Oh, my, what's a poor envirowhacko to do?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/new-study-says-threat-global-warming-greatly-exaggerated/

Comes from onw of their darlings, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and contains their favorite buzzword, Peer-Reviewed.

Quote :

A peer-reviewed climate change study released Wednesday by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be “embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system” and not dangerous.

Oh, my, what's a poor envirowhacko to do?

Have said it for years.

In the summer, the weather get HOT, in the wnter, it gets COLD! Rain makes flooding more likely unless you have built channels for the runoff. Trees turn CO2 into oxygen which can make clouds which rain comes from, when PEOPLE chip down trees, there isn't always the same amount of snow as the years before. No 'GW' just people wanting chairs!

Does anyone here believe that man could have any effect whatsoever on his environment, on a global scale?

ilaugh wrote:

Does anyone here believe that man could have any effect whatsoever on his environment, on a global scale?

Speaking for myself, short of thermonuclear war, No.

ilaugh wrote:

Does anyone here believe that man could have any effect whatsoever on his environment, on a global scale?

Of course. It has been proven many times, both locally and globally. We hide this fact under the term "progress". Man has never had a positive effect on the environment. And for the record, I do not consider our feeble attempts at fixing the damage we have done or caused, "positive".

As it pertains to GW, Americans have only felt a "punch in the arm", as it pertains to the environment. Similar to that of what we are feeling over fresh produce. GW folks want you to believe the cost increase is because of drought/early frost (GW) instead of what is actually is (over development and loss of farmland).

But this time, it's going to be a "kick in the crotch". I estimate the cost to be $300-$1000 starting now, a year, per household. In 2014, double those estimates. 2015, triple them, and then include the $3,000-$5,000 replacement costs, also upfront.

Bandit wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

Does anyone here believe that man could have any effect whatsoever on his environment, on a global scale?

Of course. It has been proven many times, both locally and globally. We hide this fact under the term "progress". Man has never had a positive effect on the environment. And for the record, I do not consider our feeble attempts at fixing the damage we have done or caused, "positive".

As it pertains to GW, Americans have only felt a "punch in the arm", as it pertains to the environment. Similar to that of what we are feeling over fresh produce. GW folks want you to believe the cost increase is because of drought/early frost (GW) instead of what is actually is (over development and loss of farmland).

But this time, it's going to be a "kick in the crotch". I estimate the cost to be $300-$1000 starting now, a year, per household. In 2014, double those estimates. 2015, triple them, and then include the $3,000-$5,000 replacement costs, also upfront.

While we have made progress on the environment it is not nearly as bad as it was in the 20 to the 70s. In the 70s we started to clean up and have done a wonderful job. Does more need to be done yes.

There will always be opposing views when it comes to scientific research. That's how it should be. The bulk of the scientific community on climate change are still in the camp that's saying man is contributing to rising global temperatures. The IPCC will release a report on the 27th of Sept. I'll have to listen to what they say about this paper (if anything) before I try to wrap my limited knowledge around this complex issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/27/un-climate-change-report-dismisses-slowdown-in-global-warming/

And here is the report you were waiting for, ilaugh.

It basically says "We choose to ignore our own findings".

I maintain: The entire current crop of environmental activists, the U.N. in particular is nothing more than an excuse to confiscate the assets of western developed nations (read: United States) and redistribute those assets to other nations of the world.

To which I respond. Go to Hell. Get your damned hands out of my pocket.
The United States and its taxpayers are not your private piggy bank. You want to hand money out, get it from your own pocket. And this applies to domestic equivalent situations as well.

I say wait 1,500 years, and see if we have another ice age. Of course, if there's money to be made, it'll be man that causes "global cooling". :roll: 

Yes the global warming movement is really just a giant cabal lead by those horribly liberal, atheist scientists as a means to create more wealth for Al Gore. You nailed us.

ilaugh wrote:

Yes the global warming movement is really just a giant cabal lead by those horribly liberal, atheist scientists as a means to create more wealth for Al Gore. You nailed us.

Al Gore is just a fool who tried to hitch his wagon to the enviro train. If you look at his behavior, rather than the drivel that comes out of his mouth, it's more than clear that he has no concern for the environment whatsoever.

ilaugh wrote:

Yes the global warming movement is really just a giant cabal lead by those horribly liberal, atheist scientists as a means to create more wealth for Al Gore. You nailed us.

Are the scientist atheist?

Annoyed wrote:

ilaugh wrote:

Yes the global warming movement is really just a giant cabal lead by those horribly liberal, atheist scientists as a means to create more wealth for Al Gore. You nailed us.

Al Gore is just a fool who tried to hitch his wagon to the enviro train. If you look at his behavior, rather than the drivel that comes out of his mouth, it's more than clear that he has no concern for the environment whatsoever.

I have no respect for Al Gore. But have all the respect in the world for Ed Bagley Jr.