Posted on July 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM in Economy, Education, Environment, Politics, Science, U.S. News | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL
Global Warming Is A Hoax!!!
18 Comments to “Global Warming Is A Hoax!!!”
-
The truly sad thing is that, if the Warmists had focused on positive economic efforts instead of a combination of negative ones in the Civilized World combined with giant hand-outs to the Third World (while classing most Mid-East nations and China as “Developing”) it wouldn’t matter nearly so much that it is/was all based upon bullshit supposition, guesswork, and outright fraud.
-
Do you have proof that Global Warming isn’t real, or are you basing your opinion “upon bullshit supposition, guesswork, and outright fraud,” as delivered by corporate sponsored scientists?
-
I do not need proof that it isn’t real since I’m not the one advocating for change. Those who want the change must provide the proof, which they have failed to do and have been proven liars and frauds in process due to the stupidity of their methodology and their scientists’ and regulatory bodies’ tendency towards corruption.
That all being said, I reiterate that it’s a shame the Warmists sought to use their hype for wealth-redistribution and anti-business actions instead of for moving forward with business to get us to a more energy-independent state. It would have likely worked.
-
-
So in other words, you have no proof, and you’re talking out of your psychotic ass as usual.
-
Ahh the normal non-argument, even to a not completely disagreeing position, that we Americans have come to expect from your sort.
-
97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”
As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those who value science and those who don’t.
-
Sure, Ben; if one does a survey of a small subset of scientists and limits it to specific specialists that have every reason to discard “non-canon” evidence from other specialties, you can get that sort of answer.
Sadly for everyone, that doesn’t come close to making them right when we’re dealing with a variable set as large as is found in predicting cause and effects of planet-wide climate systems.
Of course it also helps when a small group has already poisoned the base models that everyone is using…
Still, if people with other agendas hadn’t tried to use this for their own purposes it wouldn’t have been that bad and would have ended up closer to the image you used.
You see, we have to contend with both the theory and the advocated means of acting upon that theory and somehow keep the arguments about each at least somewhat separated.
-
-
I am amazed that 3 % of experts had the courage to tell the truth . When your career and your funding depends on giving the right answers to the green politboro, you better lie your green butt off.
-
Allan,
They may have included a few academics with sinecure of tenure or some few scientists who aren’t nothing but geologists with a few ( 6 – 12) extra credit hours (Yep, that’s what a Climatology is except for some very new, biased, post-Warmist programs) in the study.
-
-
Ah, yes… Two people with barely a high school education disparaging high level scientists.
Here’s a relevant article: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free -
Mr. Hoffman ,
The real issue is the cost of implementing your solutions to Global Warming . I would like your opinion on the following article . Now I realize you won’t accept the views of any experts I can offer who do not believe in Global Warming, so I went out and found some hard core Global Warming guys from your side of the tracks . The catch is that they believe your windmills, solar cells , and Carbon taxes are doomed to failure . I hope they meet your educational requirements for this discussion.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2153
-
The catch is that they believe your windmills, solar cells , and Carbon taxes are doomed to failure .
They didn’t say anything like that. In fact, they advocated for more government funding for clean energy technologies.
we argue that environmentalists must shift from looking to high carbon prices to drive private sector energy innovation to using low carbon prices to fund public sector research, development, and deployment of clean energy technologies.
Rather than attempting to establish high carbon prices globally in order to create sufficient incentives for private interests to invest in energy technology innovation, this new framework focuses on establishing very modest and politically sustainable carbon prices in developed economies to fund very large public investments in technology innovation and to help bring competitive technologies to market. Rather than viewing private interests and markets as the primary driver of technology innovation, this framework recognizes public investment as the most effective method of driving technology innovation.
I believe that’s what you teabaggers call “socialism.”
-
And, hence, why Allan describe it as doomed to failure. America has rejected socialism as a failed economic policy designed solely for failed people.
You wouldn’t understand that though, being not only non-American, but actively anti-American,, as seen being your gratuitous and childish tendency to call Americans “teabaggers.”
-
-
-
Mr. Hoffman ,
They did reject your whole agenda, which is to drive the price of Carbon based energy high enough so that inefficient sources are the only alternative . I do not agree with the whole global warming idea , but at least these guys recognize that high price energy kills economies . That puts them in the top 1 % of Liberals on the intelligence scale . I am not against green energy that is cheap and abundant . Until you guys do that , deploying alternatives is a waste of money, we ain’t got .
-
I am not against green energy that is cheap and abundant .
It won’t become cheap and abundant unless we put a big effort into R&D. That was their point in the article (which I don’t believe you even read). And if anyone knows how to kill an economy, it’s right-wingers with their deregulation.
-
-
Mr. Hoffman ,
I did not say I agreed with the authors on everything they said. I am only agreeing with them that the present green agenda will fail . It will fail because it does not recognize the high cost of wind and solar is a total waste of capital . It will fail because it does not recognize that driving up the cost of carbon based energy causes economic damage .
In fact I disagree with a lot of what they wrote . I am just acknowledging that they write with clarity .
-
Try not to be perplexed by these kinds of. Doing this runs on the Competing Games
application based out of (and regulated by) the costa rica government in the Netherlands Antilles,
so this means whenever you enroll with this particular Online Casino
along with create your own first downpayment, all your information
that is personal, as well as your on the web deals, tend to be completely covered whether or
not that you are generating a down payment, or maybe that you are extracting your earnings
out of this World-wide-web Casino. -
Hello this is somewhat of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!
DRUDGE RETORT 