Who still takes global warming seriously?

cavemonkey wrote:

I guessing

You'm guessing?

The ‘Perfect Storm’

Oxfam America, funded by Rockefeller Foundation (See Exposing Oxfam America on this website) is back pushing hard for new ‘Global Warming’ legislation. How do global warming taxes relate to their stated goal of “Working together to end poverty and injustice”? They don’t of course.

Media Matters, funded by George Soros ( See “The Soros Connection part 2" and “Rothschild, Soros, and Rockefeller Want Your Firearms”, both on this website) is also in on the act with an article released on August 2, 2012 titled “Not Grounded In Facts” Environmental Journalism Veterans Slam Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Unfortunately that is not the only issue the globalists are working towards. They are working to remove firearms from the people through the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, a Natural Right; as well as setting the stage for a third world war...

http://keystoliberty.wordpress.com/2012/08/05...

There still are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation.

It's hard to take a purely theoretical science seriously when they are proposing a massive prototype test of climate change mitigation without the least bit of due diligence.

C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes – Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the UN's IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere...

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/09/02/c-e-r-n-sc...

Patriot wrote:

The ‘Perfect Storm’
Oxfam America, funded by Rockefeller Foundation (See Exposing Oxfam America on this website) is back pushing hard for new ‘Global Warming’ legislation. How do global warming taxes relate to their stated goal of “Working together to end poverty and injustice”? They don’t of course.
Media Matters, funded by George Soros ( See “The Soros Connection part 2" and “Rothschild, Soros, and Rockefeller Want Your Firearms”, both on this website) is also in on the act with an article released on August 2, 2012 titled “Not Grounded In Facts” Environmental Journalism Veterans Slam Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
Unfortunately that is not the only issue the globalists are working towards. They are working to remove firearms from the people through the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, a Natural Right; as well as setting the stage for a third world war...
http://keystoliberty.wordpress.com/2012/08/05...

Good grief, now the conspiracy is that global warming is a way to take away your guns. Terrible liberal commies!

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Good grief, now the conspiracy is that global warming is a way to take away your guns. Terrible liberal commies!

Be skeered. Be very skeered!

Talk about alarmism. If I listened to and read all these conspiracy websites and radio winguts, I'd be in a constant state of agitation and probably develop ulcers. And, of course, that's just what they want.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>You'm guessing?

OK, I'm guessing, just guessing, mind you, that you're full of shit.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny what an idiot you are.
The water flowing into Erie will be warmer than average. That'll make everything warmer going into winter.
The guys who know say Erie has warmed an average of 2F in the past 30 years. You probably couldn't feel that. That's why real scientists use thermometers instead of sticking their toes in the water.
Funny how you forgot actually after all that the heat storage properties of water means that actually after all you forgot that one storm won't cool the lakes appreciably.
But by far the best thing about your post is that we now have the answer to why you're so abysmally stupid. You learned to swim in Lake Erie in the '70's when it was a cesspool of human and industrial waste. It's no wonder you're brain damaged.
Or maybe it's funny.

Funny thing is when I checked those water temps I discovered that the water in the lake has not changed. You claim that a guy who knows without saying what he knows. So I was using the data gathered by people using thermometers instead of second hand information from a guy who knows (guesses).

As for the lake in the seventies compared to now. Nothing has changed there either. Just as polluted and just as cool. Funny thing is that the number one source of water for that lake is Lake Huron which is fed by Lake Michigan and Lake Superior which are further to the North and empties into Lake Ontario. Which by the way is far lower.

What you did not expect was someone who grew up on the shores of one of those lakes remembering how cold it was thirty or forty years ago. Who knows what was the major source of water was Lake Huron and not the couple of dozen rivers, most of the ones providing the water coming out of Canada and nearly every one frozen solid by Febuary. Who noticed that the lake is about the same temperatures as it was thirty years earlier and knows that the lake looses heat quickly since it is so shallow compared to the other lakes.

All you had was hope that someone didn't know the facts.

tina anne wrote:

All you had was hope that someone didn't know the facts.

Speaking of facts, I'm sure you read this one.

]http://www.examiner.com/artic le/thousands-of-fish-die-from- heat-wave-as-scientist-blames- climate-change

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You took a long time to respond. Now you claim you are still thinking.
Thought is a noun also. Do look it up. You'll find you used it correctly about me.
Now I'm thinking that this post is way above your level of comprehension. Well, What's a girl like you doing in a place like this?

You mean like because I not here every day pushing lies. Unlike you I have a life. I have a job, family, and friend.

And your right thought is a noun. It is also past tense of thinking.

What is a woman like me doing in a place like this (I am to old to be considered a girl anymore), looking for fools to educate. Lucky I found you.

Here's the link.
http://www.examiner.com/article/thousands-of-...

Oh, and an abstract from your fav CCS who hasn't done any science in years.



Contributed by James Hansen

Abstract

A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

gcaveman1 wrote:

It's not just on land where drought is taking a toll: a 100-mile stretch of the Platte River has dried up, while barges along the lower Mississippi are having to carry less cargo in order to navigate shallower water.
The Mississippi impact is one that goes far beyond the immediate area: About 60 percent of the nation's grain, 22 percent of its oil and gas, and 20 percent of the nation's coal goes down the river. Lighter barges mean longer waits for those products.
It could drop another 2.5 feet by the end of August, National Weather Service meteorologist Marlene Mickelson told Reuters, calling that a "worst-case scenario."
And while it's not as bad as the historic low of 10.7 feet below baseline, recorded in 1988, it is unusual in that it's so early in the season, Mickelson said.
-NBC
The story is that we'll adapt to things like this. What's the best way to adapt? Treads on the barges? Helium balloons tied to them to make them draft less?
Right now the adaptation consists of shipping less. How's that work for the economy?

And not that long ago the Missippi was overflowing it's banks and people blamed it on global warming. Of course alarmist cry while someone like me would say it is a perfect time to dredge the river. Then again you can only see the bad in everything while I am more of an opimist.

Actually a hurricane hitting the area would solve the low water problem and have someone like you whining about how all the flooding that resulted was the fault of man made global warming.

menoworry wrote:

Deniers- or skeptics if you prefer- it"s not your fault. you're just too stupid to understand CC, caused by man, is real and here, now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/201...

Actually, we are not stupid enought to fall for a scam.
Maybe you should study history and discover how it has been tried in the past.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of facts, I'm sure you read this one.
]http://www.examiner.com/artic le/thousands-of-fish-die-from- heat-wave-as-scientist-blames- climate-change

Yes, and guess what, they have had such things happened in the past and yet the fish cam back. Which with the carp can be a bad thing, after all they are worthless as a source of food and a invader who was causing as much if not more damage to the enviroment.

Maybe you should do a little more research instead of grabbing the silly stuff and hoping that it will impress those who know. Oh, by the way, do you know that the Missippi has been this warm and this low in the past.

http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publication...

http://climate.umn.edu/pdf/drought88.pdf

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny thing is when I checked those water temps I discovered that the water in the lake has not changed. facts say differently.

You're lying again.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
And not that long ago the Missippi was overflowing it's banks and people blamed it on global warming. Of course alarmist cry while someone like me would say it is a perfect time to dredge the river. Then again you can only see the bad in everything while I am more of an opimist.
Actually a hurricane hitting the area would solve the low water problem and have someone like you whining about how all the flooding that resulted was the fault of man made global warming.

You are so stupid it's painful.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and guess what, they have had such things happened in the past and yet the fish cam back. Which with the carp can be a bad thing, after all they are worthless as a source of food and a invader who was causing as much if not more damage to the enviroment.
Maybe you should do a little more research instead of grabbing the silly stuff and hoping that it will impress those who know. Oh, by the way, do you know that the Missippi has been this warm and this low in the past.
http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publication...
http://climate.umn.edu/pdf/drought88.pdf

You should read your tripe a little closer.

Your first link is 2000 and the cause was:
"These species have invaded our Midwestern rivers, through pond escapement or by deliberate introductions..."

Whereas the link I gave, is current and the cause was attributed to GW.

Your second link is even older and if you're trying to compare our current drought with the 88 drought, you're swimming in a dry river bed.

Maybe your problem with this CC/etal thing is that you never read anything current.

No mention of the abstract from your fav scientist, huh?

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're lying again.

Am I? Or is it I told you things you did not want people to hear. Facts that you hoped no one would notice. Before you claim I didn't, did you actually look up past lake temperatures and compared them to current or are you relying on second hand information from your friend in the know.

You claim I am lying but how do we know you are telling the truth.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so stupid it's painful.

More like the truth is painful. Then again the truth normally is.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>You should read your tripe a little closer.
Your first link is 2000 and the cause was:
"These species have invaded our Midwestern rivers, through pond escapement or by deliberate introductions..."
Whereas the link I gave, is current and the cause was attributed to GW.
Your second link is even older and if you're trying to compare our current drought with the 88 drought, you're swimming in a dry river bed.
Maybe your problem with this CC/etal thing is that you never read anything current.
No mention of the abstract from your fav scientist, huh?

Yet, the fact that they have invaded and are doing damage. So the death of such a species is actually a good thing.

Why not compare the current drought to past droughts if your going to claim it is the result of man made global warming. Oh wait, silly me. I see, comparing them to past droughts means that it proves that this has happened in the past. That this is something that did happen before.