Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proof that you can invent or write something dumb & get rich...

    Fidget spinner - https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-world/526521/

    Pokemon - https://www.pokemon.com/us/

    So many more ...

    Then there's Al Gores fraud. The man made a lot of money, not a bad deal for HIM.

    Bad deal for you & I, he made money by selling lies and untruths as "facts and science."

    Of course he needs more money. Slob that he is... he made quite a bit selling his first batch of snake oil to us, he's out there brewing up another batch for you !

    Science isn't going to help him....

    Sorry Al your fraud is running out of earning potential.

    ----------------------------------------------------

    NASA senior scientist crushes Gore's new climate-change book

    Spencer, an award winning former NASA senior scientist for climate studies and a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said he wrote the point-by-point rebuttal in two weeks after Gores Aug. 4 wide release of the documentary An Inconvenient Sequel.

    .. Spencers e-book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy,

    Maybe people are finally wising up to Mr. Gore, Spencer said on his Global Warming blog.

    Gore describes his 320-page book as your action handbook to learn the science, find your voice, and help solve the climate crisis.

    Spencer, who continues to work with NASA on the U.S. Science Team, also gave a disparaging critique of Gores new movie, claiming it is rife with propaganda.

    After viewing Gores most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little astounded, Spencer said on his blog, Global Warming. The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy and factual errors.

    The leading climatologist and author of three previously published books on climate change contends Gores new documentary is just as bogus as its 2006 predecessor.

    Last week, John Coleman, a retired TV weatherman and founder of the Weather Channel gained national attention after blasting Gore and repudiating others who insist deniers are the worst of humanity are Algorian scientists.

    Im just a dumb old skeptic a denier as they call me who ought to be jailed or put to death, he said. I understand how they feel. But you know something? I know Im right. So I dont care.

    Coleman, known for his skepticism of the view that mankind is a significant cause of climate change, lamented that has become a political issue when it should have remained a scientific one.

    The former weatherman said he would have retired from meteorology sooner amid the politicization of weather and climate if it were not for the support of his manager, Michael D. McKinnon, at KUSI-TV, where he worked for 20 years until 2014.

    McKinnon strongly supported my skeptical position on global warming, Coleman said in an interview with MyNewsLA. If it hadnt been for that, I probably would have retired much sooner. [KUSI] gave me a great platform from which to work.

    Coleman repudiated Gore for starting the global warming silliness and said he was horrified to see San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer channeling Gores Climate Action Plan.

    It just turns my stomach, he said. San Diegos not going to go underwater. Period, he said. Not in my lifetime or yours or our kids lifetime. When the Earth ends in 4 1/2 billion years, it probably still wont have flooded.

    He also mocks the tsunami warning route signs that they put up all over the city, which he calls about as silly as anything Ive ever saw in my life. The chance of a significant tsunami hitting Southern California is about as great as a flying saucer landing tonight at Lindbergh Field. Its just sheer nonsense."



    http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/nasa-seni...cat_orig=money

    ?


    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
      Proof that you can invent or write something dumb & get rich...

      Fidget spinner - https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-world/526521/

      Pokemon - https://www.pokemon.com/us/

      So many more ...

      Then there's Al Gores fraud. The man made a lot of money, not a bad deal for HIM.

      Bad deal for you & I, he made money by selling lies and untruths as "facts and science."

      Of course he needs more money. Slob that he is... he made quite a bit selling his first batch of snake oil to us, he's out there brewing up another batch for you !

      Science isn't going to help him....

      Sorry Al your fraud is running out of earning potential.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      NASA senior scientist crushes Gore's new climate-change book

      Spencer, an award winning former NASA senior scientist for climate studies and a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said he wrote the point-by-point rebuttal in two weeks after Gores Aug. 4 wide release of the documentary An Inconvenient Sequel.

      .. Spencers e-book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy,

      Maybe people are finally wising up to Mr. Gore, Spencer said on his Global Warming blog.

      Gore describes his 320-page book as your action handbook to learn the science, find your voice, and help solve the climate crisis.

      Spencer, who continues to work with NASA on the U.S. Science Team, also gave a disparaging critique of Gores new movie, claiming it is rife with propaganda.

      After viewing Gores most recent movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, and after reading the book version of the movie, I was more than a little astounded, Spencer said on his blog, Global Warming. The new movie and book are chock-full of bad science, bad policy and factual errors.

      The leading climatologist and author of three previously published books on climate change contends Gores new documentary is just as bogus as its 2006 predecessor.

      Last week, John Coleman, a retired TV weatherman and founder of the Weather Channel gained national attention after blasting Gore and repudiating others who insist deniers are the worst of humanity are Algorian scientists.

      Im just a dumb old skeptic a denier as they call me who ought to be jailed or put to death, he said. I understand how they feel. But you know something? I know Im right. So I dont care.

      Coleman, known for his skepticism of the view that mankind is a significant cause of climate change, lamented that has become a political issue when it should have remained a scientific one.

      The former weatherman said he would have retired from meteorology sooner amid the politicization of weather and climate if it were not for the support of his manager, Michael D. McKinnon, at KUSI-TV, where he worked for 20 years until 2014.

      McKinnon strongly supported my skeptical position on global warming, Coleman said in an interview with MyNewsLA. If it hadnt been for that, I probably would have retired much sooner. [KUSI] gave me a great platform from which to work.

      Coleman repudiated Gore for starting the global warming silliness and said he was horrified to see San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer channeling Gores Climate Action Plan.

      It just turns my stomach, he said. San Diegos not going to go underwater. Period, he said. Not in my lifetime or yours or our kids lifetime. When the Earth ends in 4 1/2 billion years, it probably still wont have flooded.

      He also mocks the tsunami warning route signs that they put up all over the city, which he calls about as silly as anything Ive ever saw in my life. The chance of a significant tsunami hitting Southern California is about as great as a flying saucer landing tonight at Lindbergh Field. Its just sheer nonsense."



      http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/nasa-seni...cat_orig=money

      He has been torn apart by people who say he is just a lowly weather man who just reads a teleprompter. And don't know shit from Shinola. But he could have become a richer man by writing a climate change horror book like Uncle Al did as we know how well a good horror book does in sales. People love to be scared, and if they believe man made warming will destroy humanity, with real colorful and hideous deaths, one could retire from just writing one fictional book.

      I am curious how Al weaseled out of his very dire predictions in his other horror novel? What lie must he fabricate in order to retain some credibility when he surely lost most of any that he had?

      The Achilles Heel of climate science reared its ugly head with their models. Science uses models, which is tied in directly with their theory. Hard science like physics use models and they are very useful for they determine if the underlying theory upon which the model reflects is legit, for the lack of a better term. In a hard science if the model fails to predict accurately guess what happens? Well, in serious, in hard science if the model fails, as the co2 model fails to predict, what hard science does not do, and will not do, because it is anti science, is to change the numbers, to fudge them after the fact, in order to make the model appear to be accurate in predicting. lol I laugh, but this is serious stuff here boys. Now, ask yourself a simple question. IF, climate scientists, earning their income via grants, that specifically are tied to co2 levels and global warming, would do the unthinkable in science, and fudge, change numbers, what else are they capable of when it comes to this research. In science, amongst their peers, they would be totally ruined. Have these scientists involved, been ruined, shunned by their peers, unable to ever get a govt grant again, not to mention employment? Well generally the answer is a resound no.

      So if these predictive climate models do not reflect future reality this means something important, that even a non science person can understand. It of course means the model and the underlying theory is flawed, which means there is a deficit in understanding the degree which co2 plays in global warming. And, if they could come up with a good model, that reflects future reality, these guys should be able to discern what percentage of the warming is due to the levels of co2, and what percentage is due to natural, progressive global warming. But guess what? Climatologists don't actually know exactly the causes and mechanics of natural climate change. For the interdependency is so involved and complex, with a deficit in understanding all of the feedback loops, and their relationship to the interdependency involved that it evokes assumptions. For the more hard a science is, the better the theory, the minimization of assumptions taken. So in climate science, in the co2 warming paradigm just how many assumptions are involved in the current models. Obvious they are perhaps numerous, given the inability of the models to predict future reality. And yet we have been told countless times that there is a consensus among scientists. Yet that is not how science works, and an honest scientist will tell you that. So there seems to be quite a bit of voo doo going on, ever since the IPCC proclaimed co2 was the problem and all they needed was the evidence to back this up.

      What is strangely absent and missing are the contrary views from other scientists. For Einstein was subjected to a storm who questioned and even scoffed at his contentions and theories. Why is that missing currently? There has never been this kind of certainty within the scientific community and you will never see it again, for this is not how science works. So what is really going on here? Apparently it is not science as we know it.

      I am not questioning if co2 levels will affect average global temps, pushing them up. But what clearly must be questioned is these incoherences we have seen in climatology, which is giving us the data, the theories, which make for a great horror show, as it pushes for carbon taxes, which is in the trillions, and which will create depressed economies, a lower standard of living, with a few well positioned elites enriching themselves like never before and the easiest profits ever made by sitting on your arse with little time or labor involved. A golden egg. But with the money leaving everyone who uses energy, and being funneled into the hands of the few. It has to be one of the greatest schemes ever in history. And yet if we stopped all emissions today, it would do nothing to stop the warming which would continue for at least well into the 22nd century, which of course by then we would be mostly off fossil fuels anyways. LOL It may not be a total hoax but it is one huge scam to redistribute income from the People into the hands of the elites. Does this redistribution into the hands of the rich ever end? Well, how long has it gone on? LOL How about ever since we moved from tribal society into civilization?

      ?


      • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        He has been torn apart by people who say he is just a lowly weather man who just reads a teleprompter. And don't know shit from Shinola. But he could have become a richer man by writing a climate change horror book like Uncle Al did as we know how well a good horror book does in sales. People love to be scared, and if they believe man made warming will destroy humanity, with real colorful and hideous deaths, one could retire from just writing one fictional book.

        I am curious how Al weaseled out of his very dire predictions in his other horror novel? What lie must he fabricate in order to retain some credibility when he surely lost most of any that he had?

        The Achilles Heel of climate science reared its ugly head with their models. Science uses models, which is tied in directly with their theory. Hard science like physics use models and they are very useful for they determine if the underlying theory upon which the model reflects is legit, for the lack of a better term. In a hard science if the model fails to predict accurately guess what happens? Well, in serious, in hard science if the model fails, as the co2 model fails to predict, what hard science does not do, and will not do, because it is anti science, is to change the numbers, to fudge them after the fact, in order to make the model appear to be accurate in predicting. lol I laugh, but this is serious stuff here boys. Now, ask yourself a simple question. IF, climate scientists, earning their income via grants, that specifically are tied to co2 levels and global warming, would do the unthinkable in science, and fudge, change numbers, what else are they capable of when it comes to this research. In science, amongst their peers, they would be totally ruined. Have these scientists involved, been ruined, shunned by their peers, unable to ever get a govt grant again, not to mention employment? Well generally the answer is a resound no.

        So if these predictive climate models do not reflect future reality this means something important, that even a non science person can understand. It of course means the model and the underlying theory is flawed, which means there is a deficit in understanding the degree which co2 plays in global warming. And, if they could come up with a good model, that reflects future reality, these guys should be able to discern what percentage of the warming is due to the levels of co2, and what percentage is due to natural, progressive global warming. But guess what? Climatologists don't actually know exactly the causes and mechanics of natural climate change. For the interdependency is so involved and complex, with a deficit in understanding all of the feedback loops, and their relationship to the interdependency involved that it evokes assumptions. For the more hard a science is, the better the theory, the minimization of assumptions taken. So in climate science, in the co2 warming paradigm just how many assumptions are involved in the current models. Obvious they are perhaps numerous, given the inability of the models to predict future reality. And yet we have been told countless times that there is a consensus among scientists. Yet that is not how science works, and an honest scientist will tell you that. So there seems to be quite a bit of voo doo going on, ever since the IPCC proclaimed co2 was the problem and all they needed was the evidence to back this up.

        What is strangely absent and missing are the contrary views from other scientists. For Einstein was subjected to a storm who questioned and even scoffed at his contentions and theories. Why is that missing currently? There has never been this kind of certainty within the scientific community and you will never see it again, for this is not how science works. So what is really going on here? Apparently it is not science as we know it.

        I am not questioning if co2 levels will affect average global temps, pushing them up. But what clearly must be questioned is these incoherences we have seen in climatology, which is giving us the data, the theories, which make for a great horror show, as it pushes for carbon taxes, which is in the trillions, and which will create depressed economies, a lower standard of living, with a few well positioned elites enriching themselves like never before and the easiest profits ever made by sitting on your arse with little time or labor involved. A golden egg. But with the money leaving everyone who uses energy, and being funneled into the hands of the few. It has to be one of the greatest schemes ever in history. And yet if we stopped all emissions today, it would do nothing to stop the warming which would continue for at least well into the 22nd century, which of course by then we would be mostly off fossil fuels anyways. LOL It may not be a total hoax but it is one huge scam to redistribute income from the People into the hands of the elites. Does this redistribution into the hands of the rich ever end? Well, how long has it gone on? LOL How about ever since we moved from tribal society into civilization?
        No, this is NOT science as we know it.

        This isn't science at all, it's political activism for a purpose.

        But with our new age of information, anybody can educate themselves about it and learn about the real science OF it.

        This is good, because it exposes the political activism being presented as science, for what it is.

        Just another way for the rich to take more money from the rest of us. This one under the guise of "caring for the planet and our children," which is a powerful way to affect peoples emotions and make believers out of them. Rip-off artists know all the scams & tricks !

        ?


        • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          No, this is NOT science as we know it.

          This isn't science at all, it's political activism for a purpose.

          But with our new age of information, anybody can educate themselves about it and learn about the real science OF it.

          This is good, because it exposes the political activism being presented as science, for what it is.

          Just another way for the rich to take more money from the rest of us. This one under the guise of "caring for the planet and our children," which is a powerful way to affect peoples emotions and make believers out of them. Rip-off artists know all the scams & tricks !
          And of course if anyone questions this absurd "consensus" (when has there ever been a consensus in such a hot subject?) this makes you an ignorant, stupid, denier, and you get relegated to a group no one wants to be in. But the vigor with which the people who honestly question this politically driven science are rejected is in and of itself a red flag, reeking of a scam. The hordes of credible scientists who questioned Einstein were not treated in this manner. Why? Because science does not work like that. And it is a known fact, that obtaining grants, sufficient grants, to research the contrary position on climate change is something you will not get, at least from gov't funding. Yes, there was some counter research, financed by fossil fuel companies, which is always brought up, but what is not mentioned is that the fossil fuel industry provided a few million in research grants, while the IPCC co2 contingent was able to get billions in grant money. So, we can see WHO is more interested in verifying the beliefs of the IPCC, measurable by the sheer dollars.

          Anyways, if this was as serious as gov'ts want us to believe, we would see worldwide efforts at adding flora, which lower co2 levels, and a hysteria in stopping the deforestation of rain forests. So, while gov't is super concerned about carbon taxes, which will not pull down co2, there is no concern about land management, which would directly attack co2 and lower it. When you see incoherence, in something supposedly very important, you must become a skeptic, for rationality and logic will grab you and drag you there. If not dragged there, then you lack logic and rationality, and are apt to believe the most absurd things. Like Hillary would win. .

          ?


          • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
            And of course if anyone questions this absurd "consensus" (when has there ever been a consensus in such a hot subject?) this makes you an ignorant, stupid, denier, and you get relegated to a group no one wants to be in. But the vigor with which the people who honestly question this politically driven science are rejected is in and of itself a red flag, reeking of a scam. The hordes of credible scientists who questioned Einstein were not treated in this manner. Why? Because science does not work like that. And it is a known fact, that obtaining grants, sufficient grants, to research the contrary position on climate change is something you will not get, at least from gov't funding. Yes, there was some counter research, financed by fossil fuel companies, which is always brought up, but what is not mentioned is that the fossil fuel industry provided a few million in research grants, while the IPCC co2 contingent was able to get billions in grant money. So, we can see WHO is more interested in verifying the beliefs of the IPCC, measurable by the sheer dollars.

            Anyways, if this was as serious as gov'ts want us to believe, we would see worldwide efforts at adding flora, which lower co2 levels, and a hysteria in stopping the deforestation of rain forests. So, while gov't is super concerned about carbon taxes, which will not pull down co2, there is no concern about land management, which would directly attack co2 and lower it. When you see incoherence, in something supposedly very important, you must become a skeptic, for rationality and logic will grab you and drag you there. If not dragged there, then you lack logic and rationality, and are apt to believe the most absurd things. Like Hillary would win. .
            It's the same old word-game of lies against logic that the left relies on.

            Their B.S. won't last, it simply can't, none of it is based on truth !

            ?


            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              It's the same old word-game of lies against logic that the left relies on.

              Their B.S. won't last, it simply can't, none of it is based on truth !
              Part of the problem is that the left conflates two very separate issues and treats them as one (with a HUGE set of assumptions).

              First, even IF we could prove that anthropogenic climate change was real, and could accurately assess the impact of it, the next set of questions have NOTHING to do with "science", they are actually questions for economists. Insofar as public policy is concerned, the question is what is the present value of the net future cost (assuming the impact is a net negative cost rather than a net positive benefit...a false assumption on the part of climate fear mongers--more on that below) if we do nothing to ameliorate it, and what is the present value of the net future costs of adapting to the changes rather than trying to stop them.

              These are not questions that scientists can answer, in fact, they often involve subjective value judgements against which there is no "right" answer.

              Now, more on the false assumption of net negative costs associated with any particular change to the climate. It is pretty obvious that despite the fact that human civilization has progressed more quickly during warmer periods historically than cooler ones, the left seems to start their thinking on this from a fundamentally flawed (or at least highly questionable) assumption, embodied in the quote "the planet is warming, and that can't be a good thing" (I forget which of the many logically challenged lefties I heard this from first, but have heard many express this sentiment in one form or another over the years). Why exactly can't it be a good thing? Broadly speaking, it would be easier to adapt to warmer weather than say another ice age. I suspect that this mindset is based on the equally flawed assumption that nature, left untouched or effected by man is "perfect" and that any impact man has on it is therefore a bad thing. This is stupid, for the environment and its "health" (another stupid notion) is meaningless outside of the context of human wellbeing and progress.

              ?


              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                Part of the problem is that the left conflates two very separate issues and treats them as one (with a HUGE set of assumptions).

                First, even IF we could prove that anthropogenic climate change was real, and could accurately assess the impact of it, the next set of questions have NOTHING to do with "science", they are actually questions for economists. Insofar as public policy is concerned, the question is what is the present value of the net future cost (assuming the impact is a net negative cost rather than a net positive benefit...a false assumption on the part of climate fear mongers--more on that below) if we do nothing to ameliorate it, and what is the present value of the net future costs of adapting to the changes rather than trying to stop them.

                These are not questions that scientists can answer, in fact, they often involve subjective value judgements against which there is no "right" answer.

                Now, more on the false assumption of net negative costs associated with any particular change to the climate. It is pretty obvious that despite the fact that human civilization has progressed more quickly during warmer periods historically than cooler ones, the left seems to start their thinking on this from a fundamentally flawed (or at least highly questionable) assumption, embodied in the quote "the planet is warming, and that can't be a good thing" (I forget which of the many logically challenged lefties I heard this from first, but have heard many express this sentiment in one form or another over the years). Why exactly can't it be a good thing? Broadly speaking, it would be easier to adapt to warmer weather than say another ice age. I suspect that this mindset is based on the equally flawed assumption that nature, left untouched or effected by man is "perfect" and that any impact man has on it is therefore a bad thing. This is stupid, for the environment and its "health" (another stupid notion) is meaningless outside of the context of human wellbeing and progress.
                From the perspective of the left, if it involves humans in relation to our planet, it's ALWAYS bad.

                If it's religion and religious people, it's always bad - unless of course it's a religion that promotes killing Americans.

                For leftists, a FEW things involving humans are good, these things almost always have to do with sex & sex organs .... as the left chastises everyone ELSE about their "obsession with sex" ...

                As I was saying, the lies against logic based on such outlandish hypocrisies won't last. Anyone smart enough to get themselves dressed in the morning, can see the incongruity of liberal ideas LOL

                ?


                • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  From the perspective of the left, if it involves humans in relation to our planet, it's ALWAYS bad.

                  If it's religion and religious people, it's always bad - unless of course it's a religion that promotes killing Americans.

                  For leftists, a FEW things involving humans are good, these things almost always have to do with sex & sex organs .... as the left chastises everyone ELSE about their "obsession with sex" ...

                  As I was saying, the lies against logic based on such outlandish hypocrisies won't last. Anyone smart enough to get themselves dressed in the morning, can see the incongruity of liberal ideas LOL
                  The left has an obsession with sex? This coming from the staunchest restroom monitor in the country. Maybe you'll become a climate change believer when Trump creates nuclear winter with the help of Kim Jung in.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    The left has an obsession with sex?
                    Yes, the left has an obsession with sex.

                    Strange, they told us the "slippery slope" argument was silly. We see that it was correct.

                    First it was "gays," then it was "transgenders" next it's child molesters... ah uh I mean pedophiles. . . virtuous pedophiles that is... yeah...

                    Go ahead, dismiss it ... and watch it keep coming at you just like it did with "gays" & "trans"

                    You'll probably support this stupidity just like you did the last ones, the "gays" and the "trans" LOL

                    --------------------------

                    .....the left understands well how to take taboo behaviors and turn them into grievance groups, legal battering rams, and political power. Thats why it is important to keep an eye out for attempts to start the chain of acceptance, such as one being protested by this grass roots uprising in Chicago.

                    A group of Northwest Side residents will hold a "peaceful protest" Sunday night condemning a Fringe Festival performance they say gives pedophiles a pass.


                    [ how long should we expect THIS be remain "fringe" ?? ]

                    "A Virtuous Pedophile," one of 50 performances happening at the Chicago Fringe Festival running through Sept. 10 in Jefferson Park, questions whether pedophiles deserve sympathy if they don't act on their urges.

                    The play unleashed a torrent of outrage on social media after the festival published this year's list of shows. Its head-scratching title was enough for some neighbors to condemn it, but the play's description is even more provocative:
                    "Can liberals accept that pedophilia is a legitimate sexuality?"

                    [ Of course liberals can. I've yet to see a limit to what they'll 'accept' . . . as long as it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ and Christians, it's A-Ok !! ]


                    ...we are going to see more and more forays such as this. Salon tried a series of articles on "Virtuous Pedophiles" who purportedly do not act on their urges.

                    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...edophilia.html


                    AND https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...990#post544990

                    As I was saying, the left will 'accept' anything.

                    Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    This coming from the staunchest restroom monitor in the country. Maybe you'll become a climate change believer when Trump creates nuclear winter with the help of Kim Jung in.
                    Yeah, you bet -rollseyes-

                    The image liberals create of the president keeps crumbling away. The left always proves what they're about right out in the open with their obvious lies and hypocrisies.

                    What will they do when their lies and hypocrisies are no longer given any air time ? When people lose interest in being lied to and sold outlandish tales and really bad ideas ?

                    -----------------------

                    ..the Left's absurd caricature of President Donald Trump keeps getting proven a lie,...

                    ....We cant maintain the narrative of a bumbling idiot anymore, I think there is genuine surprise that he is not the caricature the left has created. Its absurd portrayal of a cruel, Nazi, racist, sexist, homphobe is a longer-term liability of the left, so long as President Trump gives it the lie by being who he is.

                    ...

                    Then, there is the problem that antifa has created an image problem for the Left that is opening more minds to the genuine, absolutist nature of the progressive vision that now dominates the Democrats. Meanwhile, the constant criticism of the president is building an immunity reaction. Even Nancy Pelosi sees it, warning, (The voters) dont want to hear us criticizing the president, Pelosi said. This was a choice; they made a decision.


                    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...residency.html


                    ?


                    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                      The left has an obsession with sex? This coming from the staunchest restroom monitor in the country. Maybe you'll become a climate change believer when Trump creates nuclear winter with the help of Kim Jung in.
                      Well you guys sure are no different when it comes to russia and the sanctions, on someone who had nothing to do with wilkileaks or hillary getting beat..and after your party had already crowned her even before the primaries began. Trouble is, we have neocons in both parties who believe we can win in MAD. And we have a democrat party who would rather create the environment for war with russia by using them as a scapegoat. Hey, I am neither liberal nor conservative, so my views are not tainted by this silly tribalism which we should have evolved out of long ago. And I do not believe any critical thinking can be a republican or democrat given what they have become. Two tribes that hate one another, and who hate one another because this is what the oligarchy needs to stay in power. A distraction, a misdirection, and neither side, the voters, are astute enough to see how they are being played.

                      On climate change, there are too many incoherences involved for anyone to buy into it whole hog. Scientists have never agreed on any new theory, and the black out of contrary voices means something. Models that cannot predict, is a theory that cannot predict. What happens when a theory does not predict, but results are fudged, changed, in order to make it look valid? LOL This isn't science, this looks like politics, the usual dirty tricks. The climate should be warming, for we are in a warming cycle, and it will warm up until ice caps are gone. So it happens with or without fossil fuels. And to date, climatologists cannot with accuracy say how much is fossil fuel co2 and how much is natural cyclical warming. The reason is, these guys do not understand climate change well enough to tell us or to make accurate predictions based upon models which reflect their degree of understanding. It is a softer science than psychology and we know more about consciousness which we do not understand at all, than climate change. They used to admit it until the IPCC wanted evidence to back up what they had already concluded, driven by a mass redistribution of income from the masses into a few hands at the top. Just a new ruse to separate people from their money, funnled into the hands of those who can never be satiated. Just your normal sociopath/psychopath.
                      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 09-05-2017, 02:12 PM.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                        Well you guys sure are no different when it comes to russia and the sanctions, on someone who had nothing to do with wilkileaks or hillary getting beat..and after your party had already crowned her even before the primaries began. Trouble is, we have neocons in both parties who believe we can win in MAD. And we have a democrat party who would rather create the environment for war with russia by using them as a scapegoat. Hey, I am neither liberal nor conservative, so my views are not tainted by this silly tribalism which we should have evolved out of long ago. And I do not believe any critical thinking can be a republican or democrat given what they have become. Two tribes that hate one another, and who hate one another because this is what the oligarchy needs to stay in power. A distraction, a misdirection, and neither side, the voters, are astute enough to see how they are being played.

                        On climate change, there are too many incoherences involved for anyone to buy into it whole hog. Scientists have never agreed on any new theory, and the black out of contrary voices means something. Models that cannot predict, is a theory that cannot predict. What happens when a theory does not predict, but results are fudged, changed, in order to make it look valid? LOL This isn't science, this looks like politics, the usual dirty tricks. The climate should be warming, for we are in a warming cycle, and it will warm up until ice caps are gone. So it happens with or without fossil fuels. And to date, climatologists cannot with accuracy say how much is fossil fuel co2 and how much is natural cyclical warming. The reason is, these guys do not understand climate change well enough to tell us or to make accurate predictions based upon models which reflect their degree of understanding. It is a softer science than psychology and we know more about consciousness which we do not understand at all, than climate change. They used to admit it until the IPCC wanted evidence to back up what they had already concluded, driven by a mass redistribution of income from the masses into a few hands at the top. Just a new ruse to separate people from their money, funnled into the hands of those who can never be satiated. Just your normal sociopath/psychopath.
                        The only thing I know for sure is that when the climate change shit hits the fan it will all be Obama's fault.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                          The only thing I know for sure is that when the climate change shit hits the fan it will all be Obama's fault.
                          Only a fool would blame an insignificant nut like obama for the weather LOL

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            Only a fool would blame an insignificant nut like obama for the weather LOL
                            The fools have no trouble for everything else why not the weather.Haven't you heard Trump whining about the horrible mess he was left with?

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              The fools have no trouble for everything else why not the weather.Haven't you heard Trump whining about the horrible mess he was left with?
                              That Bush left him with ? Or was it Carter ? Or Clinton ? Maybe obama, but obama leaves no mess . . . just ask michelle ..

                              ?


                              • Massive Arctic Ice Gain Over The Past Five Years

                                https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...st-five-years/

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X