# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Global cooling

## RA

So now that we know global warming is bs what are they going to scare the public with??

Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling Ahead | The Daily Caller

----------


## lovbyts

> So now that we know global warming is bs what are they going to scare the public with??
> 
> Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling Ahead | The Daily Caller


Yeah that's what they were trying to say back in the 80s also

They just call it climate change now. Duhh. They think that we are going to stop the earths cycles? I mean history proves we have had several ice ages, right? What makes them think it's stopped in some way? 

We will learn to adapt since it will take decades or millennials to happen enough to make a difference.

----------


## RA

All scientists agree on...oh wait...they didn't account for... Reminds me of over-fishing the oceans and the ozone hole. The troubling thing is that the masses buy this bs.

----------


## lovbyts

Yeah I keep bringing up the ozone hole as an example. Like they say, repeat it enough time and it makes it true.  :Frown: 

It's funny how any/all the scientist who do not agree with the climate change finders end up loosing all their government grants and the ones who agree end up being well funded. Hmmm conflict of interest?  :Hmmmm:

----------


## RigPig

Does this mean Al Gore should give Irena Sendler. the Noble Peace Prize he got for a BS Global Warming slide show he received at the time of her nomination? I vote YES! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler 
** I know she died since then but she was alive at the time and Al Gore should honor her family with the NPP. IMHO!

----------


## RA

Always the case with these things. Follow the money..




> Yeah I keep bringing up the ozone hole as an example. Like they say, repeat it enough time and it makes it true. 
> 
> It's funny how any/all the scientist who do not agree with the climate change finders end up loosing all their government grants and the ones who agree end up being well funded. Hmmm conflict of interest?

----------


## lovbyts

> Always the case with these things. *Follow the money*..


That's the problem, every time someone actually tries to follow the money they get shot down, sometimes literally.

Those scientist who show actual facts, data and proof there is no significant climate change due to human impact are discredited one way or another and do not get any funding but those who back claims using modeling that input data is continually manipulated are rewarded.

It wasnt even 10 years ago (7 actually) they said in 2015 NY would be under water, gas would be $15 gallon and crops everywhere failing.

30 years ago it was global cooling and we would have mass starvation by now. lol

----------


## NotNATTY

heyhey

----------


## bartman314

i'm calling bs. 

i'm a scientist (a PhD and everything) and have been in the private sector developing new technology for over 25 years. scientists can and do have a broad range of standards that they will apply to a given set of data - some or more conservative and some are more liberal (aggressive in their conclusions). the point in the case of global warming is that the scientific mechanisms of how many of man's activities are scientific fact. the open question is whether or not such are meaningful at a global scale and contributing not at all, a little, a moderate amount, or a lot. for many the jury is out on this point. 

the problem in my view is that the media (and politicians) over simplify and tend to quote the more extreme scientists to drive up ratings (or support their politics). 

over time the increasing level of facts/knowledge tends to win out (think of galileo and the earth rotating around the sun). however, in this case, it's arguable as to whether or not we have enough time to let the science solidify before permanent and negative consequences result. with all due respect to all lay people, media, and biased politicians (maybe that's all politicians), we really should let the experts work through a reasonable position and then a follow on set of reasonable policies. unfortunately, i'm skeptical such will ever happen in the us. too much money at stake.

----------


## RA

> i'm calling bs. 
> 
> i'm a scientist (a PhD and everything) and have been in the private sector developing new technology for over 25 years. scientists can and do have a broad range of standards that they will apply to a given set of data - some or more conservative and some are more liberal (aggressive in their conclusions). the point in the case of global warming is that the scientific mechanisms of how many of man's activities are scientific fact. the open question is whether or not such are meaningful at a global scale and contributing not at all, a little, a moderate amount, or a lot. for many the jury is out on this point. 
> 
> the problem in my view is that the media (and politicians) over simplify and tend to quote the more extreme scientists to drive up ratings (or support their politics). 
> 
> over time the increasing level of facts/knowledge tends to win out (think of galileo and the earth rotating around the sun). however, in this case, it's arguable as to whether or not we have enough time to let the science solidify before permanent and negative consequences result. with all due respect to all lay people, media, and biased politicians (maybe that's all politicians), we really should let the experts work through a reasonable position and then a follow on set of reasonable policies. unfortunately, i'm skeptical such will ever happen in the us. too much money at stake.



We aren't currently warming. You know the last year we did?

----------


## bass

did you know all this global warming crap predictions are based on 3 or 4 computers running a software created by man? and guess what, all turned wrong, nothing has changed since they started this hoax. amazing how many people really believe this shit is real! its a money making scheme, made Al Gore very rich. BTW where is he?!

----------


## 73rr

> did you know all this global warming crap predictions are based on 3 or 4 computers running a software created by man? and guess what, all turned wrong, nothing has changed since they started this hoax. amazing how many people really believe this shit is real! its a money making scheme, made Al Gore very rich. BTW where is he?!


I can agree with this statement haha. 

It first it was global cooling now it's global warming and it's going to jump back to global cooling or what ever else they want to come up with.

----------


## RA

> did you know all this global warming crap predictions are based on 3 or 4 computers running a software created by man? and guess what, all turned wrong, nothing has changed since they started this hoax. amazing how many people really believe this shit is real! its a money making scheme, made Al Gore very rich. BTW where is he?!


Sitting comfortably in his 15,000 sq ft house laughing at all the people that bought into the bs. How many times do they have to be wrong until some stop believing the bullshit? The ozone hole is going to kill us. All the fish are going to be gone from the ocean by the year 2000. These causes are actually made up to replace religion. Something people can get behind. If it makes certain people rich as well then all the better for them.

----------


## MuscleScience

> i'm calling bs. i'm a scientist (a PhD and everything) and have been in the private sector developing new technology for over 25 years. scientists can and do have a broad range of standards that they will apply to a given set of data - some or more conservative and some are more liberal (aggressive in their conclusions). the point in the case of global warming is that the scientific mechanisms of how many of man's activities are scientific fact. the open question is whether or not such are meaningful at a global scale and contributing not at all, a little, a moderate amount, or a lot. for many the jury is out on this point. the problem in my view is that the media (and politicians) over simplify and tend to quote the more extreme scientists to drive up ratings (or support their politics). over time the increasing level of facts/knowledge tends to win out (think of galileo and the earth rotating around the sun). however, in this case, it's arguable as to whether or not we have enough time to let the science solidify before permanent and negative consequences result. with all due respect to all lay people, media, and biased politicians (maybe that's all politicians), we really should let the experts work through a reasonable position and then a follow on set of reasonable policies. unfortunately, i'm skeptical such will ever happen in the us. too much money at stake.


 I was heavily involved in research at the university level. The only things you could get grant money for at the time were for cancer or Climate change research. The major problem with science right now, especially as it pertains to medical is that no journal reserves it's limited number of journal entries to studies that show small or less than dramatic effect. And certainly no study that shows no or contradictory results. So much junk is being published right now, it amazes me. 

I'm sure you have seen the quote circulating around my the editor and chief of The Lancet about half or better than half of all medical studies are flat out wrong and not reproducable Which pains me, as I wanted to be a scientist from as long as I can remember. You want to believe science is pure and noble. But then again, scientist are human and have motivations like everyone else.

----------


## novastepp

I had several research proposals rejected because they believed their would be lack of funding, and lack of "public interest".

Translation, lack of public funding dollars because the subject matter was not popular. Absolutely no nobility in that.

Looking at real world scenarios makes much more practical sense, but does not have such a great narrative.

Take famine for example: it is more important and more of a real threat, but there isn't any real interest because we cannot see it or experience it currently, but it is a species-complete, multi-generational problem/issue that no one deems important.

----------


## lovbyts

Its not popular to say the known universe does not rotate around the earth. Not much has changed the last 1000 years has it.?

----------


## bsh

> Its not popular to say the known universe does not rotate around the earth. Not much has changed the last 1000 years has it.?


Geocentric model, lol.... Yeah, ppl are dumb sometimes!

----------


## MuscleScience

Lucky for my professor, he was affiliated with JPL and the search for extremophilic bacteria and Archeae. So he would put lines in his grant proposals about how these hardy organisms populations change as a result of "climate," change and that would aid the search for life on Mars...lol Which all we were doing is identifying and classifying halophiles bacteria on a salt plain in Oklahoma. It was pretty cool to discover unclassified species, and place them into their proper Phylogenetic tree.

----------


## lovbyts

> Lucky for my professor, he was affiliated with JPL and the search for extremophilic bacteria and Archeae. So he would put lines in his grant proposals about how these hardy organisms populations change as a result of "climate," change and that would aid the search for life on Mars...lol Which all we were doing is identifying and classifying halophiles bacteria on a salt plain in Oklahoma. It was pretty cool to discover unclassified species, and place them into their proper Phylogenetic tree.


Creative and smart. I like how he thinks.

----------


## cgeorgemeow

It's a control game, people want to control the energy industry. Dems want those pollution credits and alternative energy so they can make billions. Dems know that even if they covered the entire earth and somehow the oceans with solar panels you could only produce a third of the energy we need, and it grows yearly. So what do they get higher price for energy with putting less out. Do less for more, they hate the fact that's reps are in bed big time with energy production. Money from energy lobbyist keeps Reps campaign Treasuries full. Did you hear the new B.S. that cracking causes earth quakes, this is not scientifically possible, the shale is literally millions upon billions of tiny stacked stones with all kinds of other things around it depending in locatipn, ash, lignite etc. Meaning you would have to hit the entire shale every 100 square yards at the same time to even feel anything with 10 times what we currently use. Do the math on the weight of the shale and those formations.

----------


## MuscleScience

> It's a control game, people want to control the energy industry. Dems want those pollution credits and alternative energy so they can make billions. Dems know that even if they covered the entire earth and somehow the oceans with solar panels you could only produce a third of the energy we need, and it grows yearly. So what do they get higher price for energy with putting less out. Do less for more, they hate the fact that's reps are in bed big time with energy production. Money from energy lobbyist keeps Reps campaign Treasuries full. Did you hear the new B.S. that cracking causes earth quakes, this is not scientifically possible, the shale is literally millions upon billions of tiny stacked stones with all kinds of other things around it depending in locatipn, ash, lignite etc. Meaning you would have to hit the entire shale every 100 square yards at the same time to even feel anything with 10 times what we currently use. Do the math on the weight of the shale and those formations.


The fracking thing I hear about a lot. I'm not to far from Oklahoma City. And we are getting a ton of quakes in recent years. That's all that is talked about is fracking =quakes.

----------


## T-boner

Global warming is just a tool used to attack capitalism. There's no evidence it's happening. The computer models are all proven wrong over time.

----------


## bass

> *Global warming is just a tool used to attack capitalism*. There's no evidence it's happening. The computer models are all proven wrong over time.


and to tax the shit out of us.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

The Reds spent the whole of the 20th Century trying to convince us that any capitalist system was doomed to failure. But now that all of the major communist systems either have failed outright or incorporated elements of capitalism in order to survive, they've retooled their sales pitch. Now they're trying to sell us on the idea that capitalism has been _too_ successful. So successful that it's destroying the planet.

The Reds have painted themselves green and co-opted the environmental movement. Scratch the surface of any radical environmentalist and what you'll find underneath is crimson red. Just like a watermelon.

Patrick Moore (PhD, ecology and BS, forest biology), co-founder of Green Peace, left the organization he helped to create because it was becoming radicalized. Now he's in the news saying not only that there is no scientific proof of MMGW, but there further is no proof that a warmer planet wouldn't be _a good thing._

Which is the fatal flaw in the whole MMGW fairy tale anyway. What's so bad about the planet warming? One of their Chicken Little predictions was that warming would provoke more hurricanes, and the new super-storms would devastate the Gulf coastal region of the US. Except no major Atlantic hurricane (cat 3 or >) has made landfall in 128 months, the longest such period on record.

Or that the polar ice caps would melt and flood all the planet's coastal regions.

Global warming 'is FAKE': Volume of ice caps is INCREASING, claims top geologist

Climate Scientists: Antarctic Temperatures Cooling Every Year Since 1998

Oops.


When the reality doesn't match what your models predict, there's obviously something wrong either with your models or with reality. The Watermelons want you to think it's reality that's wrong (Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?).


Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

The Horror! Climate Change Is Making The Weather More Pleasant

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Climate Doomsayers Ignore Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions  Now compiled in a new report

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

Global Warming Hoax Spiraling Into Radical Tyrannical Beast

Mathematicians, Legendary Physicist, IPCC Expert Throw Wrenches Into UN Climate Summit

Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day

The Climate Change Industry drastically depletes the Energy Market

Evan Sayet: Why Im a Denier (Hint: Because Its Crap)...


The _SUN_ controls Earth's temperature??? _Whooda thunkit??!!??_
ICE AGE TERROR: Decade-long winter to freeze Earth as sun 'sleeps'



And now it's time for my nap.

----------


## Chicagotarsier

The alternative to the Reds approach....

Al Gore Created the Internet.

I enjoy the Reds personally. WAY more personal freedoms in China than the USA. WAY less cities being held hostage by minorities throwing temper tantrums. As I mentioned before I highly doubt there is a hotter woman in North Ameerica than my Chinese lady.

I don't get caught up in all the blah blah blah the governments put up and out. If a politician is not lieing he is not trying. Discovery channel had a show hosted by Kevin Smith on all the lies and how now it is accepted...back I Nixon day he had to give up the Presidency.

How far we have fallen under Clinton W Obama. Worst Presidents Ever. They make Trump look like a good option and that is insanity in itself.

----------


## Beetlegeuse

> ...They make Trump look like a good option and that is insanity in itself.


Maybe not, regarding the 'insanity' part anyway. Trump always has lived in a world where his bombast and (apparent) conceit were assets, not liabilities. I don't like the guy but I think he respects the office and would tone down the schoolyard bully act if he were elected. And his list of potential Supreme Court nominees tells me some very shrewd and sophisticated conservative politicians have his ear.

You don't need to have a nuclear scientist's brains to be president, so long as you have enough smarts to identify who the brightest minds are, and to fill your cabinet with them, and then be wise enough to heed their advice. The Donald has never struck me as being "smart," but there's no doubt he is one shrewd son of a bitch. And if he is elected, he won't be beholding to either party. And I think his balls are big enough to tell all his donors to pound sand when they come begging for favors, assuming those favors don't happen to be in what he regards as the country's best interest.

As bizarre as this might sound, I think this might be his time, because none of the other "Republican" candidates could have withstood the shitstorm of personal attacks that the Democrats (and their lapdogs in the mainstream press) will launch at the Republican nominee between now and the first Tuesday in November. Even the press is bumfuzzled how to deal with him, because everything they throw at him either slides off without leaving a stain or he blows back on Shrillary.

Speaking of the Wicked Witch, I don't know that she can withstand what The Donald has planned for her. Wait until he starts dragging out Whitewater, Cattlegate, Vince Foster, the Bimbo Eruptions, the semen-stained blue dress and all the rest. She might blow a gasket!

But if she _DOES_ win, within the next four years she will use Executive Orders to give citizenship to 10 million illegal unregistered democrat aliens, and she will import another 10 million with the same goal in mind. So if she wins, this will be the last "free" election (such as it is) any of us will see in our lifetimes.

----------


## Sehdee

with everything i know now , that i didn't a couple years ago , i really wouldn't doubt its bs . basically everything we know about everything is a lie , and needs to be relearned through critical thinking and intelligent independent thought

----------


## EndlessApex

I've seen some interesting arguments that solar cycles have a greater impact on the earth's temperature than most "climate change" alarmists want people to believe.

Attachment 166044

----------


## Marsoc

Since when did they discredit global warming ...

----------


## davesah1

you'd think they'd come out with something more appealing to the masses to chase that money.

You know something like..."New Study Finds Heart Disease is Actually Myth Concocted by ISIS"

~Funded by McDonalds.

----------


## Metalmank

I just want it to snow all the time.

----------


## DocToxin8

> i'm calling bs. 
> 
> i'm a scientist (a PhD and everything) and have been in the private sector developing new technology for over 25 years. scientists can and do have a broad range of standards that they will apply to a given set of data - some or more conservative and some are more liberal (aggressive in their conclusions). the point in the case of global warming is that the scientific mechanisms of how many of man's activities are scientific fact. the open question is whether or not such are meaningful at a global scale and contributing not at all, a little, a moderate amount, or a lot. for many the jury is out on this point. 
> 
> the problem in my view is that the media (and politicians) over simplify and tend to quote the more extreme scientists to drive up ratings (or support their politics). 
> 
> over time the increasing level of facts/knowledge tends to win out (think of galileo and the earth rotating around the sun). however, in this case, it's arguable as to whether or not we have enough time to let the science solidify before permanent and negative consequences result. with all due respect to all lay people, media, and biased politicians (maybe that's all politicians), we really should let the experts work through a reasonable position and then a follow on set of reasonable policies. unfortunately, i'm skeptical such will ever happen in the us. too much money at stake.


To the point. 

I don't think there's much question whether there's a degree of global warming happening, but what input mans activities has on that is another matter and very difficult too know. It's 10000 year since the last big ice age (had a small one in the 1700s). If it's gonna take 40000 years to cycle between ice ages, it stands to reason we're gonna get hotter for another 10000 years, provided it follows a standard rotation. 

While global warming would in many areas of the earth be a good thing, like here in some parts of Scandinavia where production will increase. Other parts will be deserts or covered in water. 

Problems is like stated, every time politics and science get mixed then nobody listens to the people they should actually listen to. Extremes of both sides of the argument are often brought in.

----------

