• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Mother Nature hates Obama

Tam

Well-known member
While he was spewing his global warming climate charge crap to the nation last night, announcing that the Science is written in stone, Atlanta GA. was in survival mode and people were sleeping in their cars stuck on the roads, School kids were in lock down at their Schools and some were even sleeping in supermarkets using huggies for pillows due to Mother Nature delivering them a taste of Global cooling. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
While he was spewing his global warming climate charge crap to the nation last night, announcing that the Science is written in stone, Atlanta GA. was in survival mode and people were sleeping in their cars stuck on the roads, School kids were in lock down at their Schools and some were even sleeping in supermarkets using huggies for pillows due to Mother Nature delivering them a taste of Global cooling. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:???: But that unusual weather is exactly what the scientists are saying is and many politicians are using as examples of climate change... With the Eastern US getting a record cold year- and the south (Atlanta/Georgia) getting record rainfall and winter storms this is the type articles you are seeing more of...


Just because it's cold doesn't mean global warming isn't real. It is.: Cynthia Tucker

on January 28, 2014 at 9:30 AM, updated January 28, 2014 at 9:32 AM




By Cynthia Tucker

It's a good thing I remembered where I stored all my old ski gear, including the thermal underwear that I hadn't worn in years. I've needed it during a season in which even the Deep South has seen an epidemic of frozen pipes, single-digit temperatures and school cancellations without snow. School kids were allowed to stay home for a day or two because, according to administrators, the weather was too doggone cold.


The deep freeze might have forced most of us into a shoulder-hunching slouch, but it prompted an Easter Parade-like promenade by a crew of familiar climate change skeptics, who trotted out their usual arguments:

See, we told you so. They're making it all up. The planet isn't getting warmer.

Because the Northeast corridor has suffered through severe winters of late, the backlash has become a ritual. But it's nothing more than posturing, akin to positing today that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

Climate change is real -- a serious threat to the economy, to the food supply, to the ecosystem.

"This time of year, people will take a cold spell and try to say, 'We told you climate change is not real,'" said Dr. Marshall Shepherd, president of the American Meteorological Society and head of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia.

Climate change is real -- a serious threat to the economy, to the food supply, to the ecosystem.

But, he added, "We'll still have winter in the year 2080, when the climate is likely to be much warmer."

Shepherd, a former NASA climate scientist, likes to explain the cold spurts to laymen with the following analogy: "Weather is your mood, but climate is your personality. Just because you're in a bad mood today doesn't mean that's your entire personality."

On the fact of a warming planet, the scientific consensus is clear: It is. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth-warmest year for the planet since records started being kept in 1880.

Indeed, 2013 was the 37th consecutive year that global temperatures have been above average. And nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in this century.

The consequences could be catastrophic. While scientists disagree about some of them, there is broad agreement about drought, heat waves and rising sea levels.

Currently, a "mega-drought" -- 13 years long and counting -- is afflicting the western United States, disrupting agriculture, destroying forest habitat and sparking fights over water supply. While climate scientists are reluctant to blame any one drought on climate change, they predict that droughts will become more commonplace.

Then there was Hurricane Sandy, which was so damaging because of extensive flooding along the coasts of New York and New Jersey -- the result of sea levels that are higher than they used to be.

One of Shepherd's doctoral students will soon publish a paper showing an increase in extreme weather events, tied to climate change, in and around Atlanta, he said.

Even if conservative politicians refuse to concede the evidence for climate change, insurance companies have already done so.

Last year, Peter Hoeppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at a huge reinsurance firm called Munich Re, told The New York Times: "Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S. East Coast in the long term. The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge."

The vast majority of Americans accept the evidence -- 67 percent, according to the Pew Research Center -- but that masks a deeper divide within the Republican Party. Only 23 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents believe that global warming is caused by human activity, while 19 percent say the warming is due to natural patterns.

Another 20 percent say they want more evidence, while 25 percent say they don't believe the planet is warming at all -- a belief that is especially popular among tea partiers.

Their certainty is cold comfort.
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/01/just_because_its_cold_doesnt_mean_global_warming_isnt_real_it_is_cynthia_tucker.html

While I'm not convinced on how much is caused by man and how much is caused from natural happenings/cycles in earths movement pattern- I don't doubt for a minute the scientists when they say that climate change is occurring and has for millions of years...
But the radical right doesn't believe scientists when they say there were dinosaurs either... Or that they existed 200 million years ago ... :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
While I'm not convinced on how much is caused by man and how much is caused from natural happenings/cycles in earths movement pattern- I don't doubt for a minute the scientists when they say that climate change is occurring and has for millions of years...
But the radical right doesn't believe scientists when they say there were dinosaurs either... Or that they existed 200 million years ago ... :???:

:roll:

You're pretty smart. "Climate Change has been happening for millions of years"

Of course it has, but that does not mean that scientists are not manipulating data, or using a specific reference point, to exergerate their claims.

Even right wing radicals believe it has warmed up since the last ice age.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Obama said Climate Change is a FACT. ANd if you were watching the graph at the bottom of the screen that gauges the audiences reaction (on FOX anyway), the Republicans and Independent's reaction were low to no trust in his statement and only about 60% of Dems believe the statement. And maybe this is why Oldtimer (Other than THE FACT people know Obama will lie about anything if it affects his far leftwingnut agenda that it :wink: )


'Consensus' on Climate Change is 'Fake,' scientists say

A team of scientists has sent a letter to all U.S. senators warning that a claim there is "consensus" in the scientific community on the climate change issue is false.

The letter dated Oct. 29 reads in part: "You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a 'consensus' of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe. . .

"The claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no."

How can anyone INCLUDING YOUR HERO OBAMA claim Climate Change is FACT when there are lots in the scientific community that are still fighting over the study results. Obama wants to push his crap and no trade, coal industry destroying, green energy agenda that his donors are heavily invested in so do you really trust his so called FACTS especially after his FACTS said you could keep your insurance and doctors under OBAMACARE?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Climate Change Scammers' Worst Week Ever
Kurt Schlichter | Jan 13, 2014

Between global warming suckers getting entombed in ice while trying to prove the Antarctic ice cap has melted to most of America doing a Frigidaire impression, the entire façade of this bogus leftist power grab is crumbling.

Understand that the climate change meme is simply the latest attempt by leftists to trick society into remaking itself in their image. It was never about science. It was always about power and money.

The scammers have been ably assisted by a palace guard media that eagerly reports the scammers’ every lie while ignoring every inconvenient truth. You’ll skim the mainstream media in vain for the reason behind the trapped expedition’s trip to the Antarctic. And, of course, the most inconvenient truth of all is that it hasn’t gotten significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2, and it hasn’t warmed at all in recent years.

The left’s use of pseudo-science as a means to seize and centralize control has a colorful history. One particularly colorful scheme was the progressive nightmare of eugenics. Leftist icons like Margaret Sanger eagerly advocated it as a tool to eliminate infants of color.

Let’s fast forward to the 1970s, when we were entering a new ice age and the only possible solution was – surprise - more government power. The global cooling panic morphed into the global warming panic. Suddenly, temperatures were inexorably rising and the ice caps were melting. In fact, they should be melted by now.

But “global warming” is problematic when the uncherry-picked evidence shows that the Earth is not getting significantly warmer. The hockey stick is stuck. Now, one might take this new evidence and revise one’s conclusion to conform to the observed data. We call that science. But we are dealing with “science,” and when the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion you change the name of the phenomenon.

Hence, “climate change.” Its goal was stop us wacky literalists from being able to point to a lack of warming to disprove global warming. Apparently, we were fools to expect that what the scammers called “warming” might involve warming.

“Climate change” is useful because it minimizes the dangerous possibility of negating the theory through observation. Any kind of change in the weather is “climate change.” That means literally any evidence supports the theory. If you really want to tick off a scammer, ask him what piece of observable data would lead him to conclude that his climate change theory is incorrect.

Of course, in science, an unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory at all. But in “science,” you aren’t really talking about theories. You are talking about politically necessary conclusions that are beyond question. “Science” is a religion, and we’re the heretics.

But even “climate change” has become problematic. What if the climate is not changing for the worse? Recent years have seen fewer hurricanes, and of less intensity. The Antarctic ice the penguins stood on while laughing at the trapped ship of fools was manifestly still there. Polar bears continue to wander the northern wastes uncooked.

So the left has now moved to an even vaguer, less empirically assessable concept – looming “climate collapse.” It’s a beautiful notion, at once evoking some sort of horrendous catastrophe while offering absolutely no way to evaluate its accuracy. The “climate collapse” remains off in the future, vague and ambiguous, an unspecified disaster where something bad might happen and no one can prove the negative, so there is no way to judge it to be fact or fiction.

This is “science.” And if you doubt that something of an undefined nature might possibly occur at some unknown point in the future and maybe have unexplained negative effects, you reject “science” in all its forms. You also probably believe in God and are definitely racist.

Climate change scam arguments pique my lawyerly interest as exemplar tactics, techniques and procedures in the art of obfuscation. But the nomenclature isn’t the only bit of dissembling. The scammers attempt to intertwine the idea that human activity has some sort of impact on the climate with their demand that we transfer to their control trillions of dollars and much of our sovereignty. They intentionally erase the distinction between the cause of the alleged problem and the proposed solution, neatly skipping the effect.

Scammers tell us that 97% of scientists believe humans have an effect on the climate. Of course humans have some effect on the climate. A butterfly’s flapping wings have some effect on the climate. But the mere fact of some effect of some unknown intensity does not lead to the conclusion that we must undertake an anti-carbon crusade that will jack up our utility bills several grand a year, force us to drive tiny boxes, and empower yet another army of prissy unionized bureaucrats, this time to tell us we can’t roast marshmallows in our own backyards.

If you believe in science, you can’t make that quantum leap of logic. But if you believe in “science,” you and your media pals will paint anyone who refuses to do so as a mouth-breathing halfwit “denier” who is simultaneously an evil genius in the service of Big Oil.

Oh, how “scientists” hate deniers for actually applying the scientific method to the scammers’ political propaganda. And, as fiascos like Operation Mocking Penguin pile up, and as the coming climate collapse never actually comes, they’ll get even more desperate. The Los Angeles Times and Reddit recently barred dissenters from their pages – there’s no better concession of defeat than silencing your opponent.

The science is settled that “climate change” was a lie from the beginning. And every day without the long-promised climate catastrophe is one day closer to the day leftists will have to find themselves a replacement scam.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Soros (Obama's money pit) and Agenda 21 are behind this. Plus it is will disturb the wealth as Soros and Obama want.
Poor countries have demanded that the developed world give them $100 billion annually by 2020 to prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as heat waves and droughts. Brazil even put forward a proposal last week that would have made rich countries pay for historical greenhouse gas emissions.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But that unusual weather is exactly what the scientists are saying is and many politicians are using as examples of climate change...

it is the "excuse" they used when their theory fell apart..

to be honest I had hoped they were right.. I would have some decent ocean front property to pass to my son.. and I really don't like long winters

sure it would suck when all the retirees moved back from Florida..
but most would be long gone before that happens..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Science is always evolving. There is NO such thing as "consensus", if you believe in Science and evolution.

Those that believe that "the science is settled", are not true believers in science.

Why do Democrats not believe in science? Why do they want to shut off debate and ignore new findings?

OT...why do you deny science? Why are you such a "right wing radical"




Settled science? No such thing

Bob Carter, The Australian, June, 2012

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a branch of the UN that advises governments on the topic of global warming allegedly caused by human greenhouse emissions.

Contrary to common assumption, the IPCC does not deal with the wider topic of climate change in general. And neither is it the role of the scientists who advise the IPCC to conduct new research as such (though some, incidentally, do ).

Rather, the IPCC's task is to summarise the established science as represented in the published scientific literature.

On February 3, 2010, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, commenting in The Hindu on the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, said: "Everybody thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and nothing could go wrong."

By "gold standard", Pachauri was referring to the IPCC's oft-made claim that the scientific literature on climate change it surveyed was only that published in peer-reviewed professional research papers.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer reviewed. It is therefore quite clear peer review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epoch-making, scientific research.

Peer review is a technique of quality control for scientific papers that emerged slowly through the 20th century, achieving a dominant influence in science after World War II.

The process works like this: a potential scientific author conducts research, writes a paper on their results and submits the paper to a professional journal in the relevant specialist field of science.

The editor of the journal then scan-reads the paper. Based on their knowledge of the contents of the paper, and of the activities of other scientists in the same research field, the editor selects (usually) two people, termed referees, to whom he sends the draft manuscript of the paper for review.

Referees, who are unpaid, differ in the amount of time and effortthey devote to their task of review. At one extreme a referee will criticise and correct a paper in detail, including making comments on the scientific content. At the other extreme, a referee may merely skim-read a paper, ignoring obvious mistakes in writing style or grammar, and make some general comments to the editor about its scientific accuracy or otherwise.

Generally neither type of referee, nor those in between, check the original data, or the detailed statistical calculations (or, today, complex computer modelling) that often form the kernel of a piece of modern scientific research.

Each referee recommends whether the paper should be published (usually with corrections) or rejected, the editor making the final decision.

In essence, traditional peer review is a technique of editorial quality control, and that a scientific paper has been peer reviewed is absolutely no guarantee the science it portrays is correct.

Indeed, it is the nature of scientific research that nearly all scientific papers are followed by later emendation, or reinterpretation, in the light of new discoveries or understanding.

A case in point is the recent paper by University of Melbourne researcher Joelle Gergis and co-authors that claimed to establish the existence of a southern hemisphere temperature "hockey stick". Now, the authors have rapidly withdrawn the study after fundamental criticisms of it appeared on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and elsewhere.

The Gergis paper differs in kind from many other IPCC-related studies by establishment climate research groups only in that the tendentious science it contains has been rapidly exposed as flawed. This exemplifies how the role of nurturing strong and independent peer review has now passed from the editors of journals to experts in the blogosphere, and especially so for papers concerned with perceived environmental problems such as global warming.

Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as "settled science", peer reviewed or otherwise. During the latter part of the 20th century, Western governments started channelling large amounts of research money into favoured scientific fields, prime among which has been global warming research.

This money has a corrupting influence, not least on the peer-review process.

Many scientific journals, including prestigious ones, are captured by insider groups of leading researchers in particular fields. In such cases, editors deliberately select their referees from scientists who work in the same field and share similar views.

The "climategate" email leak in 2009 revealed this cancerous process is at an advanced stage of development in climate science. A worldwide network of leading climate researchers was revealed to be actively influencing editors and referees to approve for publication only research that supported the IPCC's alarmist view of global warming and to prevent the publication of alternative views.

Backed by this malfeasant system, leading researchers who support the IPCC's red-hot view of climate change endlessly promulgate their alarmist recommendations as "based only upon peer-reviewed research papers", as if this were some guarantee of quality or accuracy.

Peer review, of course, guarantees neither. What matters is not whether a scientific idea or article is peer reviewed, but whether the science described accords with empirical evidence.

So what about the IPCC's much-trumpeted, claimed "gold standard" of only using peer-reviewed papers? It is completely exposed by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, who showed an amazing 30 per cent of the articles cited in the definitive Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC were from non-peer-reviewed sources, including student theses and environmental lobbyist reports.

The repetition of the "we only use peer-reviewed information" mantra that is so favoured by climate lobbyists and government-captive scientific organisations signals scientific immaturity.

It also indicates a lack of confidence or ability to assess the scientific arguments about dangerous global warming on their own merits and against the empirical evidence.

Bob Carter is a palaeoclimatologist at James Cook University, Townsville and an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=844&Itemid=1

what happens if a bull breeder fudges the numbers on a specific bull? Or all bulls, from his herd?

Are those numbers/EPDs settled science? Or are they only "settled science", until others start evaluating progeny? Does the realiability go up, through the years of production, or do we shut off all analysis, after the first calf crop?

You're naive, aren't you OT?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
I have factual proof that climate has changed on this ranch. Just up the hill from the house is what I call the "Fossil pile" Fossils in there with the nicest Fern type plants. Nothing like that growing here anymore. Only in warmer climates. So the climate has changed and will continue to change despite what Obama and mankind do.
 

Tam

Well-known member
For a guy that b*tches about the money that is spend in foreign sand boxes I find it very strange that Oldtimer believe in So Call Climate Change that the far left loons are spewing to support even more US tax payer money going to foreign sand pits to help them with their "GLOBAL WARMING" problems. :roll:

I guess it comes back to not the fact it is being sent over to foreign countries but WHO IS SENDING IT. :roll:
 
Top