"Global Warming"

[bluehenbillk]

If you don't want to call it that or if you want to be stubborn & deny it OK. You can call it broken instead but when the NOAA says it, well it is real....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... te-records" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[andy7171]

Facts are facts, but I'm not going to lose my shit over mm's of ocean rise. Call me callous, but do so in 30 years when it's up to a couple of cm's at least. We(people) ain't go shit to do with it.

[CAA Flagship]

EPA regulations are great, but they are useless when other policies force companies to do their manufacturing overseas where the regulations don't exist. Thanks, Donks.

[ASUG8]

A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

I'm in the white, so I don't give a fuck.

[89Hen]

A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.

C'mon, Forbes is paid by oil companies and auto makers to say that.

[Brock Landers]

A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute

[CAA Flagship]

I'm in the white, so I don't give a fuck.

I'm in the blue.

Current temp in St. Louis: 94

[Brock Landers]

I'd say we're in that thin white stripe, but who the hell can tell with that angle

[89Hen]

Current temp in St. Louis: 94

79 degrees here today, 92 tomorrow, 98 Sunday

[Grizalltheway]

I'm in the white, so I don't give a fuck.

I'm in the blue.

Current temp in St. Louis: 94

It's a pleasant 70 with a nice breeze here in the Great White North.

[CAA Flagship]

Current temp in St. Louis: 94

79 degrees here today, 92 tomorrow, 98 Sunday

Sunday sounds like a three-glove day on the course.

[andy7171]

Montana is deep red, and the fucking Sun Rd still ain't plowed!

[ASUG8]

A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute

Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.

[Grizalltheway]

...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute

Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.

Well shit, maybe a certain poster who doesn't know that burning fossil fuels produces CO2 could weigh in and straighten us out.

[Brock Landers]

...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute

Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.

The science behind all of this is thoroughly explained in the 1200 pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by 50 top scientists organized into the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute in Chicago

I'm sure you're referring to the reference to the NIPCC and their, uh... "study"

[travelinman67]

If you don't want to call it that or if you want to be stubborn & deny it OK. You can call it broken instead but when the NOAA says it, well it is real....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... te-records" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These talking points have been up on the NOAA website for months. If anyone had bothered to read the articles I've been posting in the "Nub of the climate change" thread, you'd have noticed several groups had painstakingly, comprehensively, debunked the NOAA's "reported data". NOAA has been REPEATEDLY caught either directly changing data, cherry-picking data/parameters/time ranges, or "refining definitions" to force results.

Who controls environmental regulations controls the masses.

Wake the fuck up.

[Brock Landers]

If you don't want to call it that or if you want to be stubborn & deny it OK. You can call it broken instead but when the NOAA says it, well it is real....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... te-records" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

These talking points have been up on the NOAA website for months. If anyone had bothered to read the articles I've been posting in the "Nub of the climate change" thread, you'd have noticed several groups had painstakingly, comprehensively, debunked the NOAA's "reported data". NOAA has been REPEATEDLY caught either directly changing data, cherry-picking data/parameters/time ranges, or "refining definitions" to force results.

Who controls environmental regulations controls the masses.

Wake the fuck up.

You mean like this one:

NOAA "pristine" data shows U.S. in 10 year cooling period.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/ameri ... ing-trend/





Oops!

...where after it picked up some attention the original author had to weigh in:

For the record:

I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.

Maybe she also missed that I lambast those who think CO2 doesn’t have any effect at all. Yes, she must have missed all those things doing that “high-quality journalism” from Newsweek

[Brock Landers]

Actually, can someone explain to me why you think this is some liberal/government/scientist conspiracy to subvert or twist the truth? What do they have to gain?

[89Hen]

Actually, can someone explain to me why you think this is some liberal/government/scientist conspiracy to subvert or twist the truth? What do they have to gain?

Was that a rhetorical question?

[Brock Landers]

1 - Stop you from buying that American SUV
2 - Stop you from filling up your house with electronic appliances
3 - ????
4 - profit

[Brock Landers]

I also love how liberal anti-vaxxers and conservative adamant denialists = two sides of the same coin. One side gets angry whenever the government is trying to infect them with "toxins", and the other gets pissed when the government tries to tell them what to do with "toxins"

Do you all buy overpriced organic food at the farmer's market together just to stick it to the FDA too?

[travelinman67]

Actually, can someone explain to me why you think this is some liberal/government/scientist conspiracy to subvert or twist the truth? What do they have to gain?

Study:

Julian Huxley
Founding of UNESCO
Founding of WWF
Read: "The Environmental Revolution: A Guide For The Masters Of The World" (Max Nicholson)

I won't cite sources, as that would just provoke the Trolls.
I will intimate that the scam is founded in preserving monarchial-oligarchic control via depopulation and use of environmental regulations to suppress democratic government.

Study. Learn.

[Brock Landers]

Careful, that is about one or two loose screws away from a Spandos post

[89Hen]

I also love how liberal anti-vaxxers and conservative adamant denialists = two sides of the same coin. One side gets angry whenever the government is trying to infect them with "toxins", and the other gets pissed when the government tries to tell them what to do with "toxins"

I fall in neither category, but I'm not sure they are equal.