikely to ever materialize one hundred years from now seems rather silly. But then, some people are scared of the bogeyman under their bed despite a lack of evidence that he exists.

[Rooster]

This nutjob aside, what about climate change don't you believe? Are you merely skeptical, or you 100% believe it does not exist? If so, what research have you done to debunk it? I would love to read your findings.

I suppose I owe you a better explanation than my previous post, Mgo. Aside from the vacillating nature of the issue of climate change alarmists, it is the lack of transparency of the process which makes me highly suspicious. Scientific inquiry requires an open discussion and examination of the evidence, which under normal circumstances, scientists are eager to engage in, if for no other reason than validation of their efforts and perhaps to prove their intellectual prowess. After all, they are just as susceptible to human motivations as any guy selling cars and wants to win the salesman of the year award.

When “scientists”—and I put that word in quotes because their methodology and data are highly suspect —refuse to release all of their information and evidence by which they produced their findings, it goes against all scientific logic and inquiry. Barring some proprietary knowledge which enriches the company which is employing these people, there is no reason to not publish all the information upon which these climate change studies have been based. Specifically, I am thinking of the “hockey stick” temperature rise and the NASA temperature... adjustments.. for which there are no plausible reason to withhold the evidence which would validate their results.

Then there is the politicization of the process. It is readily apparent that in a concerted effort to force economic policy changes on the country, there has been an attempt to use consensus as the standard by which scientific “proof” is obtained. However, like as in most things in life, the devil is in the details. Who these scientists are, what their field of study is, who is paying them for their results, are certain demographics in the scientific community drawn to specific specialty fields, are the findings being vetted by independent and auspicious journals manned by other specialists, do politicians guide the direction of scientific inquiry, so on and so forth.

Because there has been a rush to monetize the results and press an agenda on the world, it appears that it has less to do with concern for the environment and more for gaining access to the levers of power. Add to this the celebrity aspect to climate change where Al Gore, Leonardo Decaprio, et al head off to Davos via private jets to feast on caviar and Dom Perignon to discuss solutions to yours and my carbon footprint displays a lack of seriousness towards the problem.

So that’s it in a nutshell. I’m a dumb helicopter pilot, not some phd-ed scientist. But I’ve learned over the course of my life to think critically and look for clues to the motivations of people. What I’ve seen in the climate change debate by those proposing radical changes to our way of life tells me they have an agenda that ignores obvious things like the Sun or volcanoes and minimizes the effects of trees, the ocean, and things like the Grand Minimum for the possible changes we are seeing now.

[smackaholic]

Guess this brings a whole new meaning to “flaming faggot”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rooster]

RACK.

[Derron]

I believe he is in the same camp as most of us.

There is climate change. Always has been, always will be.

Right. Friend of mine is Wisconsin is about to go to the shower rod because he is still ass deep in snow on the 16th of April. Combine that with writing a check to the Feds today to help support all the liberal low life that are slowly sucking the life out of the US, can't say I blame him.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Rooster, I don't blame you for being skeptical. Like I said before in another thread, it's good to question science. Blindly believing in whatever you're told by any group of individuals, gives them a dangerous amount of power. But in the case of man-made global warming, I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming. Why do you think there is a lack of transparency in the evidence? Specifically, what is lacking for you? There are plenty of in-depth, peer-reviewed journals available for public consumption from respected scientific panels such as the IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many others. If your argument is simply "they're all on the take!" then you are not someone I can sensibly debate with. That is poptart-level lunacy. If there was a singular scientific body doing all of the research, then maybe one could entertain that claim, but when there are many lines of independent research that add up to about a 99% agreement rate, then it's awfully tough to trot out the conspiracy card.

Spray -- No one is arguing that climate change is occurring for the first time in earth's history. Everyone knows climate fluctuates, and that fact is totally irrelevant. The concern is about the rate at which the earth is warming, which has been happening at an unprecedented level over the last century, and doesn't look to be slowing down any time soon. You should do some basic research on the issue and get back to me. Or just fuck off. Actually, yeah, do the second one.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Environmentalism encompasses more that just the climate science debate.

[Mikey]

Environmentalism encompasses more that just the climate science debate.

Well there’s that part about wanting to hug trees. Weird shit.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Weird shit.

Not if you're a druid.

[Mikey]

Weird shit.

Not if you're a druid.

Or an Ent.

[Left Seater]

Mgo,

Why do these so called climate experts still insist on changing observed temperatures? Further why do they always change the numbers to further support rapid warming?

When will these same experts decide to pump the brakes a bit when none of their models are shown to be accurate? These models can’t even back into past events. Given actual temperatures of the past few years current models still predict hotter temperatures than what was observed. So why should we believe they will somehow be correct in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years?

[Softball Bat]

The funniest thing I have seen today.

Weather hacks often can't even forecast if I need to wear my golashes tomorrow.

But someone supposedly knows how hot it was 300 million years ago?





Omg, I almost pissed my pants laffing at that ridiculous crap.





#yeah

[BSmack]

Of course Pop-Tart doesn't understand trend lines and degrees of uncertainty. Those are the devil.

[Mikey]

The funniest thing I have seen today.

Weather hacks often can't even forecast if I need to wear my golashes tomorrow.

But someone supposedly knows how hot it was 300 million years ago?





Omg, I almost pissed my pants laffing at that ridiculous crap.



#yeah

Come on. We can't believe what the so-called "scientists" are forecasting for the future because they can't prove it,

but we will believe their conclusions about what happened 500 million years ago.



As long as it suits our own narrative.

[Softball Bat]

Those are the devil.

[Goober McTuber]

Just remember, 'tardt - it's much easier to see what has been done than it is to predict what will happen.

You have always posted like a total retard. I predict this will continue until the day you die.

This prediction is spot on.

[Goober McTuber]

Here's an interesting interview with a conservation biologist who believes humans could go extinct (or close to it) in 50 to 100 years. It's fairly lengthy so most of you fucknozzles don't have the attention span to read it. I was tempted to cut and paste the entire thing just to cause Derron's head to explode.

https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/5 ... at-we-love

[Rooster]

Humans and cockroaches have at least one thing in common: the ability to survive the worst catastrophes. We’re not dying off in the next bajillion years, much less the 100.

[Goober McTuber]

Humans and cockroaches have at least one thing in common: the ability to survive the worst catastrophes. We’re not dying off in the next bajillion years, much less the 100.

Soule talked about short-sighted folks like you.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

If you'll take a look at that graph, you'll notice that we're not experiencing JACK SHIT for change as compared to previous times. How can somebody (who seems relatively smart) like you just ignore over 4.4 BILLION fucking years worth of information and think that everything is going down in our little 80 meaningless fucking years here? Seriously? I'm not promoting pollution, but god damn, man. It amazes me how the meek have absolutely NO fucking concept of time...

Yes, we are experiencing "jack shit" compared to previous times. That's what all the evidence points to. Do you honestly think you know more than the people who have spent years researching this issue? Do you have any idea how amazingly arrogant (and ignorant) that is?

Your graph is way too macro. Here's what you need to look at. The concern, as shown below, is the drastic spike in CO2 levels in the atmosphere over an extremely short period of time. The increase in just a 60 year period is as much or more than what we've seen in the past over periods representing hundreds of thousands of years. Past CO2 spikes were gradual, normal, and environmentally non-threatening. What we're experiencing now is unprecedented and the effects have already been observed in a variety of ways. But keep telling yourself that this increase just "happens" to coincide with the exact same time period of large scale fossil fuel burning.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

The funniest thing I have seen today.

Weather hacks often can't even forecast if I need to wear my golashes tomorrow.

But someone supposedly knows how hot it was 300 million years ago?





Omg, I almost pissed my pants laffing at that ridiculous crap.





#yeah

Good GOD and G0D, you don't even know the difference between weather and climate, and I'm supposed to take you seriously? Scientists aren't guessing past conditions. They can measure past atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from pockets of air in glaciers. Science is pretty neato, if you ever decide to embrace it instead of magical sky fairies.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Mgo,

Why do these so called climate experts still insist on changing observed temperatures? Further why do they always change the numbers to further support rapid warming?

When will these same experts decide to pump the brakes a bit when none of their models are shown to be accurate? These models can’t even back into past events. Given actual temperatures of the past few years current models still predict hotter temperatures than what was observed. So why should we believe they will somehow be correct in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years?

Who is changing what? Specifics, please.

[Dinsdale]

But in the case of man-made global warming, I believe the evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Huh? There's actually very little evidence.

Why do you think there is a lack of transparency in the evidence? Specifically, what is lacking for you?

What is lacking is unaltered data.

There are plenty of in-depth, peer-reviewed journals available for public consumption from respected scientific panels such as the IPCC

OK, I get it now -- you're trolling. Otherwise you wouldn't have cited the organization that said "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"

Yeah, that screams "legitimate science" alright.

If your argument is simply "they're all on the take!" then you are not someone I can sensibly debate with.

That's too bad, since that's pretty much the driver of the debate.

If there was a singular scientific body doing all of the research, then maybe one could entertain that claim, but when there are many lines of independent research

All the bodies screaming from the mountaintops all have one thing in common -- sucking from the government teet. And the powers that be threaten the livelihood of anyone who dares question the AGW Dogma.

that add up to about a 99% agreement rate

Oh, I thought the bullshit they rolled out was "97% consensus." Regardless, A) That was a made up number from a google search, and B) I didn't realize that science was a democracy. I guess the earth was actually flat at some point in the last 1500 years, and then a vote was held, and it became round.

Hint: "science" doesn't give a shit about you, or anyone else's opinion. It's either true or false, and a straw poll doesn't change that.

The concern is about the rate at which the earth is warming, which has been happening at an unprecedented level over the last century

Unprecedented over the last century? Care to produce actual observed data from previous centuries, or are we going off complete;y unproven extrapolation techniques (which are kind of "anti-science")?


Here's basic science -- make observations (like recording the global average temperature... and here's the part they struggle with... USING THE SAME FUCKING DATA POINTS EVERY TIME, rather than constantly changing them, which is laughable "science"), and then posit a theory based on the observations. Then predictions can be made based on the theory. If the predictions turn out laughably wrong, you scrap the theory and go back to the drawing board. What you DON'T do is go back and ALTER THE FUCKING OBSERVED DATA to make your predictions seem less laughable.

Burning fossil fuels may very well affect the climate... but unfortunately, we'll never kow, since this is the worst example of junk science I've ever seen in my life. "The thermometers were wrong." "We need to 'smooth' the data by inverting a graph." "We need to HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!"

That's not "science," it's playing a stupid parlor game on stupid people in order to hide incompetence at one's job.

Do some real fucking research instead of jumping on the gravy train (hurricanes will be more frequent... even though they can't alter that data, and the OPPOSITE of their prediction happened, with no shame on their part, and they still have the gall to spout it), use a CONSISTENT DATA SET (they change it to suit their whims), and publish some unaltered data that I can read myself. Until that happens, I'll laugh at these Poptart-level "scientists." They go back and alter observed data... try that in a high school/college lab class and see what kind of grade you get. But for some reason, the Cult gets away with it.

It's like people buy into it hook, line, and sinker because it makes them hip and enlightened in their eyes. To any fans of actual, proper science, it's a fucking joke.

[Python]

Rack Dins.

[Left Seater]

Who is changing what? Specifics, please.

From the NOAA web site:

Existing data have well documented biases in them. The most important bias globally was the modification in measured sea surface temperatures associated with the change from ships throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck, and putting a thermometer in it, to reading the thermometer in the engine coolant water intake. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations so the early data have been adjusted warmer to remove that bias. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data.

The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

Stations in eastern Colorado had poor siting and it was postulated that their data records were biased due to that siting. Evaluation of data from those stations showed that the temperature from the three stations with poor siting matched the temperature at the two stations with good siting. The stations with good siting needed almost no adjustments to account for changes in, for example, their time of observation or type of thermometer. So this analysis also provided evidence that the adjustments were effective in bringing station with many problems in their raw data into accord with nearby stations that didn't need adjustments. A forthcoming journal article by Menne, Williams and Palecki, confirms that there is a small cold bias in the U.S. temperature record associated with poor station siting: the temperature has actually warmed a bit more than the data indicate and we haven't yet developed an approach to account for this bias.

You can google many more situations where “scientists” are altering data to fit their model. This last example being the most telling. The first few statements say the data almost matches from the stations with bad siting to those with good siting, yet the data from the bad siting stations was adjusted anyway.

[Rooster]

Mgo, as I said earlier, I’m just a dumb helicopter pilot. But what I can do as well as the next guy is think critically and examine motives. So when I see someone like Michael Mann, author of the vaunted “hockey stick” graph sue other scientists for libel when they critique his work, I become immediately suspicious both of his work and his integrity. Scientists should welcome scrutiny because it either validates their work or it tosses it in the trash can— which, as unpleasant as that would be, is what scientists sign up for when they enter that field of endeavor.

So why would Mann get upset at others who dispute his findings? Maybe he is thin skinned and does not take criticism well. Maybe he holds a high opinion of himself and thinks his work is above reproach. Or maybe, just maybe it is because his methodology is spurious and would not hold up under examination.

Furthermore, he refuses to release his data— which should cause concern for anyone who is an advocate for what he claims. He says he doesn’t want his conclusions misconstrued or twisted, yet that is a strangely unscientific approach to what he should know must be done to validate his work. Even stranger, there seem to be plenty of other scientists who have accepted his unwillingness to subject his findings to scrutiny, which, in my eyes, casts suspicion on all of their work.

Finally, when I am encouraged to take the word of a group that has reached a conclusion by consensus or is telling me that by virtue of their numbers I should accept their conclusions, I reject it on the principle that scientific inquiry rejects consensus as being anti-scientific.

I am absolutely open to the idea that humans cause climate change, but I remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward to date. When there is transparency in the process I very well may change my tune.

[Goober McTuber]

I'm sick and tired of all the left wing bleeding heart liberals constantly moaning about the environment, global warming, pollution and "sustainability"! I'm with Conservative Republicans and demand to know "WHAT HAVE THE FUTURE FUCKING GENERATIONS EVER DONE FOR US?"

[Softball Bat]

Scientists aren't guessing past conditions. They can measure past atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from pockets of air in glaciers. Science is pretty neato, if you ever decide to embrace it instead of magical sky fairies.

Dude, you can't prove that the earth is millions of years old, let alone how hot it was at that supposed time.

LMAO!

[Left Seater]

You can’t prove that it isn’t round.

[Goober McTuber]

I'm sick and tired of all the left wing bleeding heart liberals constantly moaning about the environment, global warming, pollution and "sustainability"! I'm with Conservative Republicans and demand to know "WHAT HAVE THE FUTURE FUCKING GENERATIONS EVER DONE FOR US?"

Goober is filling the board up with tears again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tubbytalk

I see a little bit of humor went right over your fat, misshapen head.

[Jay in Phoenix]

You can’t prove that it isn’t round.

Hell, he also insists that there are no satellites in orbit around the Earth, but can't explain how satellite t.v. or smart phones work.




#idiot

[Joe in PB]

Scientists aren't guessing past conditions. They can measure past atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from pockets of air in glaciers. Science is pretty neato, if you ever decide to embrace it instead of magical sky fairies.

Dude, you can't prove that the earth is millions of years old, let alone how hot it was at that supposed time.

LMAO!

If we're going down the route of nothing is proved until I see it for myself, how can you believe the stories in the Bible?

[Left Seater]

Scientists aren't guessing past conditions. They can measure past atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide from pockets of air in glaciers. Science is pretty neato, if you ever decide to embrace it instead of magical sky fairies.

Dude, you can't prove that the earth is millions of years old, let alone how hot it was at that supposed time.

LMAO!

If we're going down the route of nothing is proved until I see it for myself, how can you believe the stories in the Bible?

It is called faith. But he selectively applies it.

[Rooster]

This guy makes the claim that Flat Earthers are a bunch of doofuses.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/21/flat- ... d-a-fraud/