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

  • 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.
    Mankind managed to adjust to far greater shifts in the global climate over the last 1,000 years when we were less prosperous, with far fewer technological modes of adaptation than even the most extreme outliers in the various climate models show over the next 200 years, we are perfectly capable of adjusting to the worst of what is modeled with current technology, let alone with the as-yet unimagined technologies that will undoubtedly come into play over the next two centuries.

    The real issue (for non-ideologues) is whether the net present value of what it costs to adapt (which we can) greater or less than the net present value of the long term costs of ameliorating our impact. But to an ideologue, whose flawed premise is demonstrably that we are hurting the planet, and that any human impact is necessarily bad, period, we can't have that rational discussion.

    Take Al Gore's truly idiotic analogy:

    Mocking global warming deniers, Gore said, The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you dont say, well I read a science fiction novel that tells me its not a problem. If the cribs on fire, you dont speculate that the baby is flame-retardant. You take action. The planet has a fever.
    STUPID! Unlike a human being, which does have a pretty clearly defined, historically proven, narrow range of normal and healthy body temperature, the planet does NOT. There is no "normal" climate for the planet. Since there is truly no normal natural climate (the planets climate has gone through significant natural warming and cooling cycles long before man could even possibly have had any impact on it), that leaves us with the logical inference from Gore's shoddy analogy that ANY impact we have must be bad, which as I have posted elsewhere is a flawed assumption.

    ?


    • Climate Alarmists Finally Admit We Were Wrong About Global Warming

      Climate alarmists have finally admitted that theyve got it wrong on global warming.

      This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted.

      The paper titled Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C concedes that it is now almost impossible that the doomsday predictions made in the last IPCC Assessment Report of 1.5 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels by 2022 will come true.

      In order for that to happen, temperatures would have to rise by a massive 0.5 degrees C in five years.

      Since global mean temperatures rarely rise by even as much as 0.25 degrees C in a decade, that would mean the planet would have to do 20 years worth of extreme warming in the space of the next five years.
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...lobal-warming/

      ?


      • "...prominent climate-change scientists are admitting their models predicting global warming were wrong.."

        Yes, we knew that.

        Nevermind, some big liberal cities in california are trying to sue oil companies about the non-existing consensus over man caused climate change, global warming etc.

        Yes, california... keeping us always entertained.

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

        Just as prominent climate-change scientists are admitting their models predicting global warming were wrong, the city of San Francisco is suing five of the worlds largest oil and gas companies based on the scientific consensus that mankind is causing catastrophic damage to the planet through fossil fuels and other carbon emissions.

        ...

        just last week, Nature Geoscience published a study admitting that computer modeling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming.

        Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the studys authors, told the Times newspaper of London: We havent seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We havent seen that in the observations.

        According to the Times, another of the papers authors, Michael Grubb, a professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admitted his earlier forecasting models had overplayed how temperatures would rise.

        ..

        Steven Hayward, in a post for the Powerline blog, pointed out that the most ambitious global effort to combat climate change, the Paris Climate Accord, even if fully implemented, promises to barely slow global warming, noting former NASA chief James Hansen called the agreement a fraud.

        Hayward also recalled a statement by study-author Grubb at the Paris climate summit in 2015 indicating the authoritarian political agenda of many global-warming theorists who are on record advocating forced global wealth redistribution.

        Grubb said, referring to the Paris Climate Accord goal for reducing temperature: All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.

        The scientists statement, said Hayward, was a revealing slip of the mask.

        When President Trump announced in June that the U.S. was pulling out of the Paris agreement, Tim Ball, a retired climatologist at the University of Winnipeg and author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, told WND that aside from relying on false science, the Paris Climate Accord was a bad deal economically and was deliberately designed to punish the United States.

        Ball said the Paris climate deal was the latest incarnation of the old Kyoto Protocol from the 1990s that sought to redistribute wealth from the industrial nations. He contends the Green Climate Fund, which is part of the Paris agreement, is the latest effort in that regard.

        Ball pointed out the nonbinding nature of the agreement which is the only way the deal could be struck means most nations have not contributed what theyve pledged to the Green Climate Fund.


        http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/san-franc...ite-new-study/

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

        In other-words, this "agreement" was a fraud from the beginning.

        No matter what you think of the current president, you can thank him for not getting us into this ridiculous mess.


        ?


        • US stands alone now. Climate deniers couldn't be happier. They like being the kid who sits all by himself at lunch. .http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politi...ent/index.html

          ?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post
            US stands alone now. Climate deniers couldn't be happier. They like being the kid who sits all by himself at lunch. .http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politi...ent/index.html
            The vast majority of countries that sign on to these so called climate deals do so for one reason only - money. Its a wealth distribution scheme and they are on the receiving end.

            There's another one of these meetings going on in Germany. Skeptics are toasting Trump's courageous decision.

            Dusseldorf, Germany Global warming skeptics have descended upon the UN climate summit in Germany this week, hosting a summit of their own to highlight the errors of the UNs climate change claims. On the final day of the skeptics climate summit, the group gathered for a champagne toast to the U.S. climate exit or clexit from the UN Paris pact.

            Europeans at German summit praise USA for exiting UN climate pact:

            Lord Christopher Monckton, former Thatcher adviser: President Trump is right. He speaks not only for the former Democrat workers from the rust-belt states whom the new totalitarians have callously abandoned but also for all who fear the establishment of global totalitarian rule on the specious pretext of saving the planet. The science behind global warming has collapsed. So too will the climate process, a rent-seekers nirvana in which the many are compelled to impoverish themselves to enrich the gilded few.

            Dr. Holger Thus, President of the EIKE European Institute for Climate & Energy on U.S. climate exit: It was very important. What people dont want to see is the U.S. is blamed for a lot of things, but in the past it has also been paying for a lot of things. The core of the message of President Trump was is that he is no longer willing to pay things are not in the interest of the United Sates. The U.S. could be a policy model for other countries. There are many countries that are thinking of undertaking such steps.

            French climate skeptic Pierre Bouteille of the French group Climato-Ralistes on U.S. climate exit: It was a boost to our morale. On climate Trump is doing the right thing. He is appointing the right people.

            Craig Rucker, the executive director of CFACT: The Europeans congratulate the U.S. for the courage to stand up to the UN, academia and the media and are willingness to go it alone when it comes to the UN Paris pact. A champagne toast celebrating the U.S. withdrawal during the UN climate summit was the perfect message to send to the UN climate summit.

            Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, author of upcoming book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: President Trump waded into a religious war by going after UN climate pact. The former UN chief has actually said global warming is my religion. Trump is actually standing up and willing to taking on the religion of climate change. No modern leader other than former Czech President Vaclav Klaus has shown this kind of strength. Trump is a leader! When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he was called the reckless cowboy and many were worried. This is what leadership looks like, you buck even your allies and do whats right not only for your country but for the planet. The planet does not need nonsense about a UN climate treaty somehow saving us and now we are all doomed because we did not adhere to it. That is belief in superstition. This is America reborn. Trump is showing unbelievable courage.

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/...it-in-germany/

            ?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post
              US stands alone now. Climate deniers couldn't be happier. They like being the kid who sits all by himself at lunch. .http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politi...ent/index.html
              Yeah, the fraud of it is exposed sorry, that's not "denying" something, that's exposing it as the fraud it is.

              Deniers are people like YOU who reject science !! LOL

              Globalwarmingclimatechangeendoftheworldbullshirt scam exposed..

              Again.

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

              Mother Nature is not cooperating with fake global warming science because the Earth has failed to warm for the last two decades. That simple fact is obscured by the propaganda of the climate catastrophe industry.

              ====================

              As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstitions annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Mans entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this months RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last months record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.

              It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAAs statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

              The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzens former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roes model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.


              http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...mmit-in-paris/

              ====================

              The scientists who openly oppose the climate catastrophe industry are invariably retired or otherwise occupy impregnable positions that protect them from economic retaliation. There are plenty of informed climate skeptics. You can consult a list of 1,000 such scientists that oppose global warming alarmism.

              ====================

              More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

              http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/...n-ipcc-gore-2/

              =====================

              Predicting the future climate of the Earth by using computer models is not solid science. The predictions are subject to manipulation and uncertainty. Predictions are made by averaging the results from models that dont agree with each other, and that dont even use the same climate histories to calibrate the models. At best the methodology is highly dubious, at worst the methodology is simply a pseudoscientific smokescreen designed to produce a predetermined result.

              Opinion on global warming/climate catastrophe is split between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats generally buy into global warming. The green part of their electoral base represented by fanatical believer organizations, like the Sierra Club, practically forces democrat politicians to preach climate catastrophe. The Republicans are generally skeptical, but sometimes favor green policies such as solar power or wind power. A few politicians, such as Ted Cruz, actually show glimmers of understanding the scientific issues.

              As the Italian philosopher Wilfredo Pareto pointed out, people form their opinions based on passion. Resort to logic and data is basically window dressing to support their previously adopted opinions. Thats why it is so difficult to make ideological conversions by means of logical argument.

              Scientists are supposed to be different and form their opinions based on logical analysis. But catastrophe theories are the geese that lay golden eggs. If a school of scientists can invent a catastrophe theory they will be showered with government money. After all, it is the governments job to prevent catastrophes. There are plenty of scientists for whom science trumps money, but for the important bureaucrat scientists that exercise power and run things, money trumps science by a mile.


              http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...eating_it.html


              ?


              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Yeah, the fraud of it is exposed sorry, that's not "denying" something, that's exposing it as the fraud it is.

                Deniers are people like YOU who reject science !! LOL

                Globalwarmingclimatechangeendoftheworldbullshirt scam exposed..

                Again.

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

                Mother Nature is not cooperating with fake global warming science because the Earth has failed to warm for the last two decades. That simple fact is obscured by the propaganda of the climate catastrophe industry.

                ====================

                As the faithful gather around their capering shamans in Paris for the New Superstitions annual festival of worship, the Pause lengthens yet again. One-third of Mans entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all (Fig. 1). With this months RSS temperature record, the Pause beats last months record and now stands at 18 years 9 months.

                It is worth understanding just how surprised the modelers ought to be by the persistence of the Pause. NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climate report that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation. The reason for NOAAs statement is that there is supposed to be a sharp and significant instantaneous response to a radiative forcing such as adding CO2 to the air.

                The steepness of this predicted response can be seen in Fig. 1a, which is based on a paper on temperature feedbacks by Professor Richard Lindzens former student Professor Gerard Roe in 2009. The graph of Roes model output shows that the initial expected response to a forcing is supposed to be an immediate and rapid warming. But, despite the very substantial forcings in the 18 years 9 months since February 1997, not a flicker of warming has resulted.


                http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...mmit-in-paris/

                ====================

                The scientists who openly oppose the climate catastrophe industry are invariably retired or otherwise occupy impregnable positions that protect them from economic retaliation. There are plenty of informed climate skeptics. You can consult a list of 1,000 such scientists that oppose global warming alarmism.

                ====================

                More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

                http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/...n-ipcc-gore-2/

                =====================

                Predicting the future climate of the Earth by using computer models is not solid science. The predictions are subject to manipulation and uncertainty. Predictions are made by averaging the results from models that dont agree with each other, and that dont even use the same climate histories to calibrate the models. At best the methodology is highly dubious, at worst the methodology is simply a pseudoscientific smokescreen designed to produce a predetermined result.

                Opinion on global warming/climate catastrophe is split between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats generally buy into global warming. The green part of their electoral base represented by fanatical believer organizations, like the Sierra Club, practically forces democrat politicians to preach climate catastrophe. The Republicans are generally skeptical, but sometimes favor green policies such as solar power or wind power. A few politicians, such as Ted Cruz, actually show glimmers of understanding the scientific issues.

                As the Italian philosopher Wilfredo Pareto pointed out, people form their opinions based on passion. Resort to logic and data is basically window dressing to support their previously adopted opinions. Thats why it is so difficult to make ideological conversions by means of logical argument.

                Scientists are supposed to be different and form their opinions based on logical analysis. But catastrophe theories are the geese that lay golden eggs. If a school of scientists can invent a catastrophe theory they will be showered with government money. After all, it is the governments job to prevent catastrophes. There are plenty of scientists for whom science trumps money, but for the important bureaucrat scientists that exercise power and run things, money trumps science by a mile.


                http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...eating_it.html

                Oh my. The American Thinker the far right propaganda site now that's a credible source for you.

                ?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  Oh my. The American Thinker the far right propaganda site now that's a credible source for you.
                  Typical liberal, attack the source but not the content.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    Typical liberal, attack the source but not the content.
                    Were he to actually read things, even from scientists that give clear explanations and data sources, he might learn something.

                    Learning is fun for some. Scary for others. Especially those who might learn they've been ripped off, and sold bad information, goods & services.

                    They only have cool "snappy comebacks" to offer when debating things they know almost nothing about LOL

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Were he to actually read things, even from scientists that give clear explanations and data sources, he might learn something.

                      Learning is fun for some. Scary for others. Especially those who might learn they've been ripped off, and sold bad information, goods & services.

                      They only have cool "snappy comebacks" to offer when debating things they know almost nothing about LOL
                      It all comes down to who you trust. I know full well who you trust and why you trust them. Let's just say I don't trust your sources and leave it at that.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        It all comes down to who you trust. I know full well who you trust and why you trust them. Let's just say I don't trust your sources and leave it at that.
                        I know this.

                        My only suggestion is to not be so rigid about information from "sources" that may not always support your current beliefs. You miss an opportunity to learn things.

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X