- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Increased CO2 levels produced no negative effects on GW-signed by 31,847 scientists
Posted on 3/18/19 at 10:17 pm
Posted on 3/18/19 at 10:17 pm
LINK
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
It's a complete LIE that "there is a consensus among scientists that GW is caused by man". This proves the LIE.
For those who understand technical language; that is, NOT liberals or leftists I present you ASTROMETRIA
LINK
Print this out and place it in a binder. It may vanish from the internet one day.
Someone get this to AOC Stat!
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Watch it. Very educational.
LINK
Global Warming believers are anti-human. They have killed the African dream which is to develop.
Liberals - Repeat this three time every day: Al Gore is NOT a scientist.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
It's a complete LIE that "there is a consensus among scientists that GW is caused by man". This proves the LIE.
quote:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
LINK
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
For those who understand technical language; that is, NOT liberals or leftists I present you ASTROMETRIA
LINK
Print this out and place it in a binder. It may vanish from the internet one day.
Someone get this to AOC Stat!
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Watch it. Very educational.
LINK
Global Warming believers are anti-human. They have killed the African dream which is to develop.
quote:
We are told that 'Man Made Global Warming' is the biggest ever threat to mankind. There is no room for scientific doubt. Well, watch this film and make up your own mind. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'.
Humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.
Liberals - Repeat this three time every day: Al Gore is NOT a scientist.
This post was edited on 3/22/19 at 11:16 pm
14
Posted on 3/19/19 at 3:37 am to djmicrobe
Posted on 3/19/19 at 4:16 am to djmicrobe
quote:In what? From where? Focus?
including 9,029 with PhDs
And how many of them have funding that’s dependent upon GW being man made?
Posted on 3/19/19 at 4:32 am to SlapahoeTribe
And how much funding does a global warming pushing scientist get from the feds?
You think a paper with the premise "Global warming, nothing to see here" is going to get funded by the feds?
You think a paper with the premise "Global warming, nothing to see here" is going to get funded by the feds?
Posted on 3/19/19 at 5:10 am to djmicrobe
That's very thorough, and all its sources are there. Now if people would just read it it might at least cause a doubt that they've been fed a load of rubbish about catastrophic global warming.
Now we need a comprehensive study on the ineffectiveness of solar and wind power now that large tracts in multiple countries are in operation and money trails are known.
Now we need a comprehensive study on the ineffectiveness of solar and wind power now that large tracts in multiple countries are in operation and money trails are known.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 6:36 am to SlapahoeTribe
quote:In other words, how many of them are free from the professional conflicts of interest rampant among AGW scientists?
how many of them have funding that’s dependent upon GW being man made?
Posted on 3/19/19 at 6:48 am to djmicrobe
Got to keep that research funding coming in.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 10:20 pm to 200MPHCOBRA
quote:
That's very thorough, and all its sources are there. Now if people would just read it it might at least cause a doubt that they've been fed a load of rubbish about catastrophic global warming.
Need to get this to every science teacher in the world. Let them teach TRUE science.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 10:42 pm to Fat Bastard
quote:
The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 10:44 pm to djmicrobe
quote:
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming. FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” 2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. See a Wall Street Journal article here.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 10:58 pm to Fat Bastard
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:16 pm to djmicrobe
That list is garbage at best.
Go find 10 real live scientists with legitimate degrees and ask them if increased C02 levels has a negative affect on the global environment. See what they have to say. You might be SHOCKED at the results.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:22 pm to jessieventura9
quote:
Next time you think your little arse bullcrap even matters.
LINK
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:05 am to Chuker
quote:
Go find 10 real live scientists with legitimate degrees and ask them if increased C02 levels has a negative affect on the global environment. See what they have to say. You might be SHOCKED at the results.
I'm your huckleberry.
PhD in chemical engineering, been lead author on a few peer-reviewed publications (which a couple being cover stories), two patents (one on a novel physical solvent for pre-combustion CO2 scrubbing), currently focuses research on ocean chemistry as it relates to coral health. Hopefully you will grant me that I'm a "real live scientist" and my degrees are "legit."
Now, I have not affixed my name to this petition thing, but I can tell you that there would be some benefit to higher CO2 levels. There would also be pretty significant issues as well. The fact is that it's not some imminent death/doomsday scenario that politicians would have you believe. Are CO2 levels currently higher than in the recorded past, yes. Have humans contributed to that, almost certainly. Is anthropogenic CO2 emissions significant enough to warrant economic restrictions, nope.
CO2 has been made the scapegoat chemical because it's really easy to measure, and because it's a product of complete combustion. The other product of a combustion reaction is 10x better at heat absorption, but since it's water, nobody really cares. The Earth is not going to turn into Venus. Plastic dumping into the oceans rom Asia, India, and Central America are of much more pressing concern than burning fossil fuels for power.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:08 am to Chuker
quote:
Go find 10 real live scientists with legitimate degrees and ask them if increased C02 levels has a negative affect on the global environment. See what they have to say. You might be SHOCKED at the results.
I guess you did NOT click on the links provided. you will fine almost 32,000 scientists with REAL degrees and over 9,000 with PhDs.
You want more than that?
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
LINK
quote:
Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely.
The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise. While it is not entirely clear how the IPCC calculated the “percent” certainty, the claim has confused some of the world’s most respected climate scientists. “How they can justify this is beyond me,” noted Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
quote:
if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast,” Professor Curry noted on her climate website in an analysis offering her initial thoughts about the UN’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). “Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say [the temperature increase] is all AGW [anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming].”
In another commentary about the report, Dr. Curry said it was time to shut down the whole IPCC. “The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning,” she explained. “We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible — not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease.
It is time to disband the stupidity immediately.
UN IPCC STUPID SCIENCE must Geaux!!
Time to educate teachers that are teaching this FALSE RELIGION.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 12:10 am
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:39 am to Chuker
quote:
Go find 10 real live scientists with legitimate degrees and ask them if increased C02 levels has a negative affect on the global environment. See what they have to say. You might be SHOCKED at the results.
Chuker - This will help you.
This is my contribution to saving the planet from incompetent scientists.
LINK
quote:
IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”
2 2
IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”
NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”
IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”
2 2
IPCC: “Systemic risks due to extreme [weather] events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services.”
NIPCC: “There is no support for the model-based projection that precipitation in a warming world becomes more variable and intense. In fact, some observational data suggest just the opposite, and provide support for the proposition that precipitation responds more to cyclical variations in solar activity.”
LINK
LINK
quote:
In a new and smaller report issued in mid-October, titled “Scientific Critique of the IPCC’s 2013 Summary for Policymakers,” four of the lead authors of the NIPCC report offer a withering critique of the IPCC’s latest report. Among the 11 “retreats” they identify in the IPCC’s latest report:
* Global temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago despite rising levels of carbon dioxide, the invisible gas the IPCC claims is responsible for causing global warming.
* Temperatures were warmer in many parts of the world approximately 1,000 years ago, during the so-called Mediaeval Warm Period, due entirely to natural causes.
* Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing rather than shrinking.
* Climate computer models fail to reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.
* Computer models fail to represent and quantify cloud and aerosol process.
* Solar cycles may account for the pause in global air temperature.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 12:43 am to Fat Bastard
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:14 am to Fat Bastard
quote:I will admit that Charles Darwin is a respected scientist, but I kinda doubt he signed that petition. Since he died 140 years ago.
U GONNA MAKE TARZANA AND BETA SHAKE MELT ALL OVER THE SITE!
I have questions about Dr. I. C. You as well. And Gerri Hallowell of the Spice Girls. John Grisham is actually a lawyer. So is Perry Mason but only on TV. Michael J. Fox didn't even go to college as far as I know. Robert C. Byrd was a senator.
And between triage medicine and hilarious shenanigans during the Korean War, when did Dr Frank Burns, Dr. Honeycutt and Dr. Pierce ever get around to climate study?
Because yes, ALL of those people are on that list of signatures. It's the Oregan Petition Project. It's been around since the 90s, in case you couldn't tell by the sites amazing graphics. It's a joke. Stop embarrassing yourself.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 1:28 am
Posted on 3/20/19 at 1:27 am to djmicrobe
quote:This petition has been circulating since 1998. You'll notice that there in no on the signature page of the petition.
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
It's a complete LIE that "there is a consensus among scientists that GW is caused by man". This proves the LIE.
The original petition was circulated and known as the "Oregon Petition Project", but the name now has been shortened to the "Petition Project" in order to distance it from the negative comments it has received.
quote:One of the main financial contributors is Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon's benefactor, and a founder of Cambridge Analytics.
The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
Google the Oregon Petition Project and the Institute of Science and Medicine, and its founder/head Arthur B. Robinson, if you want to get a flavor of how far afield these "scientists" are.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News