Quote:It's settled as far as NASA and NOAA are concerned. Do you know better than them?
No. But are either self funded?
Quote:I'm wrong far less frequently.
Now, that is funny.
Quote:No. But are either self funded?
Who is the self funded climate deniers? Is anyone self funded? Does it matter? The science speaks for itself.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv'>http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv</a>
90 degrees in May and unusually dry in Canada this week.
Huh.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv'>http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv</a>
90 degrees in May and unusually dry in Canada this week.
Huh.
Weather isnt climate change until it needs to be.
Quote:It's settled as far as NASA and NOAA are concerned. Do you know better than them?
Yes.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv'>http://i.imgur.com/PveMprY.gifv</a>
90 degrees in May and unusually dry in Canada this week.
Huh.
Unusually cool and pleasant weather in Florida.
Canada gets warmer while Florida gets cooler. Everyone wins!
Quote:Unusually cool and pleasant weather in Florida.
Canada gets warmer while Florida gets cooler. Everyone wins!
But weather is bad.
Scientists have become the new priesthood. Whatever they say goes. You dont question it.
Proof of weather manipulation is easy to find. So why isn't it common knowledge?
![[Image: pasadenastarnews-2.jpg?resize=671%2C1024]](http://i0.wp.com/www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/pasadenastarnews-2.jpg?resize=671%2C1024)
Quote:Proof of weather manipulation is easy to find. So why isn't it common knowledge?
I googled "Los Angeles cloud seeding"
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-l-a-officials-seeded-clouds-during-el-nino-storm-in-hopes-of-more-rain-20160308-story.html'>http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-l-a-officials-seeded-clouds-during-el-nino-storm-in-hopes-of-more-rain-20160308-story.html</a>
I still don't get it. What if you climate change deniers are wrong? What are your motivations to believe the majority of scientists are wrong? What do the likes of Obama gain by believing in climate change? Why does it seem to be a belief held by typically right wing voters? Since when why science political?
It was the predetermined outcome that clued us to the fraud. The U.N. policy is that global warming exists, it is caused by humans, humans will have to financially punished for certain behaviors, and big government is ready to levy and collect the fines. If we fine humanity enough, they won't be able to afford nasty polluting things like electricity.
But why are you so passionate in trying to disprove? What drives you to not want to believe?
Many seem to believe in something else far less plausible while denying any chance of climate change...
If you are right we may have wasted a few dollars. If you are wrong the planet could be ruined. Why the need to risk it?
Quote:It was the predetermined outcome that clued us to the fraud. The U.N. policy is that global warming exists, it is caused by humans, humans will have to financially punished for certain behaviors, and big government is ready to levy and collect the fines. If we fine humanity enough, they won't be able to afford nasty polluting things like electricity.
Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Quote:I still don't get it. What if you climate change deniers are wrong? What are your motivations to believe the majority of scientists are wrong? What do the likes of Obama gain by believing in climate change? Why does it seem to be a belief held by typically right wing voters? Since when why science political?
The knowledge of the climate is still in it's infancy. For most of the recent geological history glaciers covered much of the land in the northern hemisphere. What if the climate is actually set to go into the next glaciation? All of the "solutions" proposed by the left would exacerbate the disaster. Warmer is better. If it were just a scientific discussion with no political ramifications then there would be no 55 page thread here.
What do the "likes of Obama" gain? Labeling climate change as a problem is a means of justifying complete control over the energy sector, and an excuse to redistribute wealth. This is ideal for authoritarians like Obama, and especially to One World proponents who want the UN to control everything, since the "problem" is global. Bureaucracy grows too, which the establishment of both parties loves.
http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...apitalism/
Quote:Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Most of the moon landing hoax believers, truthers, and anti-vaccine crowd are from the Left.
Quote:But why are you so passionate in trying to disprove? What drives you to not want to believe?
Many seem to believe in something else far less plausible while denying any chance of climate change...
If you are right we may have wasted a few dollars. If you are wrong the planet could be ruined. Why the need to risk it?
Apparently you believe. Consider the word "believe." Global Warming as a disaster scenario is a religion, not science. It has lots of the hallmarks of religion. Mankind is sinful, and the high priests demand absolution. Science proposes a theory and then tests it, looking for flaws. Religion looks for supporting evidence and dismisses evidence that disagrees with the dogma. The Global Warming elite follow the second path, that of religion.
The science itself drives my opinion. The actual data, rather than the alarmist press releases and statements, show there is no problem. The planet is slowly warming, and has been doing so since the 1700s. The climate back then was way too cold. Warming is good.
And it's not "a few dollars." The proposed solutions are vastly expensive. The proponents have liked the spending to insurance. Makes sense. But the proposed spending is equivalent to paying twice your homes value in fire insurance every year.