A Chinese myth, looks like Trump's number one man don't think so,

A

archives

Verified User
"U.S. secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson briefly laid out his position on climate change at Wednesday’s Senate confirmation hearing in Washington. The former head of one of the biggest fossil fuel companies on Earth acknowledged that additional carbon dioxide is warming the planet"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-you?cmpid=google&google_editors_picks=true

"Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat of New Mexico, pressed Tillerson to share his “personal view” of climate change. Tillerson replied that after 20 years as a scientist and engineer, he had concluded that “the risk of climate change does exist.” He also believed “action should be taken"

"“Do you believe that human activity, based on science, is contributing?” asked Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/rex-tillerson-climate-change/512843/

Bad sign for the Flat Earthers, and got to believe the Trumpster himself really doesn't buy the Flat Earth theocracy
 
archives said:
"U.S. secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson briefly laid out his position on climate change at Wednesday’s Senate confirmation hearing in Washington. The former head of one of the biggest fossil fuel companies on Earth acknowledged that additional carbon dioxide is warming the planet"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ed-you?cmpid=google&google_editors_picks=true

"Senator Tom Udall, a Democrat of New Mexico, pressed Tillerson to share his “personal view” of climate change. Tillerson replied that after 20 years as a scientist and engineer, he had concluded that “the risk of climate change does exist.” He also believed “action should be taken"

"“Do you believe that human activity, based on science, is contributing?” asked Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“The increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is having an effect."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/rex-tillerson-climate-change/512843/

Bad sign for the Flat Earthers, and got to believe the Trumpster himself really doesn't buy the Flat Earth theocracy
Click to expand...

So...what are you saying here?
 
Guille said:
So...what are you saying here?
Click to expand...

Really? Let me help you out, Trump has to attack the media because as I showed in the documentation, his Administration is going to do its's best to eliminate any other checks or criticism but they can't control the free press
 
There are just so many effing idiots on here, it is truly mind blowing!! Let me post yet again for this numbskull what the greatest atmospheric physicist alive Richard Lindzen has to say on the subject.

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/americanelep...he-house-of-commons/amp/?client=chrome-mobile

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Really? Let me help you out, Trump has to attack the media because as I showed in the documentation, his Administration is going to do its's best to eliminate any other checks or criticism but they can't control the free press
Click to expand...

Oh ok, allow me to retort. Trump knows the media is full of shit and is trying to shape the battlefield. What say you?
 
Milagro said:
There are just so many effing idiots that it is truly mind blowing!! Let me post yet again for this numbskull what the greatest atmospheric physicist alive Richard Lindzen has to say on the subject.

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/americanelep...he-house-of-commons/amp/?client=chrome-mobile

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wow, you're kinda dumb. Keep preaching to the choir dumb ass.
 
Milagro said:
There are just so many effing idiots that it is truly mind blowing!! Let me post yet again for this numbskull what the greatest atmospheric physicist alive Richard Lindzen has to say on the subject.

"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/americanelep...he-house-of-commons/amp/?client=chrome-mobile

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ah, I'll match your fat scientist nobody ever heard of with real Science

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

So, who's the "effing idiot" now?
 
Guille said:
Oh ok, allow me to retort. Trump knows the media is full of shit and is trying to shape the battlefield. What say you?
Click to expand...

Trump knows, given he can eliminate any other serious criticism on his power, that the only entity that can check his power is the free press, just as Jefferson intended
 
archives said:
Really? Let me help you out, Trump has to attack the media because as I showed in the documentation, his Administration is going to do its's best to eliminate any other checks or criticism but they can't control the free press
Click to expand...

One does not have to control the press from the bully pulpit. Trump can bypass the press at his leisure....with a far bigger network, his twitter account. Nothing the bolviating liberals can do will stop President Trump from pulling the unconstitutional teeth of the un-elected, non-represented agencies like the EPA who dictate laws void of any constitutional authority. Its time to take the weather out of politics. It will happen.

Its a simple matter that liberals don't appear to comprehend, man can do nothing to change the weather with any effectiveness. Liberal progressives are far removed from reason and logic, "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things that I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

It more than idiotic to propagate the false premise that man can control the weather via acts of legislation. Funny as Hell.
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Ah, I'll match your fat scientist nobody ever heard of with real Science

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

So, who's the "effing idiot" now?
Click to expand...
Well I would say that if you've never heard of Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT then I truly pity you. It tells me instantly that you are just another moron without any understanding.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Well I would say that if you've never heard of Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT then I truly pity you. It tells me instantly that you are just another moron without any understanding.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep, Wikipedia.
 
Guille said:
Hey, dumbfuck, your very first link says "consensus". I don't know what fucking third world country you went to high school in but in America we don't accept that bullshit.
Click to expand...

Having trouble processing information I see, "consensus" means Scientists, and thier view is the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans, sorry, not the fat scientist from Britan nobody ever heard of, that's just you and the doighboys on the radio
 
Guille said:
Yep, Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Then the guy represents the 3% of Scientists that don't support the theory of global warming and man's comtribution to that global warming

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Consider yourself a Science denier, in other words, a Flat Earther
 
archives said:
Having trouble processing information I see, "consensus" means Scientists, and thier view is the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans, sorry, not the fat scientist from Britan nobody ever heard of, that's just you and the doighboys on the radio
Click to expand...

You're Canadian eh? That explains it.
 
archives said:
Having trouble processing information I see, "consensus" means Scientists, and thier view is the view of the overwhelming majority of Americans, sorry, not the fat scientist from Britan nobody ever heard of, that's just you and the doighboys on the radio
Click to expand...
Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who's been the wrongest, longest.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism?client=safari

 
archives said:
Then the guy represents the 3% of Scientists that don't support the theory of global warming and man's comtribution to that global warming

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position"

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Consider yourself a Science denier, in other words, a Flat Earther
Click to expand...

Since when is a consensus SCIENCE? Having more people believe a lie than those who do not believe the lie....proves what? If man made climate change were a fact of science there would be no debate possible or no consensus possible. A fact of science favors no political agenda, its the same for everyone. Thus the minority opinion based upon conjecture and speculation is just as valid as the majority. If anyone has objective testable evidence that man can change the weather with acts of legislation.....present those objective evidences.

I know only one thing as demonstrated via the application of the scientific method. This is not the first time that the world has undergone a climate change nor will it be the last. And I know the false premise propagated by those who use the weather as a political tool of empowerment.....The attempt to measure the levels of Co2 and falsely attempt to declare that historical changes in the amount of Co2 has never been as great as it today...and thus must produce ill effects upon the earth's weather. Just who has observed this false claim? The first precept of the Scientific Method.....Observation, and repeatable experimentation of that observed effect.

Yet the pseudos attempt to tell everyone that Co2 is poison to the human race because it is sure to Change the Weather in a negative way. I say PROVE IT. There is no example of biological life on earth that does not require Co2 to propagate that life form....in fact Co2 is the most important element that is necessary in the atmosphere to protect biological life.

According to the false premise.....the sea levels should have already risen by at least 50 ft. Where is the effect from the greatest Co2 level in human history. It was less than 40 years ago these same pseudo intellectuals held a majority consensus that the earth was heading into another ICE AGE...before the turn of the century if man did not reduce his carbon footprint. Where is the observed effect claimed by consensus?

I say don't run over a dollar in an attempt to make dime. When anyone has produced Objective Testable observed, reproducible and constant experimentation that reveals a FACT of APPLIED SCIENCE....I will be the first to accept that reality based upon the scientific method. But Consensus? Really? The consensus held several hundred years ago by the majority of the pseudo intellectuals declared the earth to be the center of the universe with the sun revolving around the earth. How'd that consensus hold up in the face of the Scientific Method?

Conclusion? There is no scientific method to observe the effect of Co2 levels on the weather....until the actual effect has come under observation. Until that time....move.on.org
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Since when is a consensus SCIENCE? Having more people believe a lie than those who do not believe the lie....proves what? If man made climate change were a fact of science there would be no debate possible or no consensus possible. A fact of science favors no political agenda, its the same for everyone. Thus the minority opinion based upon conjecture and speculation is just as valid as the majority. If anyone has objective testable evidence that man can change the weather with acts of legislation.....present those objective evidences.
Click to expand...

"d upon conjecture and speculation is just as valid as the majority. If anyone has objective testable evidence that man can change t
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top