New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Micky Mouse And Rob Rob Among 11,000 *Scientists* Who Signed Dire Climate Change Warning!

EatTheRich

President
Whatever initial science that was done has been altogether hijacked by political activists. “Peer reviewed studies” have been supplanted by signatory headcount lists and polls. This ain’t science - and hasn’t been for a long time.
The “debate” isn’t a scientific one. It is between those who accept the science and those who for ideological reasons oppose it.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to do their work and the mountain of evidence continues to accumulate.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
and what does that have to do with how every sane person in the world admits climate change and man's affect on it? do you not see how a list has nothing to do with the fact of climate change?
Pssst... try to focus. Do you think an engineer knows how to spell "engineer"?
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
The “debate” isn’t a scientific one. It is between those who accept the science and those who for ideological reasons oppose it.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to do their work and the mountain of evidence continues to accumulate.
I agree. For example, some people refuse to accept that high CO2 levels are great for the planet. The Cretaceous period is an example of that. Other nincompoops refuse to acknowledge that Earth has had numerous swings in temperature in the past million years alone, with at least three hotter than the current warming trend.

Other science deniers do things like edit out the Medieval warming period so they can make a cool-looking graph.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
1. More than likely the process to add your name to the list was through an online site. Someone wanting to discredit the letter would do as you described.
2. I researched the first hundred or so of the people who signed a letter claiming there was no global warming and couldn't find a single individual who could actually say they had skills or training in the area of global climate.
1) So you agree the *study* is flawed. Good for you.
2) Sure you did.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Pssst... try to focus. Do you think an engineer knows how to spell "engineer"?
you try to focus....lists signed by a million real experts do not prove climate change, or lists with a bunch of goofy names, either. the facts prove climate change. irrefutable scientific facts and data collected by NASA, by the military, by different universities studying climate, by experts in other countries, by the Weather Channel and their experts, all conclude climate change is real, is affected greatly by human activity and if not abated will cause incredible harm and risk to human and animal and all life on this planet within this century.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
you try to focus....lists signed by a million real experts do not prove climate change, or lists with a bunch of goofy names, either. the facts prove climate change. irrefutable scientific facts and data collected by NASA, by the military, by different universities studying climate, by experts in other countries, by the Weather Channel and their experts, all conclude climate change is real, is affected greatly by human activity and if not abated will cause incredible harm and risk to human and animal and all life on this planet within this century.
You're completely lost. Even NASA disagrees with you:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

If you don't understand the difference between "extremely likely" and your rant, then there is literally no hope from you. But then again, a person who can't discern between a rule and a law isn't very bright to begin with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

llovejim

Current Champion
I agree. For example, some people refuse to accept that high CO2 levels are great for the planet. The Cretaceous period is an example of that. Other nincompoops refuse to acknowledge that Earth has had numerous swings in temperature in the past million years alone, with at least three hotter than the current warming trend. (try to think...those took thousands of years to come and go, we are talking about highly accelerated climate change, due to man's release of so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat and causing havoc. have you even read an article on why this climate change period is different than others because man did not have any affect on the last ones, and they took thousands of years to come and go? get it? even a little bit?)

Other science deniers do things like edit out the Medieval warming period so they can make a cool-looking graph. (where did you hear that shit? and i did not know the Weather Channel even existed in the Medieval Warming Period. who took all these super accurate weather and climate readings? shakespeare?)
you are trying to call experts science deniers while you repeat the dumbest ass crap about how higher carbon dioxide levels are a good thing for the planet because plants are greener if they have a certain amount of carbon dioxide. basically, who cares if the Earth gets hotter, and the ice caps melt and ocean levels rise, and the significant changes in ocean temperature affects normal weather cycles, and could turn the great climate for crops in our country and Canada into dry wastelands, and create other catastrophic effects bad for not just humans, but all life on this planet. BUT AT LEAST THE PLANTS THAT GET ENOUGH WATER WILL BE GREENER THAN USUAL....read this...

New study undercuts favorite climate myth 'more CO2 is good ...

https://www.theguardian.com › climate-consensus-97-per-cent › sep › new...

Sep 19, 2016 - They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had ...

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA ...

https://www.climate.gov › news-features › understanding-climate › climate...

by R Lindsey - ‎Related articles
Sep 19, 2019 - The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher ...

Carbon dioxide hits a level not seen for 3 million years. Here's ...

https://www.nbcnews.com › mach › science › carbon-dioxide-hits-level-no...

May 14, 2019 - Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun, and higher levels are associated with higher global temperatures and other effects of climate change, ...
CO2 levels at their highest for 3 million years - CNN - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com › health › co2-levels-global-warming-climate-intl

Apr 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high for 3 million years and ... the last time the earth's atmosphere had a CO2 concentration as high as ...
Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? - Scientific ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › ask-the-experts-does-rising-...

Jan 23, 2018 - Climate change's negative effects on plants will outweigh any gains ... “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would ...
 

llovejim

Current Champion
You're completely lost. Even NASA disagrees with you:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

If you don't understand the difference between "extremely likely" and your rant, then there is literally no hope from you. But then again, a person who can't discern between a rule and a law isn't very bright to begin with.
no, i do not understand it because there is no difference. try explaining to me how extremely likely is somehow different than what I said, compared to you denying it COMPLETELY...are you trying to prove you have no reasoning skills?
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
you are trying to call experts science deniers while you repeat the dumbest ass crap about how higher carbon dioxide levels are a good thing for the planet because plants are greener if they have a certain amount of carbon dioxide. basically, who cares if the Earth gets hotter, and the ice caps melt and ocean levels rise, and the significant changes in ocean temperature affects normal weather cycles, and could turn the great climate for crops in our country and Canada into dry wastelands, and create other catastrophic effects bad for not just humans, but all life on this planet. BUT AT LEAST THE PLANTS THAT GET ENOUGH WATER WILL BE GREENER THAN USUAL....read this...

New study undercuts favorite climate myth 'more CO2 is good ...

https://www.theguardian.com › climate-consensus-97-per-cent › sep › new...

Sep 19, 2016 - They found that carbon dioxide at higher levels than today (400 ppm) did not significantly change plant growth, while higher temperatures had ...

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA ...

https://www.climate.gov › news-features › understanding-climate › climate...

by R Lindsey - ‎Related articles
Sep 19, 2019 - The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher ...

Carbon dioxide hits a level not seen for 3 million years. Here's ...

https://www.nbcnews.com › mach › science › carbon-dioxide-hits-level-no...

May 14, 2019 - Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun, and higher levels are associated with higher global temperatures and other effects of climate change, ...
CO2 levels at their highest for 3 million years - CNN - CNN.com

https://www.cnn.com › health › co2-levels-global-warming-climate-intl

Apr 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high for 3 million years and ... the last time the earth's atmosphere had a CO2 concentration as high as ...
Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? - Scientific ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › ask-the-experts-does-rising-...

Jan 23, 2018 - Climate change's negative effects on plants will outweigh any gains ... “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would ...

FACT: Life flourished during the Cretaceous Period. There's nothing your pecking, copying and pasting can do to change that.

But let's have some fun at your expense anyway. One of your copy and pastes says CO2 levels haven't been this high in 3 million years? Guess what? That means CO2 levels went up AND down all on their own without human intervention. And guess what? 3 million years isn't even one percent of Earth's timeline. That would be like a 100 year-old person saying today was the hottest or coldest day in the past year. So what????

 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
no, i do not understand it because there is no difference. try explaining to me how extremely likely is somehow different than what I said, compared to you denying it COMPLETELY...are you trying to prove you have no reasoning skills?
You said: "the facts prove....". Clearly they do not, or NASA wouldn't say "extremely likely".
 

llovejim

Current Champion
You said: "the facts prove....". Clearly they do not, or NASA wouldn't say "extremely likely".
prove it is highly likely, then, if that makes you quit bitching...it is still the facts we know that determine our opinions, not lists, or who signs them...get it? how much difference would you say there is between it is going to happen and extremely likely? enough to not give a shit, to hope for the best because after all, it is just extremely likely, not a 100% guarantee? are you really this bad at arguing that is your main debating point?
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
You said: "the facts prove....". Clearly they do not, or NASA wouldn't say "extremely likely".
Actually take it one step further.

Consensus isn't fact And Consensus isn't science.

Have a Scientist- from NASA or where ever:
- Prove Manmade Climate Change a Scientific Law.

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, etc.).

They say debate is over. They have all the proof. Well- stake your name to it.

Can't do that- you don't get any $$$$

That will end the fairy tale right there.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
The “debate” isn’t a scientific one. It is between those who accept the science and those who for ideological reasons oppose it.

Meanwhile, scientists continue to do their work and the mountain of evidence continues to accumulate.

Yet Not one will put their name to calling manmade climate change a Scientific law.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
prove it is highly likely, then, if that makes you quit bitching...it is still the facts we know that determine our opinions, not lists, or who signs them...get it? how much difference would you say there is between it is going to happen and extremely likely? enough to not give a shit, to hope for the best because after all, it is just extremely likely, not a 100% guarantee? are you really this bad at arguing that is your main debating point?
I don't have to prove anything. I'm just pointing out even NASA doesn't buy into your crap. Here's let's try it this way. I have a bottle with clear liquid in it. It's extremely likely water. Drink up.

No?

Why not?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
I don't have to prove anything. I'm just pointing out even NASA doesn't buy into your crap. Here's let's try it this way. I have a bottle with clear liquid in it. It's extremely likely water. Drink up.

No?

Why not?
extremely likely means they are saying exactly the same thing i have quoted others as saying, including NASA!! why are you so intent on parsing words even when it makes you look so weak and stupid?
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
yeah, that proves 98% of the climate experts in the world do not agree on climate change!! good point!! maybe if you wear a hat no one will notice.

It's 97% . You know the number Oblammo told you to believe.

That was debunked 5+ years ago.

Read some up to date news, ok ?

Here, this will help- even though we know you aren't bright or man enough to say:
'Oh that's where the 97% figure came from- well that's BS" !


The “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sandand creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”).

In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier:

Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!




https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#578ba5673f9f
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
extremely likely means they are saying exactly the same thing i have quoted others as saying, including NASA!! why are you so intent on parsing words even when it makes you look so weak and stupid?
No. You're either lying or ignorant. Scientific fact: H2O is water.
Climate change: not scientific fact.

Never mind. This is obviously beyond your limited thinking abilities. Continue with your mindless, raging posts. At least you have some entertainment value.
 
Top