ADVERTISEMENT

Cruz: Climate Change Is "Pseudo-Scientific"

Taking advice from "The Natural News" over NASA is ludicrous.
Ah NASA...

http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

excerpt:

This latest research from NASA is a bigger blow to their cause.

And we know it is accurate because it uses altimetry data from satellites to gauge changes in the size of the Antarctic land mass.

What this shows is that between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82 billion tons a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbadjohn45
Wow, ONE scientist says it's fake...must be true. Have you ever watched a show called "Life Below Zero?" The people on that show live in Northern Alaska. Every last one of them has commented on the unusually warm weather...I don't mean just a little unusual, a LOT unusual. There are hundreds of reputable scientists that say your guy is lying. Here's a nice read, if you aren't lazy:

http://environment.yale.edu/climate..._and_subistence_resource_mapping_in_NW_AK.pdf


and AGAIN, even if climate change were a lie, there is NO doubt that we are breathing in crap that is killing us because of our use of coal etc for energy.
 
Wait - what about NASA?

You were all about NASA until you realized it doesn't fit your Chicken Little political agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbadjohn45
I'm still "all about NASA." I never said I wasn't. You don't pay attention, do you, Lynn? ONE scientist said it was bull...ONE.
 
The scientist in that article was a physicist not a climate scientist but there is plenty of information out there explaining how Antarctica is not the same as the Arctic and what is really happening in Antarctica. Not going to bother arguing this article because it proves nothing and it will just be answered with another conspiracy click bait site link.
 
The scientist in that article was a physicist not a climate scientist but there is plenty of information out there explaining how Antarctica is not the same as the Arctic and what is really happening in Antarctica. Not going to bother arguing this article because it proves nothing and it will just be answered with another conspiracy click bait site link.

He reads and hears what he wants to read and hear. He's not trying to learn another perspective to gain insight, he thinks he has an "enemy" of immoral people "out to get him." There is no reasoning or debating an issue with these people. We will just have to overwhelm them in the polls until they understand that they are wrong on several key points. Yes, they do have some key points that have merit, but they miss the mark by so far on the others that they will lose votes over it. Then they will think the reason they lost is because all of the "free stuff."
 
So you both are disregarding NASA data? "Between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82 billion tons a year."

Do we have GLOBAL warming or cooling??? WHAT IS IT???


Anytime the rich (politicians [predominately millionaires] big business [healthcare corps, pharma etc. who fund politicians] or individuals) try to convince the public that increase spending is in the public's best interest, you can bet it's a scam. The middle class ALWAYS loses. ALWAYS.

And support for rich politicians never ends. These politicians (algore etc.) are pushing scams that will make themselves richer, all the while promising to "tax the rich".
 
Rush Transcripts and memes with explosions and fire in the background. Those are my favorite.



Hey there, Buddy!

Here's some comedy gold for you! Especially if you read it in Dale Gribble's voice! Published today!



Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.




http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...k-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
 
What the mainstream media won't tell you about "global warming"

posted at 8:41 pm on November 17, 2014 by Jeff Dunetz


1) Through Halloween of 2014- The Global Warming Pause has lasted 18 years and one month. Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes“If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.” So there was thirty years of cooling followed by 20 years of warming and almost 18 years of cooling…and that’s what the global warming scare is all about.

2) Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels and the Arctic ice cap has seen record growth. Global sea ice area has been averaging above normal for the past two years. But to get around those facts, the global warming enthusiasts are claiming that global warming causes global cooling (really).

3) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant it’s what you exhale and it is what “feeds” plants. Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree, nor would there be the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food. Without CO2 mankind would get pretty hungry. Even worse the global warming proponents keep talking about population control because they don’t want more people around to exhale, and let’s not talk about what they say about stopping methane (no spicy foods, no cows, no fart jokes).

4) There is not ONE climate computer model that has accurately connected CO2 to climate change. In fact CO2 is at its highest levels in 13,000 years and the earth hasn’t warmed in almost 18 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today’s levels.

5) Even with the relatively high levels there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%. Exhale freely because carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.

6) The climate models pushed by the global warming enthusiasts haven’t been right. Think about that one for a second. If you believe what people like Al Gore the polar ice caps should have melted by now (actually by last year), most coastal cities should be underwater and it should be a lot warmer by now. As my Mom always said, Man plans and God laughs. The Earth’s climate is a very complicated system and the scientists haven’t been able to account for all the components to create an accurate model.

7) You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming. The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.

8) I changed my mind…this past February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, and the co-founder of Greenpeace, the militant environmental group told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

There are more like Moore.

9) Back to Ice Age– predictions. When I took Earth Science in college 38 years ago, the professor explained that the scientific consensus was we are heading toward an ice age. That was just before text books were changed to discuss global warming. That was followed by calling it climate change. Now many scientists claim there is new evidence that the Earth may be heading toward an ice age (please stop crying Mr. Gore).

10) Droughts have not increased.

It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,”

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

11) Polar Bears are alive and well and not dying out. In the Fall 2014 issue of RANGE Magazine Dr. Susan Crockford wrote,

“In a recent TV ad campaign, the Center for Biological Diversity said, “global warming is pushing polar bears to the absolute brink.” Results of recent research show this to be a lie – fat, healthy bears like this one from near Barrow, Alaska, are still common and many of the assumptions used by computer models to predict future disasters have turned out to be wrong.”

In case you were wondering, walruses are doing fine also.

12) No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 Journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.

The only thing “man-made” about global warming, is the argument that we should all stop thinking because there is a scientific consensus about global warming. There are too many questions still open.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MTLynn
So you both are disregarding NASA data? "Between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82 billion tons a year."

Do we have GLOBAL warming or cooling??? WHAT IS IT???


Anytime the rich (politicians [predominately millionaires] big business [healthcare corps, pharma etc. who fund politicians] or individuals) try to convince the public that increase spending is in the public's best interest, you can bet it's a scam. The middle class ALWAYS loses. ALWAYS.

And support for rich politicians never ends. These politicians (algore etc.) are pushing scams that will make themselves richer, all the while promising to "tax the rich".


Lynn, I don't have a pHd and neither do you, but I do know and have seen plenty of evidence of that climate change is real. I've seen native people, in several areas of the world, complain about the crazy weather...weather that they have never heard of from their ancestors or seen in their life times and some of these people are in their 90's. The middle class loses when large corporations convince people like you that we don't have a problem, that the pollution isn't causing cancer, copd and asthma rates to increase...that's when we lose. What are you afraid of? Solar? Wind? Tidal? How do you think these things are going to hurt you? We have the money now to do it, if we are more careful with our money. I just don't see why you would care if we started switching to these things, regardless of ridiculous statements about birds dying.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="What are you afraid of? Solar? Wind? Tidal? How do you think these things are going to hurt you? We have the money now to do it, if we are more careful with our money. I just don't see why you would care if we started switching to these things, regardless of ridiculous statements about birds dying.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why anyone is against us finding better ways to produce energy that we don't have to depend on other countries for. Wind and Solar energies are for the most part, mostly untapped in the US.

Just because we have done it this way in the past does not mean it is the best policy going forward.

And you guys keep talking about the politics side of things and who is paying who. Why do you think politics is so involved in the opposite side of the battle. Many have grown rich by accepting money from the oil industry. If the consumption of oil is lowered than that means less in their pockets.

Some people thing it is a conservative vs. liberal, but it really is a battle between the haves and the have nots. We are all have nots.
 
Hey there, Buddy!

Here's some comedy gold for you! Especially if you read it in Dale Gribble's voice! Published today!



Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.




http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...k-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
LOL. I am going to guess you only read the headline and not the actual article. It really is comedy gold that you posted that article to make your case. Thanks for article. HAHAHA.
 
LOL. I am going to guess you only read the headline and not the actual article. It really is comedy gold that you posted that article to make your case. Thanks for article. HAHAHA.

I was wondering if I was the only person to think that. I guess reading anything would take too long. Might as well believe what any blowhard says then.
 
Yes. I read the article. NASA is clearly making this stuff up as they go along.

Global cooling. Global warming. No, wait! Climate change!

BigBluePeach/TekeRaider, just because we oppose giving government even more control, and allowing bureaucrats and lobbyists even more control over our day-to-day living does NOT mean we are opposed to finding alternative sources of energy.

I do like how y'all avoid the hypocrisy factor, though. You and all these "scientists" who would clearly take a walk on the wild side for a chunk of grant money still cannot explain why you say we're killing the earth, yet you make absolutely zilch, zero, nada lifestyle changes yourselves.

Global cooling! No, wait! Warming! No, actually, WAIT! Climate change!

Yeah!...Yeah...dat's it!...Climate change...yeah...Dat's da ticket.

th
 
You have horrible reading comprehension then. I feel bad for you.

I hate to continue beating this dead horse, I will leave you to it.
 
Lots of assumptions Todd. I made all sorts of changes. I drive a hybrid. I recycle. I use reusable bags. I would like to add solar panels too but may move to soon to make it viable.

I also went to work for an environmental company that recycles industrial waste into fuel and new products. I see first hand what companies do even with rules and regs. I have also studied what it like was before RCRA and CRCLA. Not the world I want to live in. The guberment isn't the bogeyman you make it out to be.

Ps: you may want to re-read that article.
 
The thing that is so funny is that Todd, et al complain about "big gubmit" but don't see the fact that corporations, and we ourselves, are causing these issues. Big oil does not want the average joe to buy into the idea that he needs cleaner air and that our climate is effected in some way. Even if you take out the climate change factor, we still breath in a lot of crap that is killing us in higher numbers. I don't get why pointing out the obvious, and the fact that we need to clean it up via alternative energy, is such a bad idea. This is their own families we are concerned about...it's ridiculous. I highly doubt Todd has any idea what RCRA metals testing is about and that's the sad part; A lot of people uneducated on many subjects that think they know what they are talking about. They let the wealthy fill their heads with crap about big gubmit instead of the idea that we are poisoning ourselves and our children and grand children.
 
Yes and let the heavy metals contaminants flow freely. I'm fairly certain the crap we are breathing in is killing a few billion...
 
Fukushima has contaminated the pacific ocean with radiation yet the media and ignorant liberals who hang on their every word are silent. Why? it doesn't fit the warming / cooling scam so the media say nothing so the ignorant sheep know nothing.

Heck, I'm the only one who has posted anything on this board about the contamination.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/massiv...sts-now-claim-radiation-wont-hurt-you/5497197


excerpt:

The reality, however, is that radiation along the West Coast is expected to keep getting worse. According to a 2013 study by the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway, the oceanic radiation plume released by Fukushima is likely to hit the North American West Coast in force in 2017, with levels peaking in 2018. Most of the radioactive material from the disaster is likely to stay concentrated on the western coast through at least 2026.

According to professor Michio Aoyama of Japan’s Fukushima University Institute of Environmental Radioactivity, the amount of radiation from Fukushima that has now reached North America is probably nearly as much as was spread over Japan during the initial disaster.

The recent Woods Hole study also confirmed that radioactive material is still leaking into the Pacific Ocean from the crippled Fukushima plant. Cesium-134 levels off the Japanese coast are between 10 and 100 times higher than those detected off the coast of California.
 
Fukushima has contaminated the pacific ocean with radiation yet the media and ignorant liberals who hang on their every word are silent. Why? it doesn't fit the warming / cooling scam so the media say nothing so the ignorant sheep know nothing.

This statement makes no sense at all. It doesn't in any way deter or hinder the climate change theory. Radiation from Fukushima has nothing to do with global warming, cooling or climate change. One has nothing to do with the other.
 
Last edited:
Yes and let the heavy metals contaminants flow freely. I'm fairly certain the crap we are breathing in is killing a few billion...

You bring up pollution so I pointed out Fukushima. And just like Fukushima, pollution has nothing to do with warming or cooling.

Pollution is real. warming/cooling/climate change is a scam just like the all of the Chicken Little scams that come out of D.C. and the U.N. and pushed by the media.
 
Msnbc regularly reports on the Japanese radiation issues. It's weird how the people that bitch about the MSM loudest never watch it to know what they actually say.
 
Msnbc regularly reports on the Japanese radiation issues. It's weird how the people that bitch about the MSM loudest never watch it to know what they actually say.
REGULARLY?

The most recent story I can find on bsnbc is from 03/11/14. I do READ about Fukushima every few months but nothing shows up from bsnbc or faux news or any of the other propaganda sources.
 
A quick Google search shows two stories in October as well as stories in June and July. I would say updates every couple of months on a three year old story is pretty regular. That doesn't include when the talking heads mention it. It's certainly not silence no matter how you slice it.
 
Lots of assumptions Todd. I made all sorts of changes. I drive a hybrid. I recycle. I use reusable bags. I would like to add solar panels too but may move to soon to make it viable.

I also went to work for an environmental company that recycles industrial waste into fuel and new products. I see first hand what companies do even with rules and regs. I have also studied what it like was before RCRA and CRCLA. Not the world I want to live in. The guberment isn't the bogeyman you make it out to be.

Ps: you may want to re-read that article.



Let me guess. You also volunteer at the Rescue Mission, right?

TekePeachBlue, how come you haven't added solar panels already?
And even if you do move soon, so what? Wouldn't the next homeowner benefit from solar panels? Or more importantly, wouldn't the environment benefit from solar panels?

Government isn't necessarily a boogey man, either. Government is necessary. Limited government is even more necessary.

and again, Cruz is spot-on. This has nothing to do with saving the environment. It's about controlling the productivity of others.

I look forward to understanding why you didn't install solar panels years ago, though.
 
MTLynn, that fact and picture you shared about governments killing so many citizens reminds me of MT basketball opponents driving the lane for a layup, only to have the shot utterly rejected.

You slammed the shot down. Well done. The basketball is in the fourth row behind the PA announcer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTLynn
"This has nothing to do with saving the environment. It's about controlling the productivity of others. "

The tobacco industry used this line too. What this is really about is distraction, confusion, and keeping you from actually looking where the action really is and that is in the science.


News recently broke that Exxon Mobile is under investigation for deliberately making false claims about climate change. This is a start and could turn out much like the investigation against the tobacco companies did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...tion-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
News recently broke that Exxon Mobile is under investigation for deliberately making false claims about climate change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...tion-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html


Really?! That's awesome! Did you know the NOAA is under investigation for the exact same thing Exxon is being accused of?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/private-group-now-sues-noaa-for-climate-scientists-e-mails/

And what about you? BluePeachTeke says he uses reusable bags to save the environment. What have you done to change your lifestyle? I bet you still drive a car and heat/cool your home, dontcha? Why, you're so convinced we humans are destroying the earth, I bet you've made all sorts of changes, haven't you? Kinda like Algore?
 
You bring up pollution so I pointed out Fukushima. And just like Fukushima, pollution has nothing to do with warming or cooling.

Pollution is real. warming/cooling/climate change is a scam just like the all of the Chicken Little scams that come out of D.C. and the U.N. and pushed by the media.

First of all your logic is terrible. But, let's put that aside. I have heard enough people that deal with nature for survival...natives, that say there is an issue. Even if you don't agree with that, the pollution factor alone is enough to want to change how we do a few things.
 
Really?! That's awesome! Did you know the NOAA is under investigation for the exact same thing Exxon is being accused of?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/private-group-now-sues-noaa-for-climate-scientists-e-mails/

And what about you? BluePeachTeke says he uses reusable bags to save the environment. What have you done to change your lifestyle? I bet you still drive a car and heat/cool your home, dontcha? Why, you're so convinced we humans are destroying the earth, I bet you've made all sorts of changes, haven't you? Kinda like Algore?

Judicial Watch is an American conservative educational foundation, which, according to its website, "advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people."

They aren't under "investigation" Todd. They are being sued and there is a BIG difference. The government is not investigating NOAA. The NOAA is being sued by a right wing group, but nice try. I love how you like to make crap up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
"This has nothing to do with saving the environment. It's about controlling the productivity of others. "

The tobacco industry used this line too. What this is really about is distraction, confusion, and keeping you from actually looking where the action really is and that is in the science.


News recently broke that Exxon Mobile is under investigation for deliberately making false claims about climate change. This is a start and could turn out much like the investigation against the tobacco companies did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...tion-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html


Yes and by an Attorney General, not some right wing nut job group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
Really?! That's awesome! Did you know the NOAA is under investigation for the exact same thing Exxon is being accused of?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/private-group-now-sues-noaa-for-climate-scientists-e-mails/

And what about you? BluePeachTeke says he uses reusable bags to save the environment. What have you done to change your lifestyle? I bet you still drive a car and heat/cool your home, dontcha? Why, you're so convinced we humans are destroying the earth, I bet you've made all sorts of changes, haven't you? Kinda like Algore?

This isn't about me, it is about the science, data, and facts that state that this issue requires a collaborative worldwide effort to resolve.

Your link furthers my point. What this is really about is distraction, confusion, and keeping you from actually looking where the action really is and that is in the science. This is nothing new. Climategate claimed they had these emails they intercepted but turned out they just cherry picked the information in those and drew them out of context. This was right before the climate negotiations that were about to take place in Copenhagen.

You are talking about an investigation from conservative foundation who received $1.1 million from the Carthage Foundation and $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500k. Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received over $7 million in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. A bulk of it came from three organizations. Sarah Scaife, Carthage, and John M Olin Foundation.

Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation is directed by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife who inherited money from the Mellon industrial oil, aluminum, and banking fortunes.

http://www.scaife.com/

Lamar Smith, who is conducting this investigation, gets a lot of funding from the oil folks.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&type=I&cid=N00001811&newMem=N&recs=20

Like you said, follow the money, son.
 
You are talking about an investigation from conservative foundation who received $1.1 million from the Carthage Foundation and $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. The year before the Scaife Foundation had given $1.35 million and Carthage $500k. Between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received over $7 million in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. A bulk of it came from three organizations. Sarah Scaife, Carthage, and John M Olin Foundation.

Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation is directed by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife who inherited money from the Mellon industrial oil, aluminum, and banking fortunes.



As Todd likes to say "Follow the money."
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeKEraider
ADVERTISEMENT