Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Where "fraud" by select scientists is an irredeemable offense that discounts all other science, but his favorite President's history of committing and settling cases of business fraud are just water under the bridge.

Good to see you go on record as not being bothered by the climate fraud.

Just because you say things doesn't make it true Trump Jr.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Good to see you go on record as not being bothered by the climate fraud.

Just because you say things doesn't make it true Trump Jr.

So is it "normal" to quote quote things you do believe in?

Remember when all the polar bears were dying?



Global polar bear population larger than previous thought – almost 30,000

This means the adjusted 2015 global estimate for polar bears should be about 28,500 (average), a significant increase over the official estimate of 26,500 (average) for 2015 — and an even larger increase over the 2005 estimate of about 22,500 (average)2, despite the dramatic loss of summer sea ice since 2007 that we hear about endlessly.

It is increasingly obvious that polar bears are thriving despite having lived through summer sea ice levels not predicted to occur until 2050 – levels of sea ice that experts said would wipe out 2/3 of the world’s polar bears (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017a, b).

So when you hear, “Save the polar bears, their future is grim” next week, remember that polar bears are thriving right now because those future predictions were flawed: summer sea ice is not critical habitat for polar bears.

LG, a lot of areas that were previously void of certain historically present mammals have been reappearing. Wolves in the west (and even being spotted at the northern tip of the lower peninsula and tracks confirmed by DNR), mountain lions, bison and elk... just over the past decade or two.

Maybe the steps we've taken to solve a phantom problem (I'm not convinced of this, but let's roll with it) have had the side effect of creating better habitat. It's correlation/causation so it could be totally unrelated but kind of what I was talking about before... maybe man made climate change is bullshit, but the steps people talk about needing to be taken should be taken anyways for the sake of our environment.

Goose why do you keep harping about fake science?

What are your scientific qualifications to debunk actual scientists again? I don't think you have ever answered that question yet.

Herbie Green wrote:Goose why do you keep harping about fake science?

What are your scientific qualifications to debunk actual scientists again? I don't think you have ever answered that question yet.

I think he's pissed that instead of the fraud being covered up and ripping off millions of people, where a few individuals have profited, there could be a few individuals that have profited by creating a fraudulent study that benefited people to make the world a better place.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Scientific research on pollution is a lot more straight forward. We can literally measure pollutants in our water and air and the direct causes are known. You're not seriously suggesting that because temperature change scientific research may be flawed, that we should ignore pollution also are you? That's just plain stupid man.

And people criticize me for subject jumping.

Pollution isn't global warming.

CO2 is NOT pollution.

Nice try but air pollution and global warming are directly related. I stopped discussing global warming and temperature change in this thread with you because it's equivalent to arguing evolution with Anti.

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:

Where "fraud" by select scientists is an irredeemable offense that discounts all other science, but his favorite President's history of committing and settling cases of business fraud are just water under the bridge.

Good to see you go on record as not being bothered by the climate fraud.

I used quotations to poke fun at your use of the word fraud regarding climate change science but you're clearly too dense to realize that.

Harry KhachatrianVerified account‏@Harry1T6 23m23 minutes ago
Leonardo DiCaprio flew his private jet from NewYork to LosAngeles 6 times in 6 weeks. I hope he lectures us about the environment at #Oscars

Herbie Green wrote:Goose why do you keep harping about fake science?

What are your scientific qualifications to debunk actual scientists again? I don't think you have ever answered that question yet.

Did I ever say *I* was debunking them? Jeezus you people love to make shit up I "said".

LooseGoose wrote:Harry KhachatrianVerified account‏@Harry1T6 23m23 minutes ago
Leonardo DiCaprio flew his private jet from NewYork to LosAngeles 6 times in 6 weeks. I hope he lectures us about the environment at #Oscars

Oh shit. Burn him!

InTenSity wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Harry KhachatrianVerified account‏@Harry1T6 23m23 minutes ago
Leonardo DiCaprio flew his private jet from NewYork to LosAngeles 6 times in 6 weeks. I hope he lectures us about the environment at #Oscars

Oh shit. Burn him!

Sorry Tens....one of my pet peeves too. People that waste energy excessively lecturing me. Live what you preach or STFU.

LooseGoose wrote:Harry KhachatrianVerified account‏@Harry1T6 23m23 minutes ago
Leonardo DiCaprio flew his private jet from NewYork to LosAngeles 6 times in 6 weeks. I hope he lectures us about the environment at #Oscars

How much does ExxonMobil pay you per post Goose? Follow up question: How can I get in on that gravy train?

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:Goose why do you keep harping about fake science?

What are your scientific qualifications to debunk actual scientists again? I don't think you have ever answered that question yet.

Did I ever say *I* was debunking them? Jeezus you people love to make shit up I "said".

Your propaganda links then? Is that all you actually have? (that's a rhetorical question)

LooseGoose wrote:

InTenSity wrote:
Oh shit. Burn him!

Sorry Tens....one of my pet peeves too. People that waste energy excessively lecturing me. Live what you preach or STFU.

You know what my pet peeve is? People that claim to want to help those that are less fortunate than them, but when given the chance decide that lower taxes are more important. Just speaking from first hand experience.

Damned science deniers....go ahead and tell me about the crazies at Wisky and Northwestern......all just republican loonies.

Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)

A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars.

While the notion that the impact on earth's orbital cycle on solar radiation levels is the most significant factor determining global temperatures is anything but new, the team of scientists seem to have tied the phenomenon to planetary orbits in a more concrete manner than previous studies.

In an article summarizing the scientists' findings, which were originally published this week in the journal Nature, the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that the study "provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the 'chaotic solar system,' a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system." Those variations over millions of years "produce big changes in our planet’s climate."

From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’

LooseGoose wrote:Damned science deniers....go ahead and tell me about the crazies at Wisky and Northwestern......all just republican loonies.

Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)

A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars.

While the notion that the impact on earth's orbital cycle on solar radiation levels is the most significant factor determining global temperatures is anything but new, the team of scientists seem to have tied the phenomenon to planetary orbits in a more concrete manner than previous studies.

In an article summarizing the scientists' findings, which were originally published this week in the journal Nature, the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that the study "provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the 'chaotic solar system,' a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system." Those variations over millions of years "produce big changes in our planet’s climate."

From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’

Cool study. Doesn't take into account CO2 emissions though. That is something we can and need to control. Think about future generations, or be someone who only cares about himself.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

LooseGoose wrote:Damned science deniers....go ahead and tell me about the crazies at Wisky and Northwestern......all just republican loonies.

Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)

A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars.

While the notion that the impact on earth's orbital cycle on solar radiation levels is the most significant factor determining global temperatures is anything but new, the team of scientists seem to have tied the phenomenon to planetary orbits in a more concrete manner than previous studies.

In an article summarizing the scientists' findings, which were originally published this week in the journal Nature, the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes that the study "provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the 'chaotic solar system,' a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system." Those variations over millions of years "produce big changes in our planet’s climate."

From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’

Let us know when any reputable sources outside of denier propaganda rags latch on to this. Until then keep it to yourself in your echo chamber

Herbie Green wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Damned science deniers....go ahead and tell me about the crazies at Wisky and Northwestern......all just republican loonies.

Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)





From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a ‘chaotic solar system’

Let us know when any reputable sources outside of denier propaganda rags latch on to this.  Until then keep it to yourself in your echo chamber

Lmao.  So now studies by UWisc & Northwestern, published by Nature are "propaganda links"???    

LooseGoose wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:

Let us know when any reputable sources outside of denier propaganda rags latch on to this.  Until then keep it to yourself in your echo chamber

Lmao.  So now studies by UWisc & Northwestern, published by Nature are "propaganda links"???    

Your link is propaganda. You see, it does what you do constantly on this board. It takes a fact and then bastardizes said fact to "prove" a point it's trying to make. Nowhere in that study did it say that man has had little to no effect on climate change.

I love how Goose latches on to single studies that don't even say what he thinks they do and were just published and thus not peer reviewed. Yet a plethora of peer reviewed research from thousands of scientists is all fraudulent.

Fucking LOL

AnomanderRake wrote:I love how Goose latches on to single studies that don't even say what he thinks they do and were just published and thus not peer reviewed. Yet a plethora of peer reviewed research from thousands of scientists is all fraudulent.

Fucking LOL

We're dealing with someone who tries to pass off Daily Mail articles as "proof". Daily Mail has been banned from freaking Wikipedia for being unreliable.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/media/wikipedia-the-daily-mail/

So far - rebuttals of the Wisconsin/Northwestern paper - 0. Yelping about CO2 and the Daily Mail - 2. Neither of which were mentioned in the post.

LooseGoose wrote:So far - rebuttals of the Wisconsin/Northwestern paper - 0.   Yelping about CO2 and the Daily Mail - 2.    Neither of which were mentioned in the post.

No one is rebutting the study. Read the words that I am typing for once and get back to me.

LooseGoose wrote:So far - rebuttals of the Wisconsin/Northwestern paper - 0. Yelping about CO2 and the Daily Mail - 2. Neither of which were mentioned in the post.

I don't think anybody is going to dispute that the Sun and its fluctuating radiation patterns have an impact on Earth's climate. That seems like common sense to me.

My problem is that the study does not suggest anything remotely close to what the article you posted says in both the headline and its content. That's why people are calling it a propaganda piece.

The research has nothing to do with human impact on climate change and is a study on natural climate change fluctuations over geological time periods (millions/billions of years) due to awesome things happening in space.

Goose could you read my response and update the tally when you get a chance?

Thank you,

Rake

I've never gone to southern Argentina and taken soil samples. I've never taken trips to Nanutek 20 years strait for ice core samples. I've never studied the migratory patterns of giant humpback whales. If you haven't done this, either, you know as much as I do.... which is jack shit except what I'm told to believe other people have done.

But doesn't erring on the side of caution make sense? Do you ever take a trip through Michigan (south of US-10, at least) and take note how many open corn fields (which... subsidies, statism, etc.), etc they're at?

So say climate change is 95% natural. Nothing we can do about it. What do you lose by caring about air quality? Or the water quality? Maybe someone doesn't make as much money. It's not like there aren't other avenues.

I dunno... maybe I'm pulling a Dwags and posting while drunk.... but this is an issue I get very, very, very liberal about. It's the polar opposite of the second amendment with me.

Living in NYC you go... wtf is happening, this whole world is fucked with this overpopulation and 19 million people shitting and pissing all the time and throwing away their styrofoam food delivery. So I figure I'm in a bubble and move to Grand Rapids. And it seems everytime I take a different route another 2 acres of woods are cut down so some rich white fuck Bob would post a beachside photo of can build one of those stupid looking contemporary "carpenter style" homes or whatever the fuck they are. They look stupid as fuck and you're a pretentious moron if you ask a builder to build one. Pretentious and a hypocrite.

Live in a house that's already made and remodel you wasteful pieces of shit. It's mostly honkies. Dwags, as much vitriol as you have.... you and I could get down on some cracker hating if we get on new construction. Unless, of course... you are one of those hypocrites that lives in one of those cooker cutter looking piece of shit houses.
They look stupid as shit when every white bread motherfucker in the area has one. The litmus test is.... do you pay HOA fees? Do you believe in white privilege? If the answer is yes to both questions... you have as much integrity as Kim Jong whatever the fuck.



This is the shit I'm talking about. Who the fucks builds a house 9 out of 10 of the new builds of the last 10 years has? You were the fuck that wore Airwalks in 1996 with a band t-shirt and Jinco jeans you trend-following fuck. You were the unimaginative, trend-following asshole that wore bellbottoms and a polyester shirt to a disco in 1977. The dickhead that still walked around in acid-washed jeans in 1990. You're insecure and you lack any modicum of confidence. You're the same type that voted for Bill Clinton without a peep and are now complaining about 'grab em by the pussy.' You're a caricature based on a failure of integrity.

Anyways... how'd we look against Illinois?

Kim Jong whatever the fuck might actually have plenty of integrity. But it's the first universally hated name I thought of.

^ Quality post X you should post more when you're drunk lol.

And to answer your question we looked like shit against Illinois.

Goose - Can you update the tally yet? I'm pretty sure I served up some knowledge in this thread a few days ago.

Thanks,

Rake

AnomanderRake wrote:^ Quality post X you should post more when you're drunk lol.

And to answer your question we looked like shit against Illinois.

Goose - Can you update the tally yet? I'm pretty sure I served up some knowledge in this thread a few days ago.

Thanks,

Rake

Too many turnover. So. Many. Turnovers. Illinois shooting lights out from 3 didn't help either. We still has a shot at the end though.

Since I'm guessing that Goose is waiting on Breitbart to formulate his opinion on this and a few other things let me take my best guess at his response.

"The Wisconsin/Northwestern study is irrefutable proof that we have no control over the climate. You alarmists only spread lies. CO2 is not pollution, trees need it to survive. Oil now, oil tomorrow, oil forever!"

AnomanderRake wrote:I love how Goose latches on to single studies that don't even say what he thinks they do and were just published and thus not peer reviewed. Yet a plethora of peer reviewed research from thousands of scientists is all fraudulent.

Fucking LOL

More fraud from over 300 scientists....??

Nets Ignore 300+ Scientists' Petition to Withdraw from UN Climate Convention

The liberal media love to report on climate change so long as the story affirms an alarmist, man-caused climate change narrative. When scientists question that, the media fall silent.

More than 300 scientists, engineers and meteorologists, led by MIT Meteorology professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, signed a petition asking President Trump to “withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)” on Feb. 23, 2017. But ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows never once mentioned the letter between Feb. 23 and March 1.

The Hill columnist Timothy Cama said “the signers of the Thursday letter differ slightly on their exact problems with mainstream climate science,” but were unified that the U.S. should withdraw from the climate convention.

“We support reasonable and cost-effective environmental protection,” Lindzen’s petition read, “But carbon dioxide, the target of the UNFCCC is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.”

Next you'll want to tell me about how the science was settled on oil....that we could NEVER drill our way out of the shortage.



U.S. oil exports are blowing past expectations

LooseGoose wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:I love how Goose latches on to single studies that don't even say what he thinks they do and were just published and thus not peer reviewed. Yet a plethora of peer reviewed research from thousands of scientists is all fraudulent.

Fucking LOL

More fraud from over 300 scientists....??

Nets Ignore 300+ Scientists' Petition to Withdraw from UN Climate Convention

The liberal media love to report on climate change so long as the story affirms an alarmist, man-caused climate change narrative. When scientists question that, the media fall silent.

More than 300 scientists, engineers and meteorologists, led by MIT Meteorology professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, signed a petition asking President Trump to “withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)” on Feb. 23, 2017. But ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows never once mentioned the letter between Feb. 23 and March 1.

The Hill columnist Timothy Cama said “the signers of the Thursday letter differ slightly on their exact problems with mainstream climate science,” but were unified that the U.S. should withdraw from the climate convention.

“We support reasonable and cost-effective environmental protection,” Lindzen’s petition read, “But carbon dioxide, the target of the UNFCCC is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth.”

So you're sticking with the "science is fake and screw common sense" line huh? Not surprising.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

More fraud from over 300 scientists....??

Nets Ignore 300+ Scientists' Petition to Withdraw from UN Climate Convention

So you're sticking with the "science is fake and screw common sense" line huh? Not surprising.

That guy's funded by the Cato Institute, which is funded by the Koch brothers.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

More fraud from over 300 scientists....??

Nets Ignore 300+ Scientists' Petition to Withdraw from UN Climate Convention

So you're sticking with the "science is fake and screw common sense" line huh? Not surprising.

Sorry you disagree with Dr. Lindzen.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

So you're sticking with the "science is fake and screw common sense" line huh? Not surprising.

Sorry you disagree with Dr. Lindzen.

Sorry you disagree with reality, post more fake news than everyone else here combined, and I'm sorry you can't be honest with people on this board on just about any subject.

Don't confuse Goose with scientific findings.
He only accepts those that Exxon paid for.

GRR Spartan wrote:Don't confuse Goose with scientific findings.  
He only accepts those that Exxon paid for.

 
NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating the Liberal Media Bias is so much more believable than peer reviewed scientific studies. Alex Jones told me so.

So just to recap instead of updating the score to acknowledge my rebuttal of his fake news story, Goose posted more Koch brother funded fake news.

Oh and MSU turned the ball over way too many times last night.

lol, more tin foil hat stuff. Koch Brothers --

I actually don't give a shit about the Koch brothers, and didn't read the link you posted from 300 scientists because it wasn't relevant to the discussion we were having, which you seem to have abandoned after my rebuttal.

I will not take anything you say seriously until you update the score.

Thanks,

Rake