not to mention 1.5m above sea level for an island in the pacific is one storm away from being washed away regardless. Such a non issue its not even funny.


I wonder if crocket's van floats...

Too bad for the people that he scammed almost a BILLION dollars off of, with G.I.M. and his Chicago Carbon Credit exchange scam, and living with one of the largest "carbon footprints" on the planet.... all while lecturing the rest of us peasants about how WE all have to change....






.:mad:




.

Yet people have lived on them for thousands of years - Go figure...

so it's okay for gays to wish 100's of thousands of people dead but if some one disagrees with homosexuality they should be fired from the job... I get that right?

Maybe you think Venice is a brand new town? It's been sinking into soft ground for centuries and the efforts to stop it have been going on forever. My point was that it's basically at sea level. Every time I've been to San Marcos square, the water was flush with the square. It has nothing to do with global warming.

If any fucking retard thinks a small coral reef that briefly broke the surface is going to disappear on months due to global warming.... then they need their heads examined as there are 1000 more places at risk worth talking about facing the same "threat"

Well this is the Internet so no surprise people with zero education in any of the pertinent earth sciences have such strong opinions. :1orglaugh

I don't know shit about climate change and its' causes BUT I do have a lot of respect for science and those who dedicate their lives to it. The VAST majority of the world's foremost scientists are of the opinion based on scientific data that global warming is real and it's largely a man made phenomena. Scientists have big egos, they love to try to prove the other nerds wrong. That there is almost unanimity on the issue amongst them leads me to believe they are right. And no I don't believe the 'lefties' have or even could buy off that many institutions and scientists.

Just because the planet has gone through climate change before naturally doesn't make man made global warming 'ok', that's like telling your kids to hit the tanning salon every day risking getting cancer at 40 because cancer is a natural disease process that will get you at 80 anyway.

I think nuclear war and solar flares and/or EMP taking down the power grid are bigger worries than climate change in ours, our children and grandchildrens' lifetimes.

I hope you are kidding - I know I was...

global warming = climate change = adapt or die

In fact I hope Humans can't adapt and we all die.

oh look, a scientific report from a group of scientists who DON'T make a living from global warming, errr, climate change:
http://heartland.org/media-library/p...licymakers.pdf

that should read "The VAST majority of the world's scientists who make their living off of the climate change hysteria are of the opinion based on manipulated scientific data that global warming is real and it's largely a man made phenomena."

The Heartland Institute
Background

The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources.

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversa...doscience.html

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

There are many very dedicated scientists that disagree that global warming is largely a man-made phenomena. There are also many that disagree that the warming will be catastrophic. If you respect science then you should respect them as well. The debate really isn't "settled" as you so often hear in the media and from politicians. The whole "vast majority" thing is just a myth. Society is falling into a very dangerous cycle of group-think and the inevitable end result of that will by tyranny and hard times.

Keep in mind that all of the warm-mongering is based on computer models that have been proven faulty and have even failed to correctly predict the climate of the better part of the last two decades.

You even have scientists publishing papers explaining why it is ok to exaggerate claims and manipulate information to achieve their goals:

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/conte...au001.abstract

The amount of electricity consumed in his personal home was hilariously absurd. What a 2-faced douch-bag he is.


.

There have been so many incidents of global warming employees fudging the data, that it's just getting ridiculous at this point, so they may as well just say what this article says.... basically that, YES, they fudge the data, but it's for a good cause.


:Oh crap



.

shocker! a group sucking at the teat of "climate change" hysteria denouncing a group that's debunked their gravy train.:1orglaugh

but you go on believing Al Gore and his ilk. it makes you look intelligent amongst your friends. but not anyone of intelligence.:thumbsup
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/fiv...he-north-pole/
Five Years Ago Al Gore Predicted There Would Be No Ice At The North Pole
"""How long are we going to get believing the predictions of people who are proven to be wrong, over and over again?

This would be funny, except that predictions of doom and gloom from the ?settled science? community are the basis for reams of expensive and burdensome laws and regulations intended to address climate change."""

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-refugees-2010

"""To give you an idea of the kind of hysterical predictions the global warming crowd have made in recent years, the United Nations in 2005 actually forecast that by the end of the previous decade, there would be 50 million environmental refugees around the world as a result of climate change."""

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Missi...ticle33457.htm

"""It appears runaway warming predictions may have been fantasy"""
"""Doomsday Scenarios Flop"""


but our least intelligent will continue to believe the hype that has no basis in fact but has made liberals and scientists rich.:1orglaugh

well said.

for a group of people so adamantly against global warming

there sure seems to be a lot of time spent denying it

there's a difference between denying something thats happening and pointing out something that isn't happening. I suggest you learn the difference, snapper head. :winkwink:

see you in the next global warming thread

you gotta laugh at people who imagine that EVERY weather event we've experienced in the last 40 years hasn't happened before then. The belief in this hysteria is just stunning.

no, lets just revisit this one in december and see if the island, like the polar cap is still there. At some point, at least ONE of your side's predictions needs to come true for you to continue your BELIEF in global warming, doesn't it?

they might be in real trouble for sure if that's true!

my side? your 'side' seems to believe that human industries has no impact on the enviroment

do you believe this is true?

All I can say is that Al Gore bought beach front property a couple years ago.

Yeah he believes!

97% of scientists believe in man made global warming. 'Tyranny' is a word used by kooks. There are hysterics and demagogues on the extreme ends of both the political left and right.

I read the Heartland Institute's paper and then the criticism of it, perhaps there are some valid points to it but it appears they have a strong bias themselves and their credentials overall are lesser.

In the end what's the downside if we cut carbon emissions - who here owns an oil company?

Here's about the guy that started a lot of it, he now says he was wrong about global warming
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...entists-defect

odd, there hasn't been any dispute on the Mars warming cycle

There are plenty of problems with money being taken out of economies by force and then used to prop up political friends of governments for things that don't benefit people. There are plenty of problems with the foundation of a world government designed to redistribute wealth and control every aspect of our lives. There are plenty of problems with creating a situation that adds huge burdens to all ready struggling economies. All of these results are originating from the ACC movement.

Here is some interesting reading...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...vestment-hype/



.:2 cents:

.

I will read any opinion, the whole issue doesn't mean much to me since I don't think a couple of degrees of warming is going to be catastrophic, I don't live on an atoll two feet above sea level.

It is fascinating that over 97% of climate models have been completely off base, but those scientists are still deemed to be using "settled science".

Amazing and bizarre to me that something proven incorrect over and over and over, is called "settled".

I just don't get it....




.

incorrect. my side knows that human industries impact the ENVIRONMENT, we just also know that there is ZERO impact on CLIMATE.

And despite the hysteria, there is nothing happening with the climate that hasn't happened throughout time.

so you know it impacts the environment.. but feel there can be no way it has an affect on the climate?

riight

please produce any proof you may have.

id suggest reading up on it yourself

edit: however, if you already have, and still have the same opinion, all good.

really? all this belief in something, I'd have thought you'd have proof.

That 97% figure comes from a study that has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be wrong in both its methodology and conclusion. The author won't even release his data to people who want to test it. What is he hiding? It's a big lie that was handed off to the media and now they just run with it.

I guess 'Tyranny' is a word used by kooks to describe the end-game proposed by alarmists that "deniers" be arrested. Call me a kook if you like but proposing that people you disagree with be arrested is a road map to tyranny if you ask me.

The better question is what's the downside if we do cut carbon emissions? Plant life shuts down at 150ppm CO2. We are far closer to the dangerous bottom end of CO2 than we are to any imaginary high end.

The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

Bingo. So why are we wasting trillions of dollars globally and crippling our economies to fight something that in all likelihood won't even be a major problem? A couple degrees of warming would probably be a net benefit.

belief.. like.. how the environment has no connection to the climate?

Are ********** and WeHatePorn brothers?

still waiting for your proof.

you don't believe the two are connected

what is the proof going to tell you?

You might want to brush up on your definitions of "climate" and "weather"

There might be such a thing as the "global climate" but that's not what you said, you said whether is local, climate is global.
For example, do you think the climate is the same at the South Pole as it is at the Equator? No it isn't, sites such as Wikipedia list the climate for each region or area of the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole#Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P..._day_and_night


Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[1] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[2][3] just below the stratosphere. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4] When used without qualification, "weather", is understood to mean the weather of Earth.

From Merriam-Webster:

Climate
: a region with particular weather patterns or conditions
: the usual weather conditions in a particular place or region
: the usual or most widespread mood or conditions in a place

Weather
the state of the air and atmosphere at a particular time and place : the temperature and other outside conditions (such as rain, cloudiness, etc.) at a particular time and place

Agreed. Well first off Climatologists are not scientists. At best you could call it a Pseudoscience like Psychology. They hijacked the title by labeling themselves "Climate Scientists" but with science the issue is never "settled" there is always more to learn and open discussion.

I have had Climate Change advocates give me the polite ass, condescending smile and say, "No offense but I don't debate the issue anymore. The science is settled". The hell it is and if you are not willing to look at claims and evidence from BOTH sides you are no scientist. Follower, yes. Scientist, no.

I myself am not claiming to be a scientist but I do my best to engage in critical thinking and try not limit myself to the ideas that I am most comfortable with.

It's ok for you to have fanciful beliefs.
If you don't have proof, it's also ok.

If it's settled science why do we need to spend one thin dime to prove anything further?
The answer is simple, it isn't settled. If it was these so-called "scientists" would actually have to go get a real job.

This "news" as the thread title states is nearly 4 decades old.... and the prediction of "disappearing by 2015" is also a decade and a 1/2 old. And as much as i like you, it would seem pretty obvious that the sea levels rising 2-3 feet would not just be felt in one specific area, affecting ONLY a young, coral reef... it would be noticed all over the globe. ;)

The only reason the name of that place is even known is because they have been relocating people from there since the 1980s. And why? One obvious reason that seems to only be a small footnote in any article is because a series of storms have destroyed a lot of what little vegetation there was which speeds up erosion from subsequent storms.

So lets forget about "global warming".... simple logic time. How is this one place submerging due to "rising sea levels"... and its not happening everywhere else? There are plenty of place at or below sea level. Hell, drive around Hawaii and there are tons of places where the roads are only 1-2 feet above mean sea level... yet we're not hearing about these roads going under water or anywhere else for that matter. As I said, San Marcos square in Venice for example is basically at sea level and somehow a reef is quickly slipping under the water due to "rising sea levels" and its not happening anywhere else. That should tell you there isn't much "science" in the conversation to begin with.

Hysterical rants from alarmists, is not "science".

Ugh... so much fail....

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.


Here are the results of the 'SETTLED SCIENCE" which should "NO LONGER BE DEBATED"

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/I...tions_Wide.jpg


http://sayanythingblog.com/files/201...-yr-means1.png


For you people that say that this is settled science.... please note that in the second picture, of the 75 climate model predictions..... EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION IS INCORRECT.

This is what you call "Settled Science"?????



Really????



:helpme

.

there's no money in predicting normal fluctuations of temperature