Dripping wet commie pinko slop = Anthropogenic Global Warming

On 4/29/2019 at 4:12 PM, Joseph Scarafone said:

I've never read such a piece of commie pinko dripping wet slop in my life, see article.  

Don't be shy.  Tell us what you really think

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joseph Scarafone said:

https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Shocking-Evidence-Suggests-Much-Faster-Global-Warming.html

 

I've never read such a piece of commie pinko dripping wet slop in my life, see article.  

 

They got a lot of nerve calling it science.  

They can't take away all of your rights without a really believable crisis...

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joseph Scarafone said:

"New climate models now project even faster global warming than previous work. The models were developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Princeton, NJ), the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder, CO) and six other international computational centers. If correct, these new studies give world leaders far less of a “runway” to avoid even more serious climate degradation.

Older climate change models predicted that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would produce global temperature increases of between 2.5-5 degrees C. The new models suggest that previous estimates were too conservative, and that doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce 5 degrees C. or more of global warming in the future."

0_1554896815643983356725272978788.jpg

===================================

Hmmmmmm, does something seem odd here?  Let's take another look...

 

"New climate models now project even faster global warming than previous work. The models were developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Princeton, NJ), the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Atmospheric Research (Boulder, CO) and six other international computational centers. If correct, these new studies give world leaders far less of a “runway” to avoid even more serious climate degradation.

Older climate change models predicted that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would produce global temperature increases of between 2.5-5 degrees C. The new models suggest that previous estimates were too conservative, and that doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce 5 degrees C. or more of global warming in the future."

20190430_063315.jpg

 

The new models suggest that previous estimates were too conservative,

Suggest?

SUGGEST ? ! ?

SUGGEST ? ! ? !

2ov5j0.jpg

 

PREVIOUS ESTIMATES WERE TOO CONSERVATIVE

(ZOMG I'm so triggered right now that I should give up being labelled a conservative, and start super-glueing my body parts to various surfaces to express my upsetfullnessingology.)

===============================

"One of the Democratic candidates for president, Jay Inslee, is making climate change the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. These models certainly bolster his case and ultimately will suggest the need for faster action. Environmental activists and movements throughout the world will also have more compelling evidence with which to press politicians for additional remedial action, too."

(That's code for Carbon Taxes...)

356b432b255c548d2c24671f76c2f504390abc91ceaa8f6310b4e39b76862ca2.jpg.6a9c7c7d7dcfb06f19910b201b7dc6bb.jpg

 

===================================

Back to the last bit of the article:

"We believe the climate debate—and its attendant policy and business risks— will intensify if it appears that the global climate outlook is deteriorating at an accelerated rate. It is not unlikely even that more aggressive calls for remedial action will be incorporated into political campaigns here and abroad.

And perhaps needless to say, for climate change deniers it’s about to get even hotter."

11b003446f5c5f5e6f188e47f9658ab652b272790a197385797c2f562c13e6f1.jpeg

c0c67332dd5f4f85b1a9e8f130e3ffa7761f6a88b5739d6ce66ff82c035749a2.jpg

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

🤣😊  too funny Tom !!! 

Edited by Joseph Scarafone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joseph Scarafone said:

🤣😊  too funny Tom !!! 

Oil Price staff may very well be giving me stern, disapproving looks right now for raining on this fine article.

They are welcome to respond with a suitably unserious rebuttal.  Hopefully using twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence against me, to get me back onto the straight and narrow path of accepting The Church Of Climate Change Armageddon as my ... um ... well the term "Saviour" doesn't exactly fit here now, does it?

Lemme try this again.  Ahem.

... to get me back onto the straight and narrow path of accepting The Church Of Climate Change Armageddon as my Personal Panic Party with other like-minded Panicking Persons.

 

77aa62afe811b432595cda340a48d8d7153e0566784cdf94ab60332b22bedb2a.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet in the 70's we were warned that we were approaching the next period of glaciation!

What ever happened to our hole in the ozone! I want it back!😜

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the article was the title itself. "EVIDENCE"??? That word belonged nowhere in that article, especially not the title. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The main problem with the article was the title itself. "EVIDENCE"??? That word belonged nowhere in that article, especially not the title. 

@Ward Smith , it appears your feedback was received and corrective action taken.

Near as I can determine, the original title of the article was:

"Shocking Evidence Suggests Much Faster Global Warming"

The title seems to be recently updated / re-worded to:

"New Models Suggest Much Faster Global Warming"

Changing the title was a good idea, in my opinion; it much better reflects the article's content.

The URL remains the same wording , near as I can tell. ("Shocking Evidence...")

On 4/30/2019 at 4:12 AM, Joseph Scarafone said:

Screencaps of article title before and after, which I dug up this morning on Google:

20190501_083349.jpg

 

Screenshot_20190501-083418_Chrome.jpg

 

Anyway, I had nothing whatsoever to do with the article title change (I'm *not* Oil Price staff) but it is good to see the clickbaity title was changed to something more accurate.

And happily, the article's authors remain free to write whatever they wish, and forum members here remain free to comment their opinions as they see fit.

It's all good.

The authors made their points, and pretty sure others made crystal clear their counterpoints.

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reactionary name calling label slapping = television grade talking head entertainment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had climate change and warming in the same day

It was 68F then dropped to 37 and snowed 5" , then the temps went upto 55F , all the snow was gone

However , I kept my house @ 78F throughout the event, man made the climate stable O.o;):D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

reactionary name calling label slapping = television grade talking head entertainment

What is your point?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

reactionary name calling label slapping = television grade talking head entertainment

 

43 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

What is your point?

 

Hazarding a guess here...

"CNN is reactionary name-calling label-slapping disinfo-tainment"

But I might be misinterpreting the caps lock message.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, the art of relevent, accurate, unbiased journalism is dead. Making it very difficult for John and Jane Doe to be accurately informed regarding any issue. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I sure hope all you guys feel better, now that you have had your rants.  

Meanwhile, that Dilbert cartoon posted by Tom is truncated.  It is missing the two panels that should be on the far right;  leaving those panels out leads to a discontinuous read of the cartoon.  In looking that over, it would seem that Tom has crafted that truncated version from yet another internet site, which in turn had truncated it from the original.  Watch out for those sources, Tom. They lead you down a dark path.

Edited by Jan van Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

What is your point?

 

The point is that it's all stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

The point is that it's all stupid.

Filter out the B.S. news that's projecting catastrophic events in 12 year (or less), and let the rest of the CNN"s and MSNBC's of the world to be taken with a grain of salt. I watch ZERO television as it all sux horribly. Hopefully that is what you were referring too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I sure hope all you guys feel better, now that you have had your rants.  

Meanwhile, that Dilbert cartoon posted by Tom is truncated.  It is missing the two panels that should be on the far right;  leaving those panels out leads to a discontinuous read of the cartoon.  In looking that over, it would seem that Tom has crafted that truncated version from yet another internet site, which in turn had truncated it from the original.  Watch out for those sources, Tom. They lead you down a dark path.

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that.

Do you have a link to the full, untruncated Dilbert cartoon?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that.

Do you have a link to the full, untruncated Dilbert cartoon?

You pulled yours from TheFederalist.com

They truncated it from the original, which is here:

image.png.2c734b5f6e98a11389ceba862dd1f3e0.png

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2019 at 9:39 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

However , I kept my house @ 78F throughout the event, man made the climate stable O.o;):D

And that demonstrates a real societal problem. 

In the poor, rural areas, nobody has the money to keep the house temperature up, even to 68F, forget about 78F.  I know of an elderly widow, I think she is 83, living in Bennington, Vermont, who has to keep her thermostat at 50 degrees, she has no money for more heat.  I know of old folks in the Waterbury area who shut their furnace off completely at night, they have no money at all, then warm back up to 46 degrees for the day.  They wear heavy mittens indoors, along with two pair socks and boots. 

Meanwhile the eco-warriors want to place yet another "carbon tax" on heating fuels, thus further impoverishing the poor.  Just to take one rural-State example, Vermont has 317,000 wage earners, of which 76,000 earn the minimum wage.  The median income is $14.42/hour.  How do you buy heating fuel at that level of income?  ANSWER: you don't.  You go without.  And that is yet another reason for efforts to reduce the cost, and increase the supply, of oil and gas, so the poor people do not freeze in the winter.  I am deeply offended by carbon-tax elitists who are perfectly prepared to force the poor to live through an entire winter with the thermostat set at below 50 degrees F.  It is a disgrace. Leftist elitists, you limousine liberals, I call you out.  You are a national disgrace. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

And that demonstrates a real societal problem. 

In the poor, rural areas, nobody has the money to keep the house temperature up, even to 68F, forget about 78F.  I know of an elderly widow, I think she is 83, living in Bennington, Vermont, who has to keep her thermostat at 50 degrees, she has no money for more heat.  I know of old folks in the Waterbury area who shut their furnace off completely at night, they have no money at all, then warm back up to 46 degrees for the day.  They wear heavy mittens indoors, along with two pair socks and boots. 

Meanwhile the eco-warriors want to place yet another "carbon tax" on heating fuels, thus further impoverishing the poor.  Just to take one rural-State example, Vermont has 317,000 wage earners, of which 76,000 earn the minimum wage.  The median income is $14.42/hour.  How do you buy heating fuel at that level of income?  ANSWER: you don't.  You go without.  And that is yet another reason for efforts to reduce the cost, and increase the supply, of oil and gas, so the poor people do not freeze in the winter.  I am deeply offended by carbon-tax elitists who are perfectly prepared to force the poor to live through an entire winter with the thermostat set at below 50 degrees F.  It is a disgrace. Leftist elitists, you limousine liberals, I call you out.  You are a national disgrace. 

 missed my sarcasm?

In any event, if I can afford to stay warm, I hate being cold, not even a hint of chill , if I wanted to feel that uncomfortable I would go camping? or join armed services again !!

Well here are few more labels as you call out these leftist elitists- foaming @ the mouth anti everything,hollywood limousine ridin, private jet and private charter jets flyin, mega yachts cruisin, multi mega mansions ownin liberal multi millionaire and multi billionaire champagne chuggin and caviar stuffin hypocrites ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2019 at 11:40 PM, Jan van Eck said:

And that demonstrates a real societal problem. 

In the poor, rural areas, nobody has the money to keep the house temperature up, even to 68F, forget about 78F.  I know of an elderly widow, I think she is 83, living in Bennington, Vermont, who has to keep her thermostat at 50 degrees, she has no money for more heat.  I know of old folks in the Waterbury area who shut their furnace off completely at night, they have no money at all, then warm back up to 46 degrees for the day.  They wear heavy mittens indoors, along with two pair socks and boots. 

Meanwhile the eco-warriors want to place yet another "carbon tax" on heating fuels, thus further impoverishing the poor.  Just to take one rural-State example, Vermont has 317,000 wage earners, of which 76,000 earn the minimum wage.  The median income is $14.42/hour.  How do you buy heating fuel at that level of income?  ANSWER: you don't.  You go without.  And that is yet another reason for efforts to reduce the cost, and increase the supply, of oil and gas, so the poor people do not freeze in the winter.  I am deeply offended by carbon-tax elitists who are perfectly prepared to force the poor to live through an entire winter with the thermostat set at below 50 degrees F.  It is a disgrace. Leftist elitists, you limousine liberals, I call you out.  You are a national disgrace. 

Sounds like Russia. Bernie must be happy with it though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Sounds like Russia. Bernie must be happy with it though. 

I have informed the politicians in VT that if they dare go through with some "carbon tax," then I will buy bagged anthracite coal over the border in Upstate New York and bootleg it back, by the truckload, to be distributed to the poor pensioners and other impoverished.  I will do that just to make clear how offensive their carbon tax ideas are.  What a collection of worthless drunkards those guys are.  And they have the nerve to call themselves "Progressives."  Ugh. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan, I have a healthy respect for anthracite coal and would use it too if I had to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Jan, I have a healthy respect for anthracite coal and would use it too if I had to. 

Retail anthracite is available from the distributor at $110/ton.  They will bag it for you into 50-lb bags, keeps the dust down. Probably charge another $20 a ton.   And they will even deliver in their truck to Vermont, although I suspect that the cops would be wise to them.  I would simply pick it up in some rental truck.  As a practical matter, there is no possible way that a bootlegger truck is going to be identified and stopped,  and once inside Vermont the provenance of some coal is impossible to determine.  So, you roll over the (very open) border, and hey, off you go.  Now, what are the "Progressives" going to do while you are embarrassing them?  Not much. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites