Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate change protestors really care about the Earth - leave mounds of trash behind in protests

Climate change protestors really care about the Earth - leave mounds of trash behind in protests

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Guest


Guest

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/far-left-climate-geeks-leave-mountain-of-trash-for-cities-to-deal-with/

Markle

Markle

The REAL goal of the Global Warming supporters

Climate change protestors really care about the Earth - leave mounds of trash behind in protests 2014NewYorkClimatethree_zps2b829623

Guest


Guest

Both your post are perfect examples of how those people truly are.

Its just a agenda and they are just ignorant sheep pushing a agenda that they themselves have no clue how the results of that agenda will effect them.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

I will say there is a very steep political agenda associated with the climate change movement. This bothers me very much. The science should be able to stand on its own merits without any help.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The science should be able to stand on its own merits without any help.

There's nothing political about the science.

The politics come into play when debating what to do about it.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The science should be able to stand on its own merits without any help.

There's nothing political about the science.

The politics come into play when debating what to do about it.

Bs... not understanding the science and simply taking the UN's word for it is one thing...

but not recognizing the political agenda is just dumb.

Sal

Sal

No, dumb is not recognizing a scientific consensus when it's staring you right in your imbecilic face.

Guest


Guest

Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Sal

Sal

Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Calling unbelievers heretics only weakens the argument. There is always room for debate on issues.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Calling unbelievers heretics only weakens the argument. There is always room for debate on issues.

The ignorant, head-in-the-sand denial that scientific consensus exists on this or that the threat is even worth taking seriously is a big problem.

By the time these morons realize that this isn't the usual partisan game it will be too late.

They're not heretics, they're charter members of the Flat Earth Society.

Guest


Guest

That's the problem with this topic every time.

The people who have been brainwashed into the "AGENDA" scream that we should jus believe what the mastas tell us.

But then when you show them data or even something as simple as climate cycles from history, they still squawk that we are supposed to take the word of people who were paid to promote the agenda.

And seriously. This agenda is the biggest agenda on the planet. It is global and the result of this agenda is..................... Wink

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

I don't think you understand how science works... or even what a theory or model is.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Chrissy* wrote:That's the problem with this topic every time.

The people who have been brainwashed into the "AGENDA" scream that we should just believe what the mastas tell us.

But then when you show them data or even something as simple as climate cycles from history, they still squawk that we are supposed to take the word of people who were paid to promote the agenda.

And seriously. This agenda is the biggest agenda on the planet. It is global and the result of this agenda is..................... Wink
Yes, it is a problem.....

I have heard arguments like this: To solve this issue we need to "leave 2/3 of the world's remaining petroleum reserves in the ground."  A nice ideal, but the problem remains how you will feed the world when (at least for Americans) 10 calories of fossil fuels go into every food calorie produced. The zealots would have to solve this small item, among others, before outlawing the use of petroleum.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sal

Sal

Th Dude wrote:
Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

I don't think you understand how science works... or even what a theory or model is.

Yeah, I understand it.

And, I understand how theories aren't discarded because impefect models need to be tweaked.

Show us another anomaly.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:
Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

I don't think you understand how science works... or even what a theory or model is.

Yeah, I understand it.

And, I understand how theories aren't discarded because impefect models need to be tweaked.

Show us another anomaly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mobile=y

Guest


Guest

by Sal Today at 7:22 pm
No, dumb is not recognizing a scientific consensus when it's staring you right in your imbecilic face.
---
Stupid .... There
Is no GD concensus.

Crap is split and you guys blackball every
Scientist that comes out against your tripe. It's like Galileo saying the Earth is the center of the damn universe and the Catholic Church wanting to excommunicate him because if freaking FACT

Guest


Guest

Same thing with the folks claiming the Earth
Is flat (global Warmers).....

You guys have been proven to be FOS so let it go

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Chrissy* wrote:That's the problem with this topic every time.

The people who have been brainwashed into the "AGENDA" scream that we should just believe what the mastas tell us.

But then when you show them data or even something as simple as climate cycles from history, they still squawk that we are supposed to take the word of people who were paid to promote the agenda.

And seriously. This agenda is the biggest agenda on the planet. It is global and the result of this agenda is..................... Wink
Yes, it is a problem.....

I have heard arguments like this: To solve this issue we need to "leave 2/3 of the world's remaining petroleum reserves in the ground."  A nice ideal, but the problem remains how you will feed the world when (at least for Americans) 10 calories of fossil fuels go into every food calorie produced. The zealots would have to solve this small item, among others, before outlawing the use of petroleum.

Well its easy for them to make oil the enemy because so many people on the left associate oil with right wingers.

They using fear to push a bigger agenda as you know

They really want a global tax on energy usage as a method to unite the world financially and spread the wealth more evenly, you know in order to save the planet and end poverty. A grand world togetherness of love and peace and ABSOLUTE POWER.

http://truthstreammedia.com/obama-set-to-sign-un-climate-change-agreement-without-congress/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-un-obama-to-urge-nations-to-go-big-on-climate/2014/09/18/6445765e-3f7a-11e4-a430-b82a3e67b762_story.html

White House officials said the U.S. will offer tangible contributions such as American technology to help vulnerable populations deal with food security, sea level rise and other negative effects of climate change.

People will be easier to deal with wen we are all equally in poverty.

Guest


Guest

Th Dude wrote:
Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:
Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

I don't think you understand how science works... or even what a theory or model is.

Yeah, I understand it.

And, I understand how theories aren't discarded because impefect models need to be tweaked.

Show us another anomaly.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mobile=y

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N30/EDIT.php

Climate-Change-Induced Flooding Volume 17, Number 30: 23 July 2014

More frequent and more devastating floods are both (1)predicted for the future and (2)claimed to already be occurring by a host of climate alarmists, as a result of climate change that they claim is induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But are these claims correct?

In a massive review of the subject conducted by a team of seventeen researchers hailing from eleven different countries, i.e., Kundzewicz et al. (2013), we learn the following: (1) "no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades," (2) "there islow confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex," (3) "considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of changes in flood magnitude and frequency," (4) increases in global flood disaster losses reported over the last few decades "may be attributed to improvements in reporting, population increase and urbanization in flood-prone areas, increase of property value and degraded awareness about natural risks (due to less natural lifestyle)," (5) "the linkages between enhanced greenhouse forcing and flood phenomena are highly complex and, up to the present, it has not been possible to describe the connections well, either by empirical analysis or by the use of models," and (6) "the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape," which they say "will be the case for decades to come."

In closing, Kundzewicz et al. write that "the climate change issue is very important to flooding, but we have low confidence about the science," adding that "work towards improvements in GCMs [global climate models] to bring us to a point where all of this is made clear is much needed, and may take much time." And they thoughtfully remind us - in the interim - that "although media reports of both floods and global flood damage are on the increase, there is still no Mauna-Loa-like record (see Vorosmarty, 2002) that shows a global increase in flood frequency or magnitude."

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:
Sal wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Almost all science is built upon proving a previous theory incorrect. What you see are models that are failing.

Carbon is increasing... temp isn't rising... the arctic is still frozen... etc. Results matter.

Science says you're a dumbass.

I don't think you understand how science works... or even what a theory or model is.

Yeah, I understand it.

And, I understand how theories aren't discarded because impefect models need to be tweaked.

Show us another anomaly.

Climate change protestors really care about the Earth - leave mounds of trash behind in protests Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3ik4_LNbeK0P55KTFA2oMjxS1zIueJFK4vWctxK2fzjwSo9St

They've already attempted 'tweaking' it by changing the facts to fit their theory/model.

When the facts don't fit your theory/model it's time to trash the theory/model and come up with a new one that fits the facts.

Any freshman science student will tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esp_hOlFqiM

Smile


Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate change protestors really care about the Earth - leave mounds of trash behind in protests

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum