Global warming skeptic trollcat

hah Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:36 pm

true.

Reply

admin Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized.

Reply
- NorwegianBlue Says:
  June 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
  Cool story, bro.
  
  Reply
  - admin Says:
    June 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
    Quite. I mean what I’m saying is that scientists exaggerate the effects of global warming because they receive funds from environmental companies computer climate models are not able to predict tomorrow’s weather scientists have made wrong predictions before science and scientists are not always right the science of global warming is not proved we don’t have long term historical records of weather water vapor plays a major part in global warming man made emissions like carbon dioxide have only minor effects global warming is a natural phenomenon man has no role to play in it only our environment is responsible the temperature increase is very small especially when it is spread over a century the earth was warmer before that did not have harmful consequences on humans the increase in temperature will help plants grow in currently cold and uninhabitable areas the increase in the level of carbon dioxide will stimulate plant growth steps to limit global warming will decrease economic growth and hurt the poor people in fossil fuel industries will lose their jobs climate change has been more rapid in the past rise in carbon dioxide levels has always come after a temperature change and not before the upsurge in solar activity in the sun has caused global warming, you know?
    
    Reply
    - DrowningStar Says:
      August 6th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
      o.o My brain hurtz. Dx
      
      Reply
    - TheAmazingNarf Says:
      September 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 am
      tl;dr
      
      Reply
    - joshchapstick Says:
      September 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
      RE: “they receive funds from environmental companies” A: WTF is an environmental company? B: i wonder who has more money: oil companies or “environmental companies”.
      
      RE: “global warming”. it’s climate change, bro. your anecdotal examples of cooling are red herrings.
      
      RE: your whole litany: why do 99% of eminent scientists agree? are they all on the payroll of the “environmental companies”?
      
      and finally, what if you’re wrong?
      
      Reply
      - Ayrdale Says:
        October 27th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
        What if they are wrong…the ultimate attempted squelch from a sad greenie.
        The precautionary principle is why we wouldn’t like a golf course next to a potato chip factory. Someone might accidentally eat a sliced golf ball…
        Climatastrophe a la Al Gore is a hoax.
        
        It’s over Mr green.
        Ayrdale´s last blog ..Time to eat the dog, (but not the cat)…
        
        Reply
        
        joshchapstick Says:
        October 27th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
        thanks for the ad hominem BS. glad i stopped in.
        
        you won’t be convinced, but whether or not al gore’s version of the story is right or wrong, answer the logical question. why do 99% of the people who work on these issues agree that there’s a very serious problem? what sense would it make for them to fabricate such a thing and risk their reputations? they’re clearly not in it for the money, or they’d be on the side of the oil companies.
        
        Reply
        
        admin Says:
        October 27th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
        Precisely.
        
        Also:
        
        Reply
        
        ramdev Says:
        November 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
        Yes Sir, precisely…..’.
        
        Reply

Sky is Falling Says:
June 12th, 2009 at 12:18 am

Know the troll. Long live the truth.

Reply

Buster Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

We’re experiencing lots of climate change. So you think it’s still a myth?

Reply

admin Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

Reply
- UrbanFox Says:
  July 7th, 2009 at 7:13 am
  WTF?! Hahahahahahaha
  
  Reply
- Kathleen Says:
  July 28th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
  Another sight that cannot be unseen.
  Thanks.
  
  Reply

Mae Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 12:03 am

Yes.

Reply

NIdra Says:
July 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

The truth will set you free.

Reply

Claudia Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

Not a myth, actually. And most of it is caused by man. Know your facts, people. Stop hiding under your covers.

Reply

admin Says:
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 pm

Reply

300 LBS PARAKEET Says:
September 1st, 2009 at 11:25 am

What ever became of the global cooling and the new ice age we were suppost to be having in the 1970s how why has it suddenly revresed and its global warming? HEY THE WORLDS GETTING COOLER AGAIN AL GORE YOU BLABBERING SCATTERBRAIN

Reply

Olliefeelsglobalwarmingexists. Says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 am

You deny that the earth is heating up. seriously, what is your proof that this is correct. well done you guys who feel that global warming doesnt exist, try reading a thermometer properly. sorry but you’re wrong and Global warming exists. complete twats

Reply

rembrandt Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:19 am

anyone heard of climate change, global warming can be argued (or trolled more likely) but climate change IS happening.

Droughts raising salt water tables in agricultural land; Increased storms causing flash flooding and increasing numbers of ‘dry season’ lighting strikes resulting in an unprecedented number of bush fires; increased inland water temperatures causing algal blooms destroying fresh water fish stocks; Cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons occurring in areas never been tracked by man before; Polar ice caps disappearing, whale pods and fish stocks being disorientated with displaced warm water currents; Rising sea levels destroying pacific villages displacing thousands of people.

Human actions are creating climate change. Global warming is another significant by-product of the primary ‘dirty’ industries causing these aforementioned ecosystem malfunctions through the rising carbon particles per millions.

Reply

ramdev Says:
November 28th, 2009 at 8:47 pm

….isnt it the oil companies that started it all in the first place….hehe….please..isnt it obvious?

Reply

Satsugaicat Says:
December 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Selfish Hoomans caused Global Warming, and Cats are affected… Meow! Why argue about it? Fix it!

Reply

emma Says:
January 10th, 2010 at 8:11 pm

Cute Cat. I wish he also wore yellow boots.

Reply

Caitlin barrass-brown Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 9:42 am

im gay

Reply

bell Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 3:57 am

Are you seriously pulling the “climate change” card? Of course the climate changes, this isn’t unique to earth, and from what I’ve read the chances are this isn’t due primarily to human activities but rather from the sun’s activites. Also, try not attacking the moral character of someone who dissents by assuming they are an idiot/ridiculous/evil for not accepting your premise, this, like an ad hominem argument, is a low-blow technique that side-steps the issue.

Please check your facts on the percentage of scientists who agree on the issue- you will find there is in fact not nearly a consensus. Honest scientists are, by nature, skeptical. These climate change scientists, like creationists, seem to decide what they want to prove and set out to prove it. If the government funds your research, surely you will want to say “Aaaaah, there’s climate change- give me more money so I can research it in case the earth will fry and/or freeze and you will get an opportunity to increase your powers and monies” Saying “Same old same old, this is actually a small change compared to the history of climate change on this world” won’t get you a grant.

This is not the scientific method. I am a concept designer, with a degree in mechanical engineering so I know a few things about the science behind this- if more politicians understood the basic laws of dynamics, thermodynamics – even the conservation of mass/energy (mass is energy) they’d know why some of their “solutions” cannot work. Assuming the problem is real, which as I’ve said there is no concensus – and I personaly do not think it is human-caused in any significant way.

But of course, politicians play off of emotions more so than reason. I’m glad though, because people desire so badly for proof- and I think the proof will slowly but surely come to light- barring propoganda and censorship(i.e. barring a truly tyrannical state), you can’t stop the truth from winning out in the end.

Let’s just hope it’s before a global government is formed to bind us and make us pay for our carbon sins.

Reply

mbell Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

Are you seriously pulling the “climate change” card? Of course the climate changes, this isn’t unique to earth, and from what I’ve read the chances are this isn’t due primarily to human activities but rather from the sun’s activites. Also, try not attacking the moral character of someone who dissents by assuming they are an idiot/ridiculous/evil for not accepting your premise, this, like an ad hominem argument, is a low-blow technique that side-steps the issue.

Please check your facts on the percentage of scientists who agree on the issue- you will find there is not nearly a consensus. Honest scientists are, by nature, skeptical. These climate change scientists, like creationists, seem to decide what they want to prove and set out to prove it. If the government funds your research, surely you will want to say “Aaaaah, there’s climate change- give me more money so I can research it in case the earth will fry and/or freeze and you will get an opportunity to increase your powers and monies” Saying “Same old same old, this is actually a small change compared to the history of climate change on this world” won’t get you a grant.

This is not the scientific method. I am a concept designer, with a degree in mechanical engineering so I know a few things about the science behind this- if more politicians understood the basic laws of dynamics, thermodynamics – even the conservation of mass/energy (mass is energy) they’d know why some of their “solutions” cannot work. Assuming the problem is real, which as I’ve said there is no concensus – and I personaly do not think it is human-caused in any significant way.

But of course, politicians play off of emotions more so than reason. I’m glad though, because people desire so badly for proof- and I think the proof will slowly but surely come to light- barring propoganda and censorship(i.e. barring a truly tyrannical state), you can’t stop the truth from winning out in the end.

Let’s just hope it’s before a global government is formed to bind us and make us pay for our carbon sins.

Reply

bell Says:
February 28th, 2010 at 3:50 pm

Please excuse the replication!

Reply

josh c Says:
February 28th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

let’s pretend that you’re right; human caused climate change is a myth.

we would *still* need to deal with “the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.”

whether or not climate change is caused by humans, we still have to change.

Reply

bell Says:
March 6th, 2010 at 12:35 am

Maybe we do need to change. But not by enslaving some men to others. I have more “faith” (lets say, knowledge of the effectiveness) in a free market, which follows that which is productive, rather than in any government beauracrat picking and choosing winners and losers- thereby inefficiently stealing and redistributing capital into projects which, more often than not, fail or bleed out perpetually. And I am not nationalistic, I am for the ideals of America, wherever they may be and whoever may posess them. Let us be subject to real competition, if we cannot hold water, we are no longer fit to pretend to be Americans. And all those green jobs, guess who is funding them- and exactly how it is redistributing our wealth and pulling down our quality of life- just so we can all suffer until we extinguish entirely. If you guessed it was being funded by people who know nothing but politics and little of real science, you’d be right.

You’ve got to wonder when Al Gore is so sure of his stance, why he refuses to argue the case, asuming it is settled- you’d think that someone with so much evidence would love the chance to totally dominate someone with their facts… Maybe he’s got too much at stake… Also, you might think I’m one in a million, but I know plenty of people who question the science too, they are simply not as vocal- because they don’t care for the silly debate and the taint of politics. It reeks of non-science, religiousity, power-grabbery.

Interesting to note, a free market(we have a mixed economcy, with protected industries that are fat and happy,subsidized, eniffecient, and bailed out) drives more efficient production- think, cloud computing subscription services to media, rather than buying movies on disc, or any example of packaging- even new DVD cases are getting thinner. Conservation is economical, and does not need to be enforced- it’s how you decrease costs. Another interesting note: historically industrialization is decried as a horrible, smog and sut fest, and it was- due to government regulations permitting industrial waste and unrestricted pollution- even that which obviously harmed individuals- this is not a free market, that is protectionist government regulation which infringed many and allowed child labor(of which had existed before industrialization, and was rendered unecessary by the increase in productivity of the individual from industrialization). Still, government regulation just stagnates and tramples lives. It will do so whether or not its intentions are “good.”

I am just glad that people are waking up and resisting what is obviously an “emergency” that people in power, and who thirst for power, did not want to waste. Especially those in the UN.

Foreign oil dependency is not a national security risk. It’s an issue of the market restructuring naturally to compensate for regulations allowing irrational dependence to form in the first place. War is not the answer. And so what if China is dominating, if we fail we can thank big government take-down of our once very free market which made us the economic superpower of the world within 200 years of existence, and on the momentum of which we still ride not realizing we’ve got no more acceleration.

Unlike Marx, I realize that the resource which is most important is the human mind, and I’m sorry, but that is infinite in a free society where those with new ideas are free to compete and be compensated for their productiveness. Old tech is not the solution, even if we layer the earth in it. We need new tech, and we don’t have to subsidize anyone to get it- we’ve just got to lay off.

Reply

josh c Says:
March 7th, 2010 at 4:39 pm

If I understand you correctly, you’re worried that acting against human-induced climate change is an economic threat to the US. I disagree with that, but even if it were true, we’d still need to do something.

RE “obviously an “emergency” that people in power, and who thirst for power, did not want to waste. Especially those in the UN.”

In what sense does the UN gain power from acting against human-induced climate change?

Reply

Trollcats

Global warming skeptic trollcat

33 Responses to “Global warming skeptic trollcat”

Leave a Reply

Make a Trollcat. WE DARE YOU.

Highest rated trollcats

Trollcats twitter

Recent trollcats

They-even-fail-at-failing trollcats

Top Commentators

Archives

Top Submitters

Conspirators