Global cooling is back!!!

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1053595546]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Ekim the Inbred Chimp, that list includes Senators Dodd (D) and Schumer (D) as wellas Congressman Frank (D) and Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's Secretary of the Treasury and Odumbo's financial advisor: Larry Sanders, ignoramus.

Does it hurt being that fucking dumb? Fucking in bred fool go back to the other forum you are not ready for prime time. Was during the Bush years fool.

[IIFFOFRDB]

[QUOTE=i'va biggen;1053596094]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Does it hurt being that fucking dumb? Fucking in bred fool go back to the other forum you are not ready for prime time. Was during the Bush years fool.

Huh?

[JD Barleycorn]

I see an incomplete thought.

[JD Barleycorn]

Hey Eva, PBS and these people don't agree with you. They say that they invented derivatives in the 1990s under Bill Clinton.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rivatives.html

[i'va biggen]

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1053597266]Hey Eva, PBS and these people don't agree with you. They say that they invented derivatives in the 1990s under Bill Clinton.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rivatives.html[/QUOTE






If you don't understand just keep sweeping Just Dumb.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I will be the first dumbass Tim

Yes lets do see what those scientists say.
Please list a few of them....but also include the amount of public funding/grants that each receives and has received in the past for their various research ventures. Lets take out any political and financial incentives and see who's saying what exactly.
Otherwise there are way too many agendas at play.

Why do you question the motivation of the climatologists but not the fossil fuel industry?

And, if money is the motivating factor, who has the more direct stake in the outcome? A bunch of climatologists? Or Exxon?

And, if money is the motivating factor, why can't the fossil fuel industry hire more of what you seem to think are just whore scientists to support their position and conduct studies that state outright that global warming is a hoax? If you're correct that the climatologists are simply hired guns doing slanted scientific research for the highest bidder, where are all of the oil company funded studies that show it's a hoax? Is Exxon short of research cash? Or are we to assume that Exxon is simply more ethical than the climatologists who have spent their entire lives studying climate? Because, after all, Exxon doesn't make billions and billions of dollars every year on fossil fuels, do they?....I'm sure they're committed to just doing the right thing and can set the profit thing aside... and are certainly more trustworthy than a bunch of eggheaded scientists working at universities for government grant money. Hmmmmmm......let me think.

Here's an abstract from a bunch of scientists (they're probably lying about their results) that quantifies the roughly 12,000 studies done to date. 66% take no position. 33% take a position. Of the 33%, 97% conclude global warming is man-made. Your side scored 0.7%.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

[Chica Chaser]

As stated earlier, lets examine the research funding sources and projects for these scientists.
Until we see the whole story there's not much to discuss, except the various political positions of different segments of the population.

The motivation for the fossil fuel industry? Same as any other business....to be as profitable as possible and make the greatest return possible to their shareholders. That's kinda how business operate...successful and long lasting ones at least.

[JD Barleycorn]

One fatal flaw is that you cut and pasted limited the time period of discussion. It needs to be opened up to include Erlich talking about global cooling and the new ice age. Once you start having the same people with opposing points of view then you can start to see the foolishness.

Lets see your definition of "scientist". Bjorn Lumborg believes in global warming, he has many scientific awards, Bjorn is an economist and not a climatologist but he is considered a scientist.

Another fatal flaw is the assumption that the oil industry will not continue to make billions of dollars of profits if we tiptoe down the global warming path. They will continue to make lots of money so they are not really worried about money. However, you have a bunch of researchers and scientists who make their living from governments and think tanks. They have a very strong interest in keeping up their research and paychecks.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

As stated earlier, lets examine the research funding sources and projects for these scientists.
Until we see the whole story there's not much to discuss, except the various political positions of different segments of the population.

The motivation for the fossil fuel industry? Same as any other business....to be as profitable as possible and make the greatest return possible to their shareholders. That's kinda how business operate...successful and long lasting ones at least.

I thought my post made clear that I was assuming you are correct...that all of the global warming studies were conducted with grant research money.

I can see why you think Breitbart is a credible news source. You reason about the same way they report.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

One fatal flaw is that you cut and pasted limited the time period of discussion. It needs to be opened up to include Erlich talking about global cooling and the new ice age. Once you start having the same people with opposing points of view then you can start to see the foolishness.

Lets see your definition of "scientist". Bjorn Lumborg believes in global warming, he has many scientific awards, Bjorn is an economist and not a climatologist but he is considered a scientist.

Another fatal flaw is the assumption that the oil industry will not continue to make billions of dollars of profits if we tiptoe down the global warming path. They will continue to make lots of money so they are not really worried about money. However, you have a bunch of researchers and scientists who make their living from governments and think tanks. They have a very strong interest in keeping up their research and paychecks.

Whatever, Professor. Add 1 study then....what does that get you to? 0.7111% of the scientific studies support your assertion?

It's the same argument you make on everything else. Everybody but you and the rest of the right wing whackadoos is lying....

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by timpage

I thought my post made clear that I was assuming you are correct...that all of the global warming studies were conducted with grant research money.

I can see why you think Breitbart is a credible news source. You reason about the same way they report.

Perhaps I misread then, you start scoring the game "Your side scored 0.7%" you lose a lot of readers interest.

Breitbart is just another agenda driven "News" site out there. No different than the 1000's of others pushing whatever their political motivations are. I just love to poke fun at a few people here whenever a Breitbart article comes up. The content of anything Breitbart posts is automatically irrelevant simply because they posted it. Its like the National Enquirer of our youth.

[i'va biggen]

It was hot last summer 20 some days over 100 cool this summer no days over 100 but I'm really not worried.

[JD Barleycorn]

I was in Dallas last week and the termperatures were in the triple digits...reminded me of when I was a kid. Almost 50 years ago that was summer in Missouri; 90+ degree days and many, too many, 100 degree days. Summers were hotter in Missouri 50 years ago and the winters were colder. Most of the temperature extremes are gone because the jetstream over the US has changed it's course. This was announced in the paper in 1990 and then again about 2010. It is a 20 year cycle and explains much of the weather. It is natural and is used by the shysters on the left to get money and power. Those con men prey on the weak minded.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I was in Dallas last week and the termperatures were in the triple digits...reminded me of when I was a kid. Almost 50 years ago that was summer in Missouri; 90+ degree days and many, too many, 100 degree days. Summers were hotter in Missouri 50 years ago and the winters were colder. Most of the temperature extremes are gone because the jetstream over the US has changed it's course. This was announced in the paper in 1990 and then again about 2010. It is a 20 year cycle and explains much of the weather. It is natural and is used by the shysters on the left to get money and power. Those con men prey on the weak minded.

Well, there you go. The Professor has spoken. It was hot in Missouri 50 years ago during the summer. Settles the debate....shit, it was even announced in the paper. Twice. All the scientists who've spent their lives studying the climate and the effects of climate just ignored this but the Professor is too sharp for them.

Tell us about your academic and professional credentials that qualify you to render a scientifically reliable opinion on the causes of global warming Professor. Setting aside the fact that you must have spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express.

[JD Barleycorn]

Actually tumor, the global warming theorists say that the summes of the early 60s were cooler than now. That is not true but you believe them anyway.

If I told you of my academic credentials then you could probably find out who I am. I don't need a little piece of feces such as yourself calling me for advice all the time. Why don't you start and tell your professional quals.


All in all a typical losing, liberal attack. You don't like the facts presented so you attack the presenter. You demand professional certification (while ignoring the evidence) and then announce that those credentials are insufficient. Following that you got out and vote for some guy with no experience or credentials to be the president. Insanity!