Climate change: it is a hoax!

[3fan4life]

Well, now 'they' are saying the new ice age and mass extinction will start in 2020.  Just like Roseanne Roseanna Danna would say, 'its always something'.

It's a good thing that I have a set of Gerbings.

Maybe someone should come up with a set of studded snow tires for our Valks. 

[Oss]

Arrogant bastards all who try to force an agenda down our throats..............

Follow the money indeed, always ask who stands to benefit from x or y

The sun warms the earth, the earth responds with weather, like hurricanes

Weather is the engine that helps the earth throw off the heat

Some centuries have been cold, some warmer, as follows sun and sunspot activity and volcanic activity and random hits from space

IMHO The real crisis has been pollution of the waters and air by radiactive waste from nuclear accidents and intentional blasts, sewage and industrial chemical company greed and of course WAR.
This is not a US problem but a worldwide problem. And it has been for a long long time.

If that money that the snowflakes want us to pay went only to cleaning the oceans, the land etc we would be putting millions to work and improving quality of life, but again who benefits from "carbon tax? "   Who gets rich, who gets kickbacks, who is living large off of USA?

Hint. ..  Clinton, Soros, Socialist agendas  They say all are equal but some are more equal than others

[G-Man]

I would have an easier time believing the "climate change" experts if they had not joined in with the "new world order" crowd  in an attempt to SELL carbon vouchers as a means to get around correcting their mistakes, to the countries that they deemed as the worst offenders.
 
Guess who was going to pay the most?  (yup the good ol' USA) Just another attempt to transfer the wealth in my opinion.

All you have to do to make up your own mind whether it is real or not is FOLLOW THE MONEY !

Jim

FINALLY ! ! ! ! !     

Absofuckinglutely!  And.......  THANK GOODNESS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP who said NO MORE.  America's middle class will no longer bear the costs for for NATO and Climate "Justice".  The new term used to describe America sending it's middle class wealth to other countries to "help" them go green. 

Leave my pocketbook alone already.  Stop sending MY MONEY to countries who hate us, who declare we are evil, and to those who won't clean up their own water, air, and land.  Leave me and my paycheck out of it.

[MP]

So... US just faced 2 biblical hurricanes in a single week (and there is a third one in the middle Atlantic, something unheard of in the recorded history).

In the Northwest we had record snowfalls this winter and now temperatures are on triple digits, while the forests burn (see LA as an example).

But I guess this whole climate change is just shenanigans... right? :-P

Cant count how many times the Lib media has said "Irma is the worst hurricane EVER!"

Irma is only the SEVENTH strongest hurricane to hit Florida!  Andrew and Charlie were BOTH stronger, within our lifetimes!

The strongest, in Florida, was in 1935!

Lies are just being made up right and left!

EVERY storm now is caused by Climate Change.

We had NO STORMS before 1950?

Lying pieces of crap.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Arrogant bastards all who try to force an agenda down our throats..............

Follow the money indeed, always ask who stands to benefit from x or y

The sun warms the earth, the earth responds with weather, like hurricanes

Weather is the engine that helps the earth throw off the heat

Some centuries have been cold, some warmer, as follows sun and sunspot activity and volcanic activity and random hits from space

IMHO The real crisis has been pollution of the waters and air by radiactive waste from nuclear accidents and intentional blasts, sewage and industrial chemical company greed and of course WAR.
This is not a US problem but a worldwide problem. And it has been for a long long time.

If that money that the snowflakes want us to pay went only to cleaning the oceans, the land etc we would be putting millions to work and improving quality of life, but again who benefits from "carbon tax? "   Who gets rich, who gets kickbacks, who is living large off of USA?

Hint. ..  Clinton, Soros, Socialist agendas  They say all are equal but some are more equal than others

Evan my friend, I agree with most of what you said. But, as to following the money. There is much money to be made by deniers in the Energy industry also. Neither side is pure. Greed is universal.

[G-Man]

The resultant cold was caused by the crap in the air not letting sunlight reach the surface.  Opposite of today's condition where the pollutants let the suns heat in but reflect back the heat radiated by the earth that would normally escape into space.

So those pollutants, CO2, have one way valves on them?  They only contain the heat reflected back but it doesn't block the heat coming from the other direction?  That's pretty convenient for one side of the discussion, isn't it?

[Serk]

Lies are just being made up right and left!

Mostly left.

[scooperhsd]

So... US just faced 2 biblical hurricanes in a single week (and there is a third one in the middle Atlantic, something unheard of in the recorded history).

In the Northwest we had record snowfalls this winter and now temperatures are on triple digits, while the forests burn (see LA as an example).

But I guess this whole climate change is just shenanigans... right? :-P

Cant count how many times the Lib media has said "Irma is the worst hurricane EVER!"

Irma is only the SEVENTH strongest hurricane to hit Florida!  Andrew and Charlie were BOTH stronger, within our lifetimes!

The strongest, in Florida, was in 1935!

Lies are just being made up right and left!

EVERY storm now is caused by Climate Change.

We had NO STORMS before 1950?

Lying pieces of crap.

That depends on how you want to count it.

In sheer size - Irma made Andrew look like a thunderstorm, While being pretty darn close in eyewall winds. It will not surprise me if Irma is far and away the most expensive storm ever to hit FL or any of the 48 states.

[The emperor has no clothes]

https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-effect

It's not rocket science.

[G-Man]

None of this will matter in a few years.  They have finally gotten us to the point where the older generations, who have lived through all of the previous eventual earth catastrophes that never happened, are getting older and becoming the minority.  It is being taught in schools that the incredibly minor change in the global atmospheric temperature is the cause for all extreme weather occurrences of modern times and unemployment in the middle east which leads to radicalization of terrorists.  You got it.  Weather and terrorism are my car's fault and I should pay more.  Simple as that.  

Pretty soon, all living generations will have been taught to see the light and there won't be any disbelievers mucking up the plans for redistributing all of America's wealth, thereby making everyone in the world evenly poor and dependent on things like the clinton fund to provide toilet paper to us all.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Lies are just being made up right and left!

Mostly left.

Right 

[Chrisj CMA]

At some point in time I believe dinosaurs roamed the earth. Wasn't it warm. If memory serves me correct didn't the earth go through an ice age killing off said dinosaurs?

it was a meteor, 65 million years ago. Hit off where the Yucatán peninsula is. Raised so much atmospheric pollutionc they starved and suffocated.  BTW without that meteor mankind would likely not exist. The resultant cold was caused by the crap in the air not letting sunlight reach the surface.  Opposite of today's condition where the pollutants let the suns heat in but reflect back the heat radiated by the earth that would normally escape into space.

Sounds like a complicated evil load of pollitants.  We really don't have a choice but to deal with however the climate of the earth might change.  To believe for one, we have the power to manipulate that change and two, that we can command it to change the way we want it to and three, to believe we actually know how better to change it gives mankind way more credit than deserved.

There are those that want all concrete to be removed, roads gone back to nature, no cars, no private conveyance, no private property. They think animals and trees should be given priority over humans.  Oh and by the ones that buy into this (agenda 21) also believe there are way too many people.  Many need to be killed to insure the survival of the rest.

If you are going to subscribe to any part of this insanity then at least know what you are buying into.

The climate change agenda is a veil for:

Wealth redistribution
One world bank & government
Elite few owning and ruling everything else

[sutterhome]

Read this a while back, this has been going on for some time I would guess.

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

[signart]

You can't tell me climate change isn't man made. About 8 million (give or take) Floridians without electricity and gas, already downgrading the other two hurricanes!

[Pete]

You can't tell me climate change isn't man made. About 8 million (give or take) Floridians without electricity and gas, already downgrading the other two hurricanes!

Sure I can if I can stop laughing

[Robert]

So... US just faced 2 biblical hurricanes in a single week (and there is a third one in the middle Atlantic, something unheard of in the recorded history).

In the Northwest we had record snowfalls this winter and now temperatures are on triple digits, while the forests burn (see LA as an example).

But I guess this whole climate change is just shenanigans... right? :-P

 To set the record straight this is the original post, saying  that The storms  are attributed to climate change even though he mentions "biblical proportions"  to me that is confusing how can you make a biblical reference and attribute it to a science.  Especially when in the Bible it was foretold that these kind of events would happen so I am righting  The wrong reason or cause  of the storms.  climate change is a hoax but those who don't like the Bible will look for any other reason and not understand or attribute it to what was foretold in the Bible.

It has been amazing how many things in our times have aligned with what the Bible predicted yet they still won't believe. We may find a scientific reason for the storms but it still has nothing to do with climate change and it is still predicted in the Bible.

So regardless if you bet on science or on the Bible it's still much better than climate change. climate change It's kind of like chicken Little.

[Varmintmist]

Didn't realize climate matters were a religion.  I do believe in the scientific method.

So do I, which is why its a hoax.
It has to be provable (fail to this day man made climate anything is a theory) testable (fail, there are exactly zero climate models that have proved true) repeatable (fail, there are no climate models that you can put in historical data and it gives the approximate historical result)

[Varmintmist]

Why is it when there is a cooling trend or massive snow and cold weather when the models predict warming, it is just weather and has nothing to do with disproving climate change, but if its hot or stormy, the weather proves climate change?

[Karen]

Gravity is. Weather is. Sun is. Earth is. Milky Way is. Universe is. Amazing how much we've learned, but how little we actually know. Snake oil salesmen in every generation. Kings of the World are everywhere.
Do termites know and understand our human existence? I believe they wood, if they could...

[Serk]

[Hacked Valk]

The resultant cold was caused by the crap in the air not letting sunlight reach the surface.  Opposite of today's condition where the pollutants let the suns heat in but reflect back the heat radiated by the earth that would normally escape into space.

So those pollutants, CO2, have one way valves on them?  They only contain the heat reflected back but it doesn't block the heat coming from the other direction?  That's pretty convenient for one side of the discussion, isn't it?

They actually do have one way valves built in.  It has to do with the wave length of the radiation. Most greenhouse gases pass the direct solar radiation in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum. The earth absorbs that energy and eventually must retransmit that energy back into space.  Otherwise the earth would eventually become as hot as the sun.  The heat the earth transmits back is mostly in the Long wave infrared spectrum.  This is the energy that the greenhouse gases block and absorb.  This increases the overall temperature of our atmospheric  environment and eventually the troposphere and surface.  Global warming is an established fact.  Don't believe me, that's fine.  Talk to NASA and ask about the satellites in orbit that are measuring this fact since 1979.  Here's a NASA website listing lots of events that affect earths temperature, natural and not.  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article concerning levels of CO2 emitted by volcanoes versus man caused. 
"On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made......."

[baldo]

Do termites know and understand our human existence? I believe they wood, if they could...

groannnnnnnnn......

[Gavin_Sons]

The resultant cold was caused by the crap in the air not letting sunlight reach the surface.  Opposite of today's condition where the pollutants let the suns heat in but reflect back the heat radiated by the earth that would normally escape into space.

So those pollutants, CO2, have one way valves on them?  They only contain the heat reflected back but it doesn't block the heat coming from the other direction?  That's pretty convenient for one side of the discussion, isn't it?

They actually do have one way valves built in.  It has to do with the wave length of the radiation. Most greenhouse gases pass the direct solar radiation in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum. The earth absorbs that energy and eventually must retransmit that energy back into space.  Otherwise the earth would eventually become as hot as the sun.  The heat the earth transmits back is mostly in the Long wave infrared spectrum.  This is the energy that the greenhouse gases block and absorb.  This increases the overall temperature of our atmospheric  environment and eventually the troposphere and surface.  Global warming is an established fact.  Don't believe me, that's fine.  Talk to NASA and ask about the satellites in orbit that are measuring this fact since 1979.  Here's a NASA website listing lots of events that affect earths temperature, natural and not.  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
Here is an interesting excerpt from the article concerning levels of CO2 emitted by volcanoes versus man caused. 
"On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made......."

This is all hearsay. Yes the earth is in a warming pattern. What happens in 15 years when it is in a cooling pattern? Then what will we call it? What will we blame it on then? I have no doubt that man causes pollution and does not help matters any. But i think their numbers are still crooked because they are being paid to fudge the numbers. We all will be dead long before the earth overheats or freezes or whatever the next money maker shall be. I'll continue to drive my gas guzzling truck and ride my bike without a care in the world. I'll be sitting back and waiting as the earth starts it's cooling trend and point my finger and say i told you so. Oh wait, many experts say earth has started a cooling trend. These guys are like weather men, they don't know what will happen until it happens. Just like Irma, first it was going up the western side of Florida, then through the middle, and ended up coming in on the southeastern side up through the middle. Said it was going to be horrible with 15 foot surges. Ended up being 5 foot surges. Yes it was horrible but my point is they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. All they can do is write a bunch of stuff down and make an educated guess. Which does not seem very educated these days. Rant off 

[0leman]

I have sat here reading the above post while enjoying my morning coffee.  Finally decided to add to this mess.

CO2 is mainly plant food.  The more in the air the better plants like it.  Levels less than 200 ppm would cause plants to shut down, mankind would suffer.  The experts don't know what the ideal level of CO2 is for plants.  CO2 is not a pollutant.

There has been a mass of "Scientific" papers release in the last few years telling us that man made CO2 is bad and is causing climate change.   WHY, because if you say man made climate change is not happening you don't get grants.   Follow the money.   There are a lot of papers coming out saying maybe the theory of us causing climate change is not right.  Strange what a change in POTUS can do.

Back a ways the UN climate folks requested that a program be developed that showed CO2 was the cause of the warming of the planet.   These did a good job in doing so because they only looked at CO2 not the other potential causes.  These programs have failed to show what is happening in the real world  The projected temps are way higher than actual  temps.  WHY, because there are too many variables in our climate which no one has a cue how they work.  These variables values  were WAG's.   IF someone tells you that they do, they are lying.

As far as BIG OIL funding the deniers, show me the money.   Most of these folks are doing so on their own.  

AND Science folks should always be looking at theories, such as Man Caused Climate Change, to see if the facts prove these theories.  Nothing is ever correct until it can be verified over and over again.    Man Made Climate Change has not be verified yet.  

[Pete]

First it was global warming then it was climate change and now some say global cooling.

Pardon me, if you cannot name it how come you think you can define it and expect anyone to believe it?

The comment about weathermen prediction vs climate-men prediction seems a valid concern.

An oft quoted weathermen comment is "they could improve the forecast accuracy by 50 percent it they would just install a window at the weather forecast site".

Hummmmm.................. what do climate changers need?

[Serk]

Didn't realize climate matters were a religion.  I do believe in the scientific method.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

And now they're trying to make heresy of the religion of climatology a crime:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/

[The emperor has no clothes]

Didn't realize climate matters were a religion.  I do believe in the scientific method.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

And now they're trying to make heresy of the religion of climatology a crime:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/

Everybody knows ducks can't take the heat. Maybe quail ?

[cokebottle10]

Just my observations

Oceans raising, there are a lot of structures built in the oceans on stable bedrock that are over a 100 years old. The old 7-mile bridge in Key West for one. If the oceans are raising, then the evidence should be on these structures.

Pollution, I move to the Asheville area in 1987. I remember going to the highest point on the Blue ridge Parkway and seeing a lot of standing dead trees. Today they are just a few of the standing dead. Also when you stand on top of Mt. Mitchell and look out at the forest all around you have to keep in mind that every tree that you see has been clear cut at one time or another. There is no old growth forest with in site of there.

I waCs raised in Tampa in the 60s. I remember Tampa bay being so polluted that you did not want to be near it at low tide. This is where Tampa dumped it sewage. During Hurricane Irma people were walking out on what look to be a fairly clean bay mud flat.

I use to fly a lot for my job. Now I avoid it as much as I can. When I did fly I would notice we would always pass through a layer of (for lack of a better word) dirt. This happen every trip.

CO2, Plants use CO2, more CO2= more plants. Greenhouse effect. More plants less CO2. Less CO2= less plants. I have not seen a good reason why CO2 is a Pollutant or why it should be regulated.

Carbon credits, This just seems to be a way to transfer wealth and not fix the problem. A better way to fix the problem would be to charge an “environment impact” fee on imports. If you want to import products into the USA then those products need to be made following the same regulations as they are in the USA. Does anyone think that India, China, or Mexico has environment laws that are even close to ours? This would be more of a level playing field for trade and help fix the environment.

Are we polluting the environment? I think so. Is our pollution causing climate change? I think so, but not near as much as some people think. I also think that we as a country have come a long way in fixing it, but we can’t be the only ones along with a few others working on and paying for this problem.

Thanks, David in Fletcher NC.

[Jess from VA]

The science is simply not established, either way.  Of course, millions and millions have been spent to verify it, not un-verify it.  Of course, whether it's true or not, bad pollution should be limited as much as possible; within reasonable political and economic limits.

What is certain is that the socialists have adopted it as an essential part of their mantra and platform for higher taxes, more government, less freedom, and total control of the population.  Green IS the new red. 

Accordingly, I do not believe it at all.  I despise it, as I do all things socialist. 

I'm always open to hearing more pure science on the subject. 

I'm never open to hearing more pure socialism.

[RP#62]

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/video/1_gc8w96pr

-RP

[Hacked Valk]

NASA's take. Easy to read with great graphs and one page long. What you got to lose besides 5 minutes. 
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

[RP#62]

NASA's take. Easy to read with great graphs and one page long. What you got to lose besides 5 minutes. 
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

It was an easy read.  Says in essence that the warming trend indicated by NOAA data cannot be explained by volcanic activity, or  solar activity or natural variation alone, therefore it must be because of human activity.  I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't mention that the human activity was NOAA adjusting the data points that didn't support the warming trend they were trying to show.  If you take the NOAA adjustments out (which include interpolations where data was missing due to inoperative sensors) any increases are slight and easily within natural variation.

-RP

[DirtyDan]

GREEN like a watermelon inside is.........RED !

Dan

[Hacked Valk]

NASA's take. Easy to read with great graphs and one page long. What you got to lose besides 5 minutes. 
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

It was an easy read.  Says in essence that the warming trend indicated by NOAA data cannot be explained by volcanic activity, or  solar activity or natural variation alone, therefore it must be because of human activity.  I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't mention that the human activity was NOAA adjusting the data points that didn't support the warming trend they were trying to show.  If you take the NOAA adjustments out (which include interpolations where data was missing due to inoperative sensors) any increases are slight and easily within natural variation.

-RP

your source for that claim?

[Serk]

NASA's take. Easy to read with great graphs and one page long. What you got to lose besides 5 minutes. 
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

It was an easy read.  Says in essence that the warming trend indicated by NOAA data cannot be explained by volcanic activity, or  solar activity or natural variation alone, therefore it must be because of human activity.  I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't mention that the human activity was NOAA adjusting the data points that didn't support the warming trend they were trying to show.  If you take the NOAA adjustments out (which include interpolations where data was missing due to inoperative sensors) any increases are slight and easily within natural variation.

-RP

your source for that claim?

Here ya' go:

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records

And I'll save ya' the trouble of posting the Snopes rebuttal, although I think Snopes is less trust-worthy than CNN by this point:

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

[JimC]

It was an easy read.  Says in essence that the warming trend indicated by NOAA data cannot be explained by volcanic activity, or  solar activity or natural variation alone, therefore it must be because of human activity.  I agree with this, but unfortunately it doesn't mention that the human activity was NOAA adjusting the data points that didn't support the warming trend they were trying to show.  If you take the NOAA adjustments out (which include interpolations where data was missing due to inoperative sensors) any increases are slight and easily within natural variation.

I'll say it again, FOLLOW THE MONEY !

Who had the most to gain by fudging the numbers ?  Numbers lie, and lairs figure.

Jim

[0leman]

Hacked Valk,   You need to do some reading from both sides of the Global Warming science.  Not just what the media is pushing.  There are a number of good articles out there on both sides of the subject.  The science is not settled, period.   What is the ideal temp for us?   How much has the temps risen since the 1900's?   How can one figure out that part of temps rising is cause by man?   Temps have risen since the Little Ice age and probably will continue for  a while, hopefully (don't want to go thru another Little Ice age).

There is some indication that NOAA who is suppose to keep our temperature records have been going back and changing the historic records.  Making it seem that the heat wave of the 30's was less worm.  Some folks believe that it was so show man is causing the rise in temps, not nature. Sources, like I said above get on line and start looking. 

Look at some of the "Denier" websites for info on the subject.  You don't have to believe what they say but be aware there is another side to this subject.

[Gavin_Sons]

I'm not a denier, just have a hard time believing what people ram down my throat. And since they are changing records to "prove" man caused this. I'm all for continuing pollution control and even bettering what we put out into the atmosphere. That much can't hurt. But there is no solid proof that what we are doing now is hurting us either. Just another way big brother gets control over the people.   

[Serk]

There is a chasm of difference between "Hey, let's make sure rivers don't catch on fire" and "Hey, we need to start regulating cow farts."

We've successfully gotten well past burning rivers, but when we start regulating cow farts, it's been taken WAY too far...

[Hacked Valk]

That was a purely political link.  I did read it but didn't bother going to the Snoops rebuttal. I didn't need to because of the well established reputation of Lamar Smith.  A onetime Breitbart contributor from Texas whose funding comes from oil and gas companies and is well known for making baseless claims and attacks on scientific organizations and researchers.  Typical politician protecting his backer. 

Provide me with  sources of findings of scientific evidence that have been duplicated by and confirmed multiple times by legitimate scientific organizations confirming there is no effect on climate by burning fossil fuels.  If you believe science is manipulated by money you are incorrect.  Scientists love nothing better than being able to disprove claims of competitors. It's how fame and reputations are established.  Fake claims are soon disproven as the fake science of climate change deniers has been.  The Republican Party has a real problem having backed themselves into a corner denying global warming. You may rest assured you will soon moderate their stand to a more realistic version. In private they are being convinced of the Science but need to be wary of offending their base that selects candidates based on how willing they are to promote conspiracy theories and project constituents anger of helplessness.