re: We will start to see 130 degrees

quote:

---

Meh, I wouldn't go that far. Didn't the Worlds Average daily temp just break records multiple days over the last two weeks?

---

I imagine our technology is far better and more widely placed than ever before.

I don't trust the numbers much anymore. They've started using obscure sites locally that have no access accept to weather people and those sites are recording numbers far higher than anywhere else.

quote:

---

65 million years ago doesn't count.

---

I love how you evolutionists pull numbers straight out of your arse like this.

quote:

---

It's hot. What's new? It's no hotter than it's ever been before.

---

The earth is warming. That is beyond question. I’ve never read a scientist, and I’ve read hundreds, who doesn’t agree that the earth is warming.

Every time one of us climate skeptics posts something like your quote above it discredits all of us.

quote:

---

The earth is warming. That is beyond question. I’ve never read a scientist, and I’ve read hundreds, who doesn’t agree that the earth is warming. Every time one of us climate skeptics posts something like your quote above it discredits all of us.

---

Every time There is a major snow event somewhere the sharpest of the bunch post something about “global warming” on social media. Same baw.

Hell , I’m on the beach in Destin now and the water will take your breath away when you first get in .

quote:

---

Unless you're a moron (highly likely)

---

I think you hit the nail on the head with this.

But it’s now raining in south la and not hot anymore.

But I’m sure a thunderstorm in July in Louisiana is because of climate change.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is our perception of human caused global warming over the billions of years of this planet's history is only backed up by only 73 years of readings, and not the 110+ years previously accepted. Well. Okay. That makes the scam look even worse.

---

quote:

---

Unless you're a moron (highly likely)

---

Nail on head

I tend to think these liberals don’t really think.

My counter to current climate change freaks is, if your claim is true then why are we seeing more drastic results of what you say is the result of climate change, since climate change activist started implementing climate change counter measures.

Why do you believe that "man" today are right and "man" of yesterday were wrong? What happens when "man" tomorrow says "man" today were wrong and the cause of climate destruction? My point is that people always have theory based on current time and their bias of current desire, it does not make them more right or more wrong because time is the judge. So instead of making more man made products to sell, to solve a so called earth problem why not just reduce more earth destructive products. All they are doing today is replacing products so that another group can reap money vs the other.

Is putting man made windmills in the oceans really better for the planet, or is it an more an opportunity for someone to make money that was not making money before?

Is putting reflective panels across the globe better for planet earth, or is it an opportunity for someone to make money that was not making it before?

Is clear-cutting land for solar farms better for earth it, or is it for someone to make money that was not making it before?

Is extracting fossil fuels from below earth surface worse than strip mining Earth's surface?

Is the physical hazardous waste of "renewables" better for earth than the off gases of fossil fuel products, or is it a source of money that someone did not have before?

Is consolidating Earth's energy production to one source and one distrubution better than diversifying energy sources to protect the planet?

quote:

---

How do you think we came to simply refer to everything as Climate Change?

---

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy - March 3, 2003

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
...
The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.

I think the earth is warming, and some of it is man made and also there’s deforestation and a shortage in portable water and we’re running out of top soil. If you start reading about potential ways we could be moving into a period of ecological crises, well, you couldn’t function. There’s two important things you need to keep in mind though. There’s nothing we can do either as individuals or as a nation. The crises is global and would require India and China to reduce their emissions instead of raising them. Even if we invest in sustainable resources and bring the costs of those down, there’s the chance that we invest in the wrong resources or create other unforeseen problems. Individually, nothing we do matters. If you cut your personal emissions to zero tomorrow it wouldn’t help anybody. The best thing we can do is let the market decide and if tech emerges that can cure our ailments it’ll be justly rewarded by the market.

If that doesn’t happen? That brings us to point two. You, I, and everyone else on this board will be dead by the time bad things start happening. Our descendants can rage at us like lefties rage at long dead slave owners, and it won’t bother any of us one bit, because you’ll be dead. We reap what we sow and nothing lasts forever except the Lord. Our current technocratic civilization might be an affront to the natural order of things and to God, a modern day Tower of Babel. If that’s the case we deserve to fall. Blessed be the name of the Lord