Global warming "scientists" stuck in ...

Global warming "scientists" stuck in "surprisingly much" ice in Antartica

Posted in the Woodway Forum

“Every day, Improve..”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1 Dec 30, 2013
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLO L LMAO!!!

I think they should drag the life rafts out of the boat and cross the ice. Otherwise, we will just be dropping too much CO2 and that may melt the polar ice....

hohohohohohohohohohohoho. Liberals on steroids still do stupid things..
Zebo

Union City, TN

#2 Mar 1, 2014
VeganTiger wrote:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p j-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glos ses-over-irony-global-warming- scientists-trapped-antarctic-i ce#ixzz2ovITxKYv
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLO L LMAO!!!
I think they should drag the life rafts out of the boat and cross the ice. Otherwise, we will just be dropping too much CO2 and that may melt the polar ice....
hohohohohohohohohohohoho. Liberals on steroids still do stupid things..
Check out what Green Peace Co Founder Patrick Moore has been saying:

" left Greenpeace a long time ago. I was one of the original founders. I was with them for 15 years in the top committee. But by around the mid-'80s, they turned sharply to the political left and began to adopt positions that I could not accept from my scientific background. I have a Ph.D. in ecology and I am very well-versed in all the biology subjects, as well as climate change.
And I just had to come out and express what I have been studying for the last 25 years, that there is actually no scientific proof. It's not really about evidence so much, it's more about an actual scientific proof that humans are the main cause of the slight warming that has happened in this world over the last 100 years or so. In fact, the world started warming back after the little ice age about 250 years ago.
And the climate change panel of the United Nations is saying since 1950, we have been the main cause of warming of the Earth. Yet during the first half of the 20th century, there was a warming period about identical to the warming period to occurred in the last half, and they're not claiming that we caused that. They're not really saying what they think caused that.
So there is simply no logic to saying that we know for certain. That's why they use the term "likely." Actually, they say "extremely likely," which is no really different than saying "likely." It's just their opinion. In other words, it is a judgment that humans are causing the warming, rather than any kind of scientific proof."

“Every day, Improve..”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3 Mar 28, 2014
I am waiting to hear the "experts" on TV saying global warming makes it harder to find the crashed Malaysian plane. Haven't heard it yet, but sure it's not far off.

Globalists even get offended if you don't believe their lies long time after everyone knows about them..
Coal

Paducah, KY

#4 Apr 8, 2014
C O A L
Coal

Paducah, KY

#5 Apr 12, 2014
C O A L
Coal

Dawson Springs, KY

#6 Apr 12, 2014
C O A L
chc

Seattle, WA

#7 Apr 16, 2014
Zebo wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out what Green Peace Co Founder Patrick Moore has been saying:
" left Greenpeace a long time ago. I was one of the original founders. I was with them for 15 years in the top committee. But by around the mid-'80s, they turned sharply to the political left and began to adopt positions that I could not accept from my scientific background. I have a Ph.D. in ecology and I am very well-versed in all the biology subjects, as well as climate change.
And I just had to come out and express what I have been studying for the last 25 years, that there is actually no scientific proof. It's not really about evidence so much, it's more about an actual scientific proof that humans are the main cause of the slight warming that has happened in this world over the last 100 years or so. In fact, the world started warming back after the little ice age about 250 years ago.
And the climate change panel of the United Nations is saying since 1950, we have been the main cause of warming of the Earth. Yet during the first half of the 20th century, there was a warming period about identical to the warming period to occurred in the last half, and they're not claiming that we caused that. They're not really saying what they think caused that.
So there is simply no logic to saying that we know for certain. That's why they use the term "likely." Actually, they say "extremely likely," which is no really different than saying "likely." It's just their opinion. In other words, it is a judgment that humans are causing the warming, rather than any kind of scientific proof."
Hey, if you happen to live near a university, sit in on a lecture or seminar in an introductory course in climatology. The concepts can be difficult to understand through the media or by Googling. If people are turned off by the language used to express probability of atmospheric and earth sciences, they may end up rejecting valid evidence entirely. I think you want a black-and-white forecast for the future global and regional climate variables, but science doesn't work like that.

There are heaps of peer-reviewed papers out there that could help clarify the statistics of future climate projections. I could send you links if you want? I think it's really fantastic that you have an interest in the issue, and that you are challenging ideas. I've never met someone who doesn't understand climate change so I find this really interesting.

Green Peace is not regarded as an authority in the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the organization you should look into. Please look at their website. They do a great job explaining terms like "extremely likely" and "likely." There IS a difference. The language used by the IPCC is incredibly deliberate and contains very specific meanings. Check out the 2013 Report's Executive Summary. Also note their sources, and decide for yourself if you feel they are credible.

Hope the IPCC clears some things up. Unfortunately, climate change has become a politically polarized issue, and discourse is often antagonistic. I'm disgusted with both sides of the political spectrum. Politics have no role in science.

“Every day, Improve..”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8 Apr 16, 2014
I will here add that "peer-reviewed" studies are no more worth than the integrity of the peer-reviewers, where I am quite certain any "skeptics" are cleansed long time ago.

So how can we trust ANYTHING these people say? Answer is you cannot. It is a religious issue and the word "belief" is likely more appropriate.

Why don't all the globalists go to where they came from and harass people there instead??
Coal

Greenville, KY

#9 Apr 19, 2014
C O A L

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.

Woodway Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Praise You 17 hr Good Idea 1
Reasons Why Washington State Sucks - Post Them ... (Apr '12) Oct 19 Pete 476
Best Option For Cliff Avril Is Retirement Oct 19 SEATTLESPORTSCAST... 1
News Gang concerns draw crowd in Marysville (Nov '08) Oct 18 hax0 17
Sexycouple12345 Oct 16 Sexy couple 1
The Common Confusion (Existence Is Whole) Oct 13 djl 2
News Issue statements from Edmonds School Board cand... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Fred Savage 2

Woodway Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Woodway Mortgages