xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28468 May 16, 2014
Canton wrote:
More on your link to The Daily Caller...
http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-entire-staff...
Look at the fetid garbage this truck driving climate expert keeps calling facts.
Media Matters? HAHAHAHAHAH.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28469 May 16, 2014
Canton wrote:
I like your radical Mother Jones story in an attempt to belittle the overwhelming majority of the scientific community but the other oil lobby sponsored websites almost seem as if you have an obvious agenda. Perhaps if we look to what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is saying right now...Oh look. The polar ice shelf is collapsing into the ocean. Just like they predicted. Let me know if you need a link to the Conservative farmer who sold his land to fracking and now regrets it because his house is being rocked by earthquakes. I think it was on the news last night. Right next to the record setting wildfires in the west, due to the record setting drought they are having. Better go grab some two year old links from oil lobby propaganda sites or a year old motherjones kook story to try to saddle up next to the absurd claims of FEMA death camps, Obamacare Death Panels and all the other birth certificate garbage you have spewed on the thinking world. Me? I'll stick with the news I saw today. I'll go with the scientists who accurately predicted the HOTEST DECADE IN RECORDED HISTORY while the oil lobby...ooops...I mean the Tea Party was claiming it didn't exist at all. I'll go with what I can see with my own eyes while you cry in denial like a little girl because you and yours just CAN'T ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. No...make that...you are not allowed to admit you are wrong.
I know. Droughts and earthquakes were first discovered in........ 1985.

I'll stick with the real scientists and you can stick with the scientists that are paid for by our politicians that seek to gain as much power over the people as possible.

You see Canton, you have to use some logic here. Oil companies don't need to sell oil. Oil sells itself. In fact, any oil we don't want, India and China will be glad to take off our hands. Saying that oil companies have people trying to sell their product is like saying the Cleveland Browns had to hire people to sell their playoff tickets or the NFL had to hire people to sell Super Bowl tickets.

On the other hand, politicians have been trying to take as much freedom from Americans as they could. You can't give those greedy bastards enough power. They always want more. They look for ways to get more.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28470 May 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. Droughts and earthquakes were first discovered in........ 1985.
I'll stick with the real scientists and you can stick with the scientists that are paid for by our politicians that seek to gain as much power over the people as possible.
You see Canton, you have to use some logic here. Oil companies don't need to sell oil. Oil sells itself. In fact, any oil we don't want, India and China will be glad to take off our hands. Saying that oil companies have people trying to sell their product is like saying the Cleveland Browns had to hire people to sell their playoff tickets or the NFL had to hire people to sell Super Bowl tickets.
On the other hand, politicians have been trying to take as much freedom from Americans as they could. You can't give those greedy bastards enough power. They always want more. They look for ways to get more.
It's proven, you just can't fix TUPID!!
huh

Waverly, OH

#28471 May 16, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's proven, you just can't fix TUPID!!
You don't use any oil products, huh?
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28472 May 16, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>It's proven, you just can't fix TUPID!!
And you are the perfect example of that.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28473 May 16, 2014
Whoops! I guess that 97% went to 96%. One more honest scientist decided to leave the dark side:

Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming
By Doug McKelwayPublished May 16, 2014

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com , which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.

The president repeatedly has rejected naysayers in the climate debate -- most recently, when he spoke May 9 in Mountainview, Calif. "We've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate, he said.

The administration recently released a comprehensive climate report that critics worry will be used to justify additional environmental regulations.

Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/cl...

Oh! And since the common practice of the left is to attack the messenger and not the message, there are multiple outlets reporting the same story including the Canada Free Press and the Telegraph UK.
Ino

Ashburn, VA

#28474 May 16, 2014
They always attack the messenger because they have nothing to say in response to disagree with. Most articles can be cross referenced,but they never read anything posted from any source. Wait for a one liner stupid response to this for proof.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28475 May 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oil companies don't need to sell oil. Oil sells itself.
Canton's point was that oil companies lobby the government. They do this through a variety of front groups. Denying climate change is just seen as being good for their business.

"The American Petroleum Institute (API), is the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, claiming to represent around 400 corporations engaged in oil production, extraction (including hydrofracking), distribution, and other aspects of the industry. API is based in Washington, D.C. and has offices in 27 state capitals.

API is a powerful lobby, spending around $7.3 million on lobbying each year in 2010 and 2009, and spending $6.3 million in 2011.

It is also a major political spender, and has created numerous front groups to advance its political agenda. It also funds groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Canton

Akron, OH

#28476 May 16, 2014
won't you go suck on a huge peter and get chocked on it and die. You are gonna die just by typing back at yourself you dickass fuckface.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28477 May 16, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda.
"Nicola Gulley, editorial director at IOP Publishing, said: "The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning's front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal."

She added: "The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any 'activism' on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times' article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal's high editorial standards. The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available."

In their reports, the reviewers stated that "the overall innovation of the manuscript is very low", and this meant it did not meet requirements for the papers in the journal to "significantly advance knowledge in the field".

They wrote: "The comparison between observation based estimates of [warming] and model-based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage."

Other academics defended the peer-review process. Simon Lewis, reader in global change science at University College London, said: "What counts are the reasons the editor gave for rejection. They were because the paper contained important errors and didn't add enough that was new to warrant publication. Looking at all the comments by the reviewer they suggested how the paper might be rewritten in the future to make it a solid contribution to science. That's not suppressing a dissenting view, it's what scientists call peer review."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/m...
Canton

Akron, OH

#28478 May 16, 2014
you have got to be the dumbest mfer on here. You are f.ing stupid you f.ing child molester, oh yes you are too. A f.ing sick'O bottton lines you are a pure dumb fuckeded.
Canton

Akron, OH

#28479 May 16, 2014
loves getting a big ole black cock in him, don't you canton, hey i got one perfect for your ass, i'm james by the way soory i didn't get your name at first. All hell canton just come and take me in, you know you want me!
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28482 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are the perfect example of that.
I suppose you think the same of Old Guy every time he corrects that sorry brain on those shoulders. Most of the time I just laugh at those teabagger professional victim posts that you put on here. No matter how many times you nutbags get proven wrong, just like clockwork you find some far right corporate paid for lies to try to prove a nutbag point. That is a proven FACT. And you never fail to disappoint on that fact.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28483 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Media Matters? HAHAHAHAHAH.
Fox News? HAHAHAHA Cnsnews? HAHAHAHA The Blaze? HAHAHAHA Breitbart? HAHAHAHA World Net Daily? HAHAHAHA InfoWars? HAHAHAHA
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28484 May 17, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you think the same of Old Guy every time he corrects that sorry brain on those shoulders. Most of the time I just laugh at those teabagger professional victim posts that you put on here. No matter how many times you nutbags get proven wrong, just like clockwork you find some far right corporate paid for lies to try to prove a nutbag point. That is a proven FACT. And you never fail to disappoint on that fact.
Old Guy isn't a troll. You are. That's the difference.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#28485 May 17, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point was that oil companies lobby the government. They do this through a variety of front groups. Denying climate change is just seen as being good for their business.
"The American Petroleum Institute (API), is the largest trade association for the oil and gas industry, claiming to represent around 400 corporations engaged in oil production, extraction (including hydrofracking), distribution, and other aspects of the industry. API is based in Washington, D.C. and has offices in 27 state capitals.
API is a powerful lobby, spending around $7.3 million on lobbying each year in 2010 and 2009, and spending $6.3 million in 2011.
It is also a major political spender, and has created numerous front groups to advance its political agenda. It also funds groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.

My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.

No matter what, I'm always suspicious when government wants to take control over something. It's one of my main objections to Commie Care. The more control government has, the more power they have, and I think that government has way too much control over the people as it is.

If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#28486 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
No matter what, I'm always suspicious when government wants to take control over something. It's one of my main objections to Commie Care. The more control government has, the more power they have, and I think that government has way too much control over the people as it is.
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
Most people would bet the bank that the false concern you have started exactly in 2008.
Helen Roper

Columbus, OH

#28487 May 17, 2014
Kasich is the best! Love him.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28488 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
At this point in time, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Most of the few that don't are funded by energy companies that have a vested interest in maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
This is where your argument breaks down for me. Who in the government originally came up with this vast conspiracy, that survives changes in administration?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
When you go to your doctor, and he tells you that you are sick with cancer, do you ask what it going to take to completely stop it and how much it would cost, before you would begin any kind of treatment?

Scientists have been studying the idea of man-made climate change for a long time. As with most new ideas in science, it was rejected at first. It acceptance has been a slow process. The fact that the vast majority of climate scientist now accept the idea is due to an increasing amount of evidence that supports the theory.

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year. "

"Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Many climate scientists had become convinced that the rise was likely to continue as greenhouse gases accumulated. By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.(Most since then have been hotter.)"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...
.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#28489 May 17, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Canton's point is that he believes any scientist that doesn't believe man is controlling the climate must have ulterior motives. It just doesn't make sense to Canton that scientists disagree with global warming based on common sense and multiple factors that support their theory.
At this point in time, the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change. Most of the few that don't are funded by energy companies that have a vested interest in maintaining our reliance on fossil fuels.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that much of science gets their money through government. Government is hell bent on this global warming thing because if they can convince enough people that this theory is fact, the people will willingly surrender this control of our energy to the government.
This is where your argument breaks down for me. Who in the government originally came up with this vast conspiracy, that survives changes in administration?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is global warming, prove it, tell us what it would take to stop it, and tell us how much money it's going to cost us. Thus far, nobody has been able to do any of these things. That's why it's a farce.
When you go to your doctor, and he tells you that you are sick with cancer, do you ask what it going to take to completely stop it and how much it would cost, before you would begin any kind of treatment?

Scientists have been studying the idea of man-made climate change for a long time. As with most new ideas in science, it was rejected at first. It acceptance has been a slow process. The fact that the vast majority of climate scientist now accept the idea is due to an increasing amount of evidence that supports the theory.

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate change, however, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.

In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.

In the 1950s, Callendar's claims provoked a few scientists to look into the question with improved techniques and calculations. What made that possible was a sharp increase of government funding, especially from military agencies with Cold War concerns about the weather and the seas. The new studies showed that, contrary to earlier crude estimates, carbon dioxide could indeed build up in the atmosphere and should bring warming. Painstaking measurements drove home the point in 1960 by showing that the level of the gas was in fact rising, year by year. "

"Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had begun to rise again. Many climate scientists had become convinced that the rise was likely to continue as greenhouse gases accumulated. By around 2000, some predicted, an unprecedented global warming would become apparent. Their worries first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.(Most since then have been hotter.)"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.ht...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mason Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Chuck 19,250
Politicians 10 hr Observer 1
Paula Gail herring Mon Jeff Maupin 2
motorcycle clubs and riding clubs Sun OnTwoWheels 1
pentecostal church Sat Jenny James 79
why does cincinnasty suck? (May '08) Sep 20 Pops 17
Jews for Jesus presents "Christ In The Passover... Sep 20 Jenny James 21
•••
•••

Mason Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Mason People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Mason News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Mason
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••