Posted on 08/04/2015 1:05:42 PM PDT by roostercogburn
Woodward, Oklahoma (CNN)I was wandering around the rolling plains of northwest Oklahoma looking for one person -- one person -- who believes in climate change science when I met the woman dressed all in yellow.
A wide-brimmed, lemon-colored hat orbited her head. Her loafers were the color of butter. Everything in between was a jubilee of sunshine.
Could she be the one?
Please, Lord, let her be the one.
I ask.
She laughs.
It's a sweet laugh. A knowing laugh. A yes-I-understand-everyone-out-here-thinks-climate-science-is-total-BS-but-I'm-the-one-who-gets-it laugh.
Then Yellow Hat speaks.
"I think it's a big fat lie."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
This whole article is a giant tantrum. I think my monitor is crying.
If you have to believe in it, it’s not science.
So many don’t believe in climate change because rural folks have to be able to think for themselves in order to survive.
Memorize these numbers......
bttt
She screamed "Go f*** yourself!" before storming off.
I don’t doubt climate change, the climate changes all the time and has been since the beginning of time. We just doubt the dire warnings and that taking money from us will change anything.......
Why is climate change always seen as a bad thing? After last winter, change sounds good to me especially if it involves warming.
Here are some key points to remember:
1.) We who do not believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming do not necessarily deny if the climate gets warmer over an extended period of time. Neither do we deny it can get cooler. If you tell us who do not believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming that it has been getting warmer than at some point in the past, we won’t deny that if the data shows it.
2.) If you ask us who do not believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming if increases in certain “greenhouse gasses” can cause temperatures to rise, we don’t disagree. After all, isn’t water vapor considered a greenhouse gas?
3.) We disagree with the believers in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming on the extent greenhouse gasses can cause warming and how much man has contributed to the overall concentrations. It is important to note that we who disagree in the premise of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming don’t necessarily deny man may be contributing in a measurable way. What we deny is that it is a major, or even relevant cause of any specific global warming trend.
4.) We who do not believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming vehemently oppose spending trillions of dollars to decrease CO2 levels since it will not have any effect greater than doing nothing to the natural cycles of cooling and warming.
5.) Last, but most definitely not least, we abhor in the most fundamental way the taking of said money from 1st world economies and giving it to other countries via any international body, specifically the corrupt UN, and even more adamantly oppose it if countries like China, India, and any number of other countries are excluded. This is an unacceptable loss of sovereignty, and will be opposed in every imaginable way, and some that the simple-minded international bodies may not imagine.
One of the most memorable nights in my life was being there as it happened.
I watched as over and over and over again data was examined if or not the e-mails were legitimate...testing and cross checking....comparing and investigating...then to where they were comparing data's. ...at breathtaking speed these scientist and climate people worked throughout that night into the next day.... By the time things were brought together an analyzed etc. the picture was pretty clear the public had been taken for a ride.
This little number was put together the night the e-mails were released...
Hide the decline and the fake Hockey Stick Graph...remember this???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk
I saw a presentation recorded of Lord Monckton (such as this one at Lord Monckton at “The International Conference on Climate Change” in Las Vegas 2014) which was attended by Unbelievers in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
He talked about showing up at one of those international climate change meetings attended by the people pushing catastrophic AGW, and he went to the desk and got a copy of the draft treaty they were proposing.
He took it back to his hotel room and went through all 150 pages of it. There were parts of it that advocated decreasing CO2 levels to the point where most animal and plant life would not survive, and there was also a piece that wanted to make “Mother Earth” an actual entity with rights, so lawsuits could be filed on her behalf.
Crazy, not making it up.
I’m a firm believer in climate change. Climate has been changing on this planet for around 4.5 Billion years, and will continue to do so for another 4.5 Billion years, or until the sun blows up.
Because their minds aren’t POLLUTED with the unscientific liberal agenda!!
Could you provide a link to the raw data disproving AGW, that you’re referring too?
I know there’s been lots of posts here.
The one that really ticked me off was a recent study on US weather station previous data that had been revised by NOAA to support AGW Climate Change /Warming.
Got into a heated argument with a JPL scientist who repeated the old trope that the science was settled, and all credible scientists are in agreement about the reality of AGW CC/W.
He further boasted about a sensor he’s designed that will help settle the matter.
The plan is to use his satellite thermal sensor to examine the earth’s “heat budget”, ie: the earth’s absorbing solar heat, and how well it loses it.
I told him that he can’t be serious that a fixed point in space can accurately read all of the sun’s heat effectively absorbed by a sphere the size of the earth, and simultaneously read how much is lost on the dark side of the earth. What p1ssed him off was when I asked him how would his thermal model would account for heat generated by natural sources, ie: the earth’s land and undersea volcanic activity, and forest fires, for instance? If he can’t differentiate between natural and man made contributions to “climate change” then how can any meaningful conclusions be made?
He replied: “let’s just agree to disagree”.
AGW CC is a religious syndicate for these public funded PhDs.
This guy can’t figure out why people in Oklahoma know BS when they smell it? Super genious this one.
Son is pretty much a liberal; but I think he does occasionally get flashes of truth. He used to think (after being told) that those Indian mounds in the shape of serpents were a the earth doing an actual formation in protest over how we’re doing so much polluting. (He is a very highly educated man.)
The other day, I was telling my rural neighbor about a new volunteer vine that popped up in my Texas yard. It’s a mouse melon that grows in Mexico. First thing she said was it was caused by climate change. I didn’t say a thing as I turned around and walked away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.