# 2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2021)

Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.

In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*

In a separate assessment released at the same time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which relies on slightly different temperature records and methods, calculated that the globally averaged temperature last year was the second highest to date—just 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit shy of tying the record set in 2016. - 
“These long-term trends are very, very clear,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “This is another piece of evidence that tells us the planet is warming decade by decade by decade.”

NASA and NOAA scientists labeled 2020 a year of extremes, *driven by rising levels of Greenhouse Gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that trap heat in the atmosphere. *- At times last year, the Arctic averaged 12 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, with some spots hitting temperatures of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Record wildfires in the U.S. and Australia burned millions of acres and spewed smoke plumes high into the stratosphere. There were more named Atlantic storms than ever before. Heat building up...









						2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says
					

Despite cooling ocean currents and a drop in greenhouse gas emissions due to the coronavirus pandemic, global temperatures last year were a dead heat with those recorded in 2016.




					www.wsj.com


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jan 19, 2021)

wtf - it's cold here this morning


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880.



Wow!

Hottest in 141 years?

I'm convinced. 

$76 trillion in windmill spending, on the way!!!


----------



## AMart (Jan 19, 2021)

The population of Africa will grow from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion by the end of the century. Bill Gates better get busy.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2021)

Any links to the scientific literature? ... there's some claims made in the links you did provide that can't be believed if they're only reported in the _National Enquirer_ ...


----------



## Rambunctious (Jan 19, 2021)

How many recent years of non record breaking heat did you have to ignore and skip over to get to this year?....take it all into account...not just the year you want to site....


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 19, 2021)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> wtf - it's cold here this morning


Did you expect it to be 75 degrees in winter to justify it being warmer?


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Jan 19, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > wtf - it's cold here this morning
> ...




Did I say that?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Any links to the scientific literature? ... there's some claims made in the links you did provide that can't be believed if they're only reported in the _National Enquirer_ ...


It's the WSJ citing/quoting NASA officials.
Only a Denier IDIOT like you would compare that to the 'National Enquirer.'
You turd.
There are some graphics in the article tho, but not reproduceable.

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's the WSJ citing/quoting NASA officials.
> Only a Denier IDIOT like you would compare that to the 'National Enquirer.'
> You turd.
> There are some graphics in the article tho, but not reproduceable.



Link? ... WSJ can say they're quoting NASA ... and lying is protected under the 1st Amendment ... 
No link to any scientific journals? ... then it's not science ... just hysteria ...

But thank you for the _ad hominem_ attacks ... you admit I'm correct in my claims ... that's sweet of you ...


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.  In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880.





In other words, Boob, they did a study and claim 2020 was the warmest year they know of over 0.00000003% of the Earth's history?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> In other words, Boob, they did a study and claim 2020 was the warmest year they know of over 0.000000030435% of the Earth's history?


The Industrial Rev/GHG warming is what's at issue.
Obviously it has been warmer many times in Earth's history, but of course we know why it was and WHY this time is caused by humans.

Are you like 12 yrs old?
You post like a Child... and a dumb one at that.
`


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 19, 2021)

AMart said:


> The population of Africa will grow from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion by the end of the century.




Who's feeding them?


----------



## AMart (Jan 19, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> AMart said:
> 
> 
> > The population of Africa will grow from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion by the end of the century.
> ...


That is a good question. I used UN estimates so the assumption from them is that there will be enough food and water to get to that number.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You post like a Child... and a dumb one at that.




You post like a fucking asshole.  And a dumb one at that.  I've never seen you one time win any argument here with actual evidence that proved your position so you always fall back on just putting down the intelligence or integrity of the other person.  

A study of 140 years over the course of the 4.6 BILLION year history of the Eaerth does NOT prove a fucking thing.

PS:  I keep a milk cow in my backyard and feed her a diet to maximize her output of methane farts just for you!


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 19, 2021)

AMart said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > AMart said:
> ...




I just wonder that if people in Ethiopia are well fed, then why are Americans standing in food lines?

But then, I also wonder how a small fire in a homeless camp in DC caused the nation's Capitol to shut down and go into a security alert!

Maybe a better question is why there even IS a homeless camp in the nation's capitol?  

. . . and why there are no POOR ex-politicians?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 19, 2021)

abu afak said:


> WSJ is going to Lie in quoting NASA officials?
> WTF!
> Ruin their reputation?
> And no, that would not be protected, that would be fraudulent.
> ...



The WSJ has no reputation in the scientific world ... it's a business periodical ... you don't have a link to any NASA official, you're just swallowing vomit and spewing it back out ... 

At this time ... NOAA has not updated their Global Temperature webpage to include 2020 data ... usually late February or early March before they're done with their calculations ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> What an IDIOT.
> The WSJ has a reputation.... PERIOD.
> It would not fabricate a story, much less quotes of specific officials!
> The article has many links and graphics but Only EXCERPTS are allowed to be posted
> ...



Long on insult ... short on facts ... you know you're lying ... link to NASA's claim? ... none? ... oh right, WSJ ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Fucking noob ...


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jan 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


It's fricking cold in florida-----------the coldest year that I can recall since I have been here.  Another 40 degree night....


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...








Yah sure, blah, blah, blah.  Raw temp data shows cold, so they run the data through a computer model and viola,  magical warming ensues, and scientific illiterates,  such as yourself,  gobble it down.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> ...







Snowing in Australia.  In SUMMER.  But abu is a religious fanatic.   He will follow the scripture like his high priests demand.

If they told him to sacrifice a goat he'd kill his own daughter to appease the volcano gods...


----------



## Peace (Jan 20, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > wtf - it's cold here this morning
> ...



It was almost 80 degrees here in Houston, so yes it is warm as hell here... Not hot but warm...


----------



## abu afak (Jan 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Long on insult ... short on facts ... you know you're lying ... link to NASA's claim? ... none? ... oh right, WSJ ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
> 
> Fucking noob ...


Noob?
I'm here 15 YEARS YOU MORON.
Easy to see.

BTW you **** IDIOT
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO G O O G L E?
How many sources you want you 12 IQ Moron?



			2020 warmest year - Google Search
		


`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 20, 2021)

Google link above

*2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows*
www.nasa.gov › press-release › 2020-tied-for-warmest-...
6 days ago — Globally, _2020_ was the _hottest year_ on record, effectively tying 2016, the previous record. Overall, Earth's average temperature has risen more ...

*NASA Says 2020 Tied for Hottest Year on Record - Scientific ...*
www.scientificamerican.com › article › 2020-will-rival-...
6 days ago — The results are finally in: _2020_ was one of the _hottest years_ in recorded history, according to data released today by NASA and the National ...

*Has 2020 Ended as the Warmest Year on Record? | Discover ...*
www.discovermagazine.com › environment › will-202...
Dec 31, 2020 — "With 99% of this epic rollercoaster of a _year_ completed, time to reveal an estimate of _2020's_ global temperature: As far as GISTEMP is concerned, ...

*2020 was Earth's 2nd-hottest year, just behind 2016 | National ...*
www.noaa.gov › news › 2020-was-earth-s-2nd-hottest-...
6 days ago — It's official: _2020_ ranks as the second-_hottest year on_ record for the planet, knocking 2019 down to third _hottest_, according to an analysis by NOAA scientists.


ReinyDaze (and Westsmall) will now be RESIGNING for JUVENILE and STUPID POSTING.
100% HUMILIATED.
TRULY OBNOXIOUS AND DUMB little 14 year olds.

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Jan 20, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Noob?
> I'm here 15 YEARS YOU MORON.
> Easy to see.
> 
> ...



Yeah ... noob ... why are you screaming? ... haw haw haw haw haw haw ... just nuts ...

Now little boy ... can you pick the one google hit from NASA and post a link here? ...


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> You post like a fucking asshole.  And a dumb one at that.  I've never seen you one time win any argument here with actual evidence that proved your position so you always fall back on just putting down the intelligence or integrity of the other person.



Abu does seem to love to shred people from an ad hominem angle, but he also puts more effort into his posts than most. Of course you don't think he wins the argument. It's political for you so you're incapable of thinking clearly.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Yeah ... noob ... why are you screaming?



Your ignorance seems to be pissing him off.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> scientific illiterates



Are you one of the ones that think AGW is a giant conspiracy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > scientific illiterates
> ...



Conspiracy? Nah.

Who gets more money for research?
The scientists who support the, "We're melting the planet, the scientists (and the politicians) need more money and power" viewpoint or the opposing viewpoint?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conspiracy? Nah.
> 
> Who gets more money for research?
> The scientists who support the, "We're melting the planet, the scientists (and the politicians) need more money and power" viewpoint or the opposing viewpoint?



If it was evident that AGW isn't real then scientists would naturally be exploring that. You people post a few graphs and viewpoints from a blog website and feel like you've unraveled some conspiracy. Do you really think something that simple would have scientists all over the world either fooled or implicated in a conspiracy?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Conspiracy? Nah.
> ...



*If it was evident that AGW isn't real then scientists would naturally be exploring that. *

That is awesome! Any negative consequences when a scientist publishes a paper
saying it isn't real? Are skeptics still allowed to publish? 

*You people post a few graphs and viewpoints from a blog website and feel like you've unraveled some conspiracy.*

That's crazy! Everyone knows that any warming, hell, any change at all in the climate has to be because of the CO2 we've released over the last few hundred years.

Everyone knows that when it gets hotter, manmade global warming.
Everyone knows that when it gets colder, manmade climate change.
Everyone knows that when it gets drier, manmade climate change.
Everyone knows that when it gets wetter, manmade climate change.
Is there anything AGW _can't_ do?

*Do you really think something that simple would have scientists all over the world either fooled or implicated in a conspiracy?*

I think that when you dangle hundreds of billions of dollars in front of scientists
and say, "Go find proof of AGW", they'll find the proof. No conspiracy need.
Just cash and the hope for more cash and more government control.

How much are they offering to disprove it? Hmmmmmmmmm.......


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > scientific illiterates
> ...










Conspiracy?  No.  They are making millions trying to turn you back into a serf.  If I were a thinking person,  which apparently you are not, I would wonder why climatologists fail to follow the scientific method.

Do you even know what the scientific method is?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Conspiracy? Nah.
> ...








If they were competent and ethical, yeah.  It is obvious that they are neither.

How many failed predictions do you need before you figure out they are lying to you?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



He will never get it since he is a determined science illiterate, he is a worshipper of a climate cult, where modeling scenarios is their bible.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He has COMPLETELY avoided this thread, where his science illiterate buddy made a fool of himself there.

*Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying* 

LINK


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 20, 2021)

> *2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says*


And?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> If they were competent and ethical, yeah.  It is obvious that they are neither.
> 
> How many failed predictions do you need before you figure out they are lying to you?



Maybe compared to a climate scientist you don't actually know much about this topic.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If they were competent and ethical, yeah.  It is obvious that they are neither.
> ...



Westwall IS a Scientist, you moron!


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> He will never get it since he is a determined science illiterate, he is a worshipper of a climate cult, where modeling scenarios is their bible.



Apparently you think the climate scientists are determined science illiterates.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Westwall IS a Scientist, you moron!



Science is a pretty broad field in case you didn't know. Him being a "scientist" doesn't make him equal to active climate scientists in matters concerning the climate.

His qualifications would pale in comparison to the qualifications of all of the current scientists that disagree with him.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall IS a Scientist, you moron!
> ...



Another Fallacy is the best you can make, no wonder you are so dumb.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Another Fallacy is the best you can make, no wonder you are so dumb.



Whatever you need to tell yourself pal.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If they were competent and ethical, yeah.  It is obvious that they are neither.
> ...









I can teach every class for a climatology degree, up to, and including, graduate level classes. 

A PhD climatologist, OTOH, is not qualified to teach 4th year classes in geology.   So no, they know LESS than me.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > He will never get it since he is a determined science illiterate, he is a worshipper of a climate cult, where modeling scenarios is their bible.
> ...



See this folks, he is too dumb to realize I was talking about Anomalism as being the science illiterate.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> I can teach every class for a climatology degree, up to, and including, graduate level classes.
> 
> A PhD climatologist, OTOH, is not qualified to teach 4th year classes in geology.   So no, they know LESS than me.



Being a teacher is not the same as being a scientist. You would not be qualified to do the work of a PhD climatologist. What relevant work regarding climate change have you published?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > He will never get it since he is a determined science illiterate, he is a worshipper of a climate cult, where modeling scenarios is their bible.
> ...








No, not all.  But the ones pushing this nonsense,  are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 20, 2021)

CO2 causes both wildfires and floods.  Amazing


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I can teach every class for a climatology degree, up to, and including, graduate level classes.
> ...



*BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!*

The ignorance is strong with this one.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> See this folks, he is too dumb to realize I was talking about Anomalism as being the science illiterate.



The people with good reading comprehension will be able to see that you are the one that's confused.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> No, not all.  But the ones pushing this nonsense,  are.



So pretty much all of them that do the most relevant work, right?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall IS a Scientist, you moron!
> ...









Correct, my field is far more difficult than climatology.  In fact, most climatologists are geography degree holders.  

When I was going to school if you couldn't hack the academics for a geology degree, you dropped down to a geography  degree. 

Like I said, I have a PhD in a hard science.  Climatology is considered a soft science. 

You might want to look up what that means.  I will give you a sporting analogy to help you along.  Geology is track and field.  The winner is the first one to cross the line.  The highest jumper, the fastest runner, the greatest weight lifted, etc.

Climatology is ice dancing.  Whoever gets the most votes wins.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> You bring NOTHING of science to the table.



I never intended to. I am standing behind the opinions and qualifications of climatologists and scientific institutions all over the planet. If you want a science debate go to them. You don't actually want that though because you'd look like a fool.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, not all.  But the ones pushing this nonsense,  are.
> ...



Many of them with ZERO meteorological or geological backgrounds


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, not all.  But the ones pushing this nonsense,  are.
> ...









Computer models aren't work.  They are fiction.  Science illiterates,  such as yourself don't understand that fact.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Correct, my field is far more difficult than climatology.  In fact, most climatologists are geography degree holders.
> 
> When I was going to school if you couldn't hack the academics for a geology degree, you dropped down to a geography  degree.
> 
> ...



You seem like some old irrelevant dude that's exaggerating his credentials. I think your qualifications are squat compared to those of active scientists all over the world that have been working the field in question for decades.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > You bring NOTHING of science to the table.
> ...



You do it out of complete ignorance, that is why you write like a science illiterate.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Correct, my field is far more difficult than climatology.  In fact, most climatologists are geography degree holders.
> ...



You are being the fool here, he has stated his background before.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Correct, my field is far more difficult than climatology.  In fact, most climatologists are geography degree holders.
> ...








You can think whatever you want.  My work has been cited over 300 times, and is STILL being cited.  Three times last year.  So I am still current.

Some of my work is used in LANDSAT satellites to this very day.  My work provides data that your climatologists can't even understand.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> You are being the fool here, he has stated his background before.



I am aware of what he said. I think you're the one struggling to keep up.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2021)

NASA got caught fabricating data so they have no credibility when it comes to climate science.

Besides the dimwits don't even know how to calibrate their satellite temperature sensors to within 5 degrees F so when they tell you the ocean or land temperature is rising by .5 F or whatever they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Of course that won't stop the Environmental Wackos from quoting them will it?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> You can think whatever you want.  My work has been cited over 300 times, and is STILL being cited.  Three times last year.  So I am still current.
> 
> Some of my work is used in LANDSAT satellites to this very day.  My work provides data that your climatologists can't even understand.



I'm sure you'd be very useful on a team studying climate change.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2021)

These dumbass Libtards don't know any more about Climate Science than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> These dumbass Libtards don't know any more about Climate Science than they they know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.



Do the climate scientists know anything about climate science?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> NASA got caught fabricating data so they have no credibility when it comes to climate science.
> 
> Besides the dimwits don't even know how to calibrate their satellite temperature sensors to within 5 degrees F so when they tell you the ocean or land temperature is rising by .5 F or whatever they don't know what the hell they are talking about.
> 
> Of course that won't stop the Environmental Wackos from quoting them will it?









It's actually worse than that.  They are claiming that the record temp increased by .04 degrees. 

The instruments are only capable of delineating  .1 degree increments.   So they are outright lying through their teeth.


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > NASA got caught fabricating data so they have no credibility when it comes to climate science.
> ...




I don't have it book mark so I will have to go look it up again but I read an article a few months ago that said that they have trouble with a +/- calibration of 5 F with their satellite sensors.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> It's actually worse than that.  They are claiming that the record temp increased by .04 degrees.
> 
> The instruments are only capable of delineating  .1 degree increments.   So they are outright lying through their teeth.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You can think whatever you want.  My work has been cited over 300 times, and is STILL being cited.  Three times last year.  So I am still current.
> ...








Yeah, if you actually wanted to KNOW what was really happening,  I would be.  On the other hand, if all you want to do is wave your hands and lie, then you are correct.  I am far too honest for you.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, if you actually wanted to KNOW what was really happening,  I would be.  On the other hand, if all you want to do is wave your hands and lie, then you are correct.  I am far too honest for you.



So you think easily observed bullshit is flying all over the entire planet in a giant climate conspiracy?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, if you actually wanted to KNOW what was really happening,  I would be.  On the other hand, if all you want to do is wave your hands and lie, then you are correct.  I am far too honest for you.
> ...










Easily observed?  Yeah.  Why do you think the media is so desperate to stop discussing climatologists methods.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You seem like some old irrelevant dude that's exaggerating his credentials.



You seem like some young irrelevant dude with no credentials.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You seem like some young irrelevant dude with no credentials.



My credentials are irrelevant because I'm deferring to scientists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You seem like some young irrelevant dude with no credentials.
> ...



Like Michael Mann?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like Michael Mann?



Like all of the ones that are actually doing relevant research.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Like Michael Mann?
> ...



Has Michael Mann ever done relevant research?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Has Michael Mann ever done relevant research?



I have no idea why you have such a hard on for Michael Mann. He's one person.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Has Michael Mann ever done relevant research?
> ...



Why are you afraid to answer my question?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 20, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why are you afraid to answer my question?



I'm not afraid. It's just irrelevant. You're grasping at straws and I'm not going to give you any.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid to answer my question?
> ...


----------



## Flash (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You seem like some young irrelevant dude with no credentials.
> ...




Would this be any of the Scientists that were caught red handed fabricating data?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you afraid to answer my question?
> ...



No, it is because you have no idea what Dr. Mann has published, that is why you can't answer a simple question.

I have read two of his published papers, have you read any of his papers?

You think like a child, act like a child, you are a bottom dwelling child.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Like Michael Mann?
> ...



What relevant research is that?


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You seem like some young irrelevant dude with no credentials.
> ...










Appeal to authority is the biggest logical fallacy there is.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He doesn't know who Milton Humason was, who discovered something big while he was a "mule skinner" for the Hooker Telescope....., when it was being built.

He doesn't know who Clyde Tombaugh was either who finds Pluto without a College degree.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Anomalism said:
> ...








Yup, the scientific literature is filled with amateurs who made paradigm shifting discoveries because they weren't blinded by dogma.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Anomalyboy is too ignorant to know about how many without college degrees did a lot for science they greatly advanced, even when has no degree at all for the field they advanced so famously.

Henrietta Swan Leavitt had no Astronomy degree, while she is the pioneer on Cepheid Variability and Luminosity.

Alfred Wegener who has NO Geology degree was the first to notice continental, biology and botany matches for both Atlantic coasts.

I have known this stuff from the 1970's, Anamolyboy still doesn't know.....


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...








Wegener wasn't the first to come up with continental drift, he merely stated it better than anyone before him.   I can't remember which English naturalist postulated on the theory in the 1600's but he was merely commenting on observations and ideas that began in the 1400's.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



True, but since he did the main work of advancing it, he is the one being remembered for it. The point was he is an educated Meteorologist doing work as a Geologist without the degree.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...







Yup, he was a true polymath.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> No, it is because you have no idea what Dr. Mann has published, that is why you can't answer a simple question.
> 
> I have read two of his published papers, have you read any of his papers?
> 
> You think like a child, act like a child, you are a bottom dwelling child.



I'm a lot less hostile and insulting than you are, Mr. grown up. Maybe feeling ignorant is upsetting you. Mann is nothing but a distraction from the point I'm making, a point you have been deliberately ignoring.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> What relevant research is that?



Are you actually serious right now?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> He doesn't know who Milton Humason was, who discovered something big while he was a "mule skinner" for the Hooker Telescope....., when it was being built.
> 
> He doesn't know who Clyde Tombaugh was either who finds Pluto without a College degree.



There is nobody on your side of the argument doing groundbreaking work. I'm not ignoring anybody's work. No new work is being done by your side. Scientists tell us what their work means and you people say "No, THIS is what your work means." You have nothing but deflections and anecdotes. There is no substance to your arguments.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Anomalyboy is too ignorant to know about how many without college degrees did a lot for science they greatly advanced, even when has no degree at all for the field they advanced so famously.
> 
> Henrietta Swan Leavitt had no Astronomy degree, while she is the pioneer on Cepheid Variability and Luminosity.
> 
> ...



Who is doing new work on your side of the argument? Nobody, that's who. You act like everybody is ignoring all of the great work being done by people proving AGW isn't real. That's not reality.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

You people constantly run from and deflect the primary points here because you have nothing else. You're either being intentionally dishonest or you're so caught up in your denier nonsense that you'll bend yourself into a pretzel to avoid facing reality. Y'all are a bunch of arrogant and irrelevant nobodies with nothing substantive to back up your side of the argument. To real people of science your behavior is just gross and ignorant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> No new work is being done by your side.



Why do you feel that?
Because your side prevented publication?
How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
About "Mike's Nature Trick"?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you feel that?



It's true. If AGW is proven false it will be with information we don't have yet. Your Galileo better get to work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you feel that?
> ...



*It's true. *

Cool story. Can you prove it?

How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
About "Mike's Nature Trick"?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cool story. Can you prove it?



It's plainly true because if it wasn't you would be trumpeting that stuff in defense of your position. All you have is these blog websites. They take the work of scientists and try to make it look like something it's not. The people that did those studies they point at don't agree with how you and those bloggers view AGW.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

You people are so detached from reality that you have to rely on ridiculous conspiracy theories to support your world view.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cool story. Can you prove it?
> ...



*It's plainly true because ......*

Your side is preventing publication?

Is that something you're proud of?

How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
About "Mike's Nature Trick"? 

Or was that before your time? Afraid to answer again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You people are so detached from reality that you have to rely on ridiculous conspiracy theories to support your world view.



AGW believers would never interfere with skeptics?
Would never try to cut off funding or prevent publication?

That's ridiculous. DURR.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your side is preventing publication?



If there was compelling evidence that disputes AGW it would not have a hard time getting published. There are plenty of people/groups that would fund that. You're delusional. The work doesn't exist because the evidence points somewhere else. If AGW isn't happening it won't be shown until more information is collected.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> AGW believers would never interfere with skeptics?
> Would never try to cut off funding or prevent publication?
> 
> That's ridiculous. DURR.



If they were obviously wrong there would be plenty of current work and publications disputing their claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Your side is preventing publication?
> ...



How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
About "Mike's Nature Trick"?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
> About "Mike's Nature Trick"?



Go ahead and explain to me in your own words why Mike's Nature Trick proves wrong countless scientists and scientific institutions all over the world. Are they trying to keep his groundbreaking work a secret?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
> ...



You have no problem with Mike's Nature Trick?

It doesn't make you a little uncomfortanle?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have no problem with Mike's Nature Trick?
> 
> It doesn't make you a little uncomfortanle?



Will you do what I asked you to do?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You have no problem with Mike's Nature Trick?
> ...



Still afraid?

Need a safe space?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


He shows his ignorance and science illiteracy in every post.

He has no idea what Makes Nature trick is.

That is why he is ducking and weaving in his replies.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is because you have no idea what Dr. Mann has published, that is why you can't answer a simple question.
> ...



You haven't made a point at all, you haven't read any of his papers, therefore you have no idea what he thinks about the topic. You have no idea what the AGW conjecture is either, you are a programmed lemming filled with fallacies and bullshit.

You will NEVER discuss anything, because you don't know anything about it.

Dr. Mann's "Hockey Stick" paper was refuted years ago, that is a fact you will fight because YOU are programmed to fight it.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How do you feel about "Hide the decline"?
> ...



*BWAHAHAHAHA!!!*

Your ignorance of it is making a big fool of you. Give you a hint, skeptics didn't make that, it was the warmist/alarmist who made that up.

You are so pathetic.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> You will NEVER discuss anything, because you don't know anything about it.



I don't discuss the science because I'm not an arrogant nitwit. I defer to the experts.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> *BWAHAHAHAHA!!!*
> 
> Your ignorance of it is making a big fool of you. Give you a hint, skeptics didn't make that, it was the warmist/alarmist who made that up.
> 
> You are so pathetic.



It's always actual scientists that do the work. That's kind of my point. You don't understand as much about their work as they do. It doesn't make sense to you because you're ignorant, not because there's a conspiracy.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> He shows his ignorance and science illiteracy in every post.
> 
> He has no idea what Makes Nature trick is.
> 
> That is why he is ducking and weaving in his replies.



Everything you're clinging onto right now is a duck and a weave. You've been avoiding reality and the real conversation the entire time.


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still afraid?
> 
> Need a safe space?



You're getting boring. Anything else?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Still afraid?
> ...



*I defer to the experts. *

Even when they use "Mike's Nature Trick"?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I defer to the experts. *
> 
> Even when they use "Mike's Nature Trick"?



What do you think a climatologist would say about Mike's Nature Trick? Do you think it just slipped their minds, or is your observation not as relevant as you think it is because you're ignorant?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *I defer to the experts. *
> ...



*What do you think a climatologist would say about Mike's Nature Trick?  *

An honest one, or the ones who used it?


----------



## Anomalism (Jan 21, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> An honest one, or the ones who used it?



First tell me what the active and honest climatologists are saying. Do you have any examples?


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Jan 21, 2021)

Would it do any good here to recommend a book: "Climate Change: The Facts"?

Climate change was turned into an enormous industry in and of itself, starting in the 1970s. In 77, Time said global cooling, then it became global warming, now just change. Once the poorer nations realized they would be subsidized by the wealthier nations in this scheme, it really took off.

Most scientists are also people who need to make money and like to live well. If climate change goes away, then so do all of the grants given to study its effects.

NASA also gets billions in funding to study climate change, so they now have a stake in the game. The first indication that something is amiss with their analysis is they also choose to ignore data prior to 80,000 years ago, when temperatures have been determined to have been several degrees warmer than any projected temperature from the models (think dinosaurs).

They have repeatedly tried to use the climate models to match what has happened in history, in order to validate them, and they have been incorrect in every case where peer review has validated the methods used.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2021)

Eaglekeeper said:


> *... The first indication that something is amiss with their analysis is they also choose to ignore data prior to 80,000 years ago, when temperatures have been determined to have been several degrees warmer than any projected temperature from the models (think dinosaurs).
> 
> They have repeatedly tried to use the climate models to match what has happened in history, in order to validate them, and they have been incorrect in every case where peer review has validated the methods used.*


Completely False and fabricated by you.
NASA has done extensive data collection and analysis on all periods.



			why is warming human, nasa - Google Search
		


You're a total stupid **** and liar.
Just what this section needs... another RW clown.
Does USMB have a recruiter in a Right Wing High School?

`

`


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Jan 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Eaglekeeper said:
> 
> 
> > *... The first indication that something is amiss with their analysis is they also choose to ignore data prior to 80,000 years ago, when temperatures have been determined to have been several degrees warmer than any projected temperature from the models (think dinosaurs).
> ...


Well, I guess the friendly moderators were correct.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2021)

Eaglekeeper said:


> Well, I guess the friendly moderators were correct.


Well I guess you were INcorrect and had no answer to being caught fabricating.

And which friendly mods were those? Ivanka and Jared? Dumb and Dumber?
FlaCalTenn is the only one with a 3 digit IQ.


EDIT: you'll note the personal posting/High Fiving continues below and throughout the factLess response thread.
After you spend 2 years here you're legible for asst Trump spokesman.
If you're just a RW teenager (or the friend of one of the mods who is) you can be a mod in short order.
`

`


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 21, 2021)

Eaglekeeper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglekeeper said:
> ...



Yes, one of them removed one of his ugly post yesterday after it was reported.

He is a believer, the worst kind too which is why there is never a debate with this one.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Yes, one of them removed one of his ugly post yesterday after it was reported.
> 
> He is a believer, the worst kind too which is why there is never a debate with this one.


It's really shocking and very partisan actually.
Mods "warning' him about me?

YOU making another off topic personal post here?
The Noob caught Lying and unable to respond to me pointing it out?
Yeah, after seeing this thread of 95% one line OFF Topic replies, who gets a post removed?

`


----------



## ding (Jan 21, 2021)

abu afak it's called weather, dummy.  The sky is not falling.


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Jan 21, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, one of them removed one of his ugly post yesterday after it was reported.
> ...


You have jumped to multiple incorrect conclusions about me.

The introductions from the moderators and others were very friendly, but felt my expectation of honest debate here was laughable. I had to try anyway.

Since you're not 'Noob'  you should understand that people come on to these forums at various levels of age, experience, education, etc.

If you feel you have all of the level of expertise in this area you could ever need, good on you. Otherwise, consider expanding your knowledge. True scientists will never reject an opportunity to have their theories tested.


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Jan 23, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Eaglekeeper said:
> 
> 
> > You have jumped to multiple incorrect conclusions about me.
> ...


I should say that I am not actually a warming skeptic. Warming is occurring at this time but, as many have said, there has not been proven causation between CO2 levels and global average temperature, only correlation.

The statement from NASA in your original post clearly says "warmest decade in modern times" and "since official record-keeping began in 1880." 

A couple of graphs to examine:


----------



## abu afak (Jan 24, 2021)

Eaglekeeper said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglekeeper said:
> ...


1. Science does not deal in 'proof' only Math does.
Science deals in Theories affirmed over time.

2. Save us the amateur hour graphs.
EVERYONE knows it been warmer.
The question is why.

3. And Scientists, incl Nasa, have demonstrated through measurements why.
Have a party





__





						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




4. Short summary being they know the cause of the other warmings,
a. usually incr radiation/solar forcing. Not this one.
b. That radiation/light being blocked from escaping at the exact wavelengths of the increasingly dense GHGs.
c. That's not just 'correlation.'

5. Gameover.

`

`


----------



## ding (Jan 26, 2021)

It's warmer because we are in an interglacial cycle, dummy.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jan 26, 2021)

I'm cold! Long live global warming! The more the better.


----------



## whitehall (Feb 1, 2021)

Barry Hussein grounded the Space Shuttle and just about every space endeavor and Americans had to hitch a ride to the Space Station on Russian junk. Meanwhile NASA had nothing to do so left wing extortionists put them to work in amateur weather analysis. Government employees (mostly in liberal administrations) will generally produce "evidence" that supports government programs even if they have no experience in the field.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 7, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Still afraid?
> ...


I have ToadStoolParrot on Ignore. I suggest you do same.
He does nothing but harass/heel nip.
He knows nothing about this/any topic.
A troll.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 7, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Brave Sir Robin.........


----------



## Crick (Feb 7, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Anomalism said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I have to disagree with you Abu.  We don't agree on a great deal but Toddster knows more than enough to participate in these discussions.  He may not always choose to do so when we would like him to, but do not mistake that for ignorance.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 9, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Barry Hussein grounded the Space Shuttle and just about every space endeavor and Americans had to hitch a ride to the Space Station on Russian junk. Meanwhile NASA had nothing to do so left wing extortionists put them to work in amateur weather analysis. Government employees (mostly in liberal administrations) will generally produce "evidence" that supports government programs even if they have no experience in the field.


Morons like weatherman are still posting weather, not climate.


`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 9, 2021)

How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 9, 2021)

The world has warmed a little of course there will be hotter years from the record since it is INFACT WARMER. be specific now and show where the little increase that has occurred was not predicted to occur a 100 years ago and that it is so high as to threaten anyone?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 9, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean?



$76 trillion


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Feb 11, 2021)

Climate Cycles


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, Boob, they did a study and claim 2020 was the warmest year they know of over 0.000000030435% of the Earth's history?
> ...


Your claim is so easily debunked that its funny you even made it..   So lets just go back 11,000 years, shall we?









WE have been far warmer than today just recently....  You idiots are so gullible...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Barry Hussein grounded the Space Shuttle and just about every space endeavor and Americans had to hitch a ride to the Space Station on Russian junk. Meanwhile NASA had nothing to do so left wing extortionists put them to work in amateur weather analysis. Government employees (mostly in liberal administrations) will generally produce "evidence" that supports government programs even if they have no experience in the field.
> ...


And you cant tell the two apart..

This is weather:


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2021)

Billy_Bob said:


> *And you cant tell the two apart..*
> 
> This is weather:
> View attachment 456008


No, YOU can't tell the difference you Spit-Dick moron.
You posted weather.
Climate is the Average EVERY DAY, GLOBALLY, for a YEAR.... or  DECADE, CENTURY, MILLIENIUM, etc, etc, etc, etc.

`.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *And you cant tell the two apart..*
> ...


How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 11, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean?*


We know by ALL your opinions you are a mental defective/disabled.
So let me introduce you to Google!
Hark!





__





						How does atmospheric CO2 heat the deep ocean? - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				




How about that!

`


----------



## Batcat (Feb 12, 2021)

When I first lived in Tampa the airport was small with lots of grass and few buildings. That’s where the temperature was measured. 

Later a major airport was built with lots and lots of concrete and large buildings. That’s where the temperature was measured. Several big shopping centers popped up nearby. A large road system was built around the airport. 

Gee the temperature is now higher than back in the old days before the big airport was built.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Florida is much colder this year than  the last several----I haven't been able to go swimming for months.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> *
> Florida is much colder this year than  the last several----I haven't been able to go swimming for months.*


WEATHER, NOT CLIMATE.
ie, San Diego had it's HOTTEST January ever.
(and our cool spell in Florida is over)

You're an idiot and are not capable of debating GLOBAL CLIMATE.
Understand Yet?

`


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...




Geo-engineering....here is your 'Climate change'

(snicker)


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 12, 2021)

Dale Smith said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 12, 2021)

I keep posting this. The world is warmer then the 60's 70's or 80's of Course there will be new records. They mean nothing.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > *Florida is much colder this year than  the last several----I haven't been able to go swimming for months.*
> ...


TEXAS is covered in ICE and snow for a large part as well.........

Psssss....San DIEGo with all of its cement and asphalt will have higher reported temperatures...not because of climate change but over population and its building materials for roads and buildings actually raise the local temperature and affect the temperature gauges........as the streets and sidewalks, and building encroach around the gauges, the local temperature around the gauges rises.  It's hotter on and around around a road than on or around grass don't you know.  Lose a few shade trees and yep your local temperature goes up as well.

Be careful about accepting what the Gorebull warming idiots try to sell you--------they lie and they manipulate.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> *TEXAS is covered in ICE and snow for a large part as well.........*
> 
> Psssss....San DIEGo with all of its cement and asphalt will have higher reported temperatures...not because of climate change but over population and its building materials for roads and buildings actually raise the local temperature and affect the temperature gauges........as the streets and sidewalks, and building encroach around the gauges, the local temperature around the gauges rises.  It's hotter on and around around a road than on or around grass don't you know.  Lose a few shade trees and yep your local temperature goes up as well.
> 
> Be careful about accepting what the Gorebull warming idiots try to sell you--------they lie and they manipulate.


MORE ******* SHORT TERM WEATHER as a polar blast temporarily comes down

ie
Austin Statesman: Feb 3.​"""..In classic Texas fashion, *weather in Austin over the next few days will swing from near-record heat to more seasonably chilly conditions, according to the National Weather Service.*​​*Temperatures will rise into the 80s on Thursday, peaking at around 82 degrees in Austin before two cold fronts move into Central Texas. *​​*Thursday's high will be close to the daily record for Camp Mabry, Austin's main weather station. In 1957, temperatures hit 83 degrees, *according to the weather service. What may keep Austin from matching or breaking the 1957 record will be some cloud cover, meteorologist Ethan Williams said.​


Again, you are an IDIOT who doesn't have a 3 digit IQ and cannot discuss GLOBAL WARMING.
_"it's cold in Denver this week"_ is a NONENTITY in Global Warming.
Got it yet stupid?

`


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > *TEXAS is covered in ICE and snow for a large part as well.........*
> ...


Here I will help you out pumpkin as I am originally from the San Antonio to Austin area--------its snowing, it generally doesnt snow there.  It's colder this year than most years by far and away.   Yes, the weather man predict but are usually wrong in texas------but yes the weather is known to fluctuate...quit a bit...but this year is much colder than most.  Sorry that you don't like the truth--------and get so pissy when you are confronted with the facts.   

Oh and fyi, its cold in denver this time of year every year---but I can't tell you if it is colder than usual or not.   But I can tell you that TEXAS and FLORIDA are COLDER and that the GOREBULL WARMING idiots LIE their asses off.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 12, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> Here I will help you out pumpkin as I am originally from the San Antonio to Austin area--------its snowing, it generally doesnt snow there.  It's colder this year than most years by far and away.   Yes, the weather man predict but are usually wrong in texas------but yes the weather is known to fluctuate...quit a bit...but this year is much colder than most.  Sorry that you don't like the truth--------and get so pissy when you are confronted with the facts.
> 
> Oh and fyi, its cold in denver this time of year every year---but I can't tell you if it is colder than usual or not.   But I can tell you that TEXAS and FLORIDA are COLDER and that the GOREBULL WARMING idiots LIE their asses off.


You are TOO STUPID TO DEBATE.
This is WEATHER in a SMALL AREA of the planet for a Small period of Time.
What was the temp in India?
Indonesia?
China?
Australia?
The Mid Pacific?
Giant Siberia?
Compared to their Averages.

I repeat, you are a 12 IQ IDIOT REPORTING TEMPORARY LOCAL WEATHER, NOT average or Yearly/decade Global Climate.

`


----------



## harmonica (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


so what?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2021)

*Thread's been cleaned a bit - please get back on topic.  *


----------



## ding (Feb 12, 2021)

Inter.... glacial... cycle....

learn it, know it, live it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Here I will help you out pumpkin as I am originally from the San Antonio to Austin area--------its snowing, it generally doesnt snow there.  It's colder this year than most years by far and away.   Yes, the weather man predict but are usually wrong in texas------but yes the weather is known to fluctuate...quit a bit...but this year is much colder than most.  Sorry that you don't like the truth--------and get so pissy when you are confronted with the facts.
> ...


Ok Idiot... Tell me how you ascertained mans 'component' of warming..  I want verifiable observed empirical evidence, numbers, and methods used.

I love it when idiots claim they know how much is actually mans impact when the normal range of earths climate swings is over 12 deg C.  Mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2021)

ding said:


> Inter.... glacial... cycle....
> 
> learn it, know it, live it.






Can you guess what is coming next?


----------



## Quasar44 (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Maybe ?? Who knows the truth when you subtract the politics


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

This idiocy about "cold in Florida or Colorado last few days" is still just WEATHER, not relevant to Climate change.
Even this much larger SEASONAL Forecast for the WHOLE USA (WARMER SPRING) is just WEATHER.
So please spared us you IDIOTIC local weekend irrelevances.

*USA NATIONAL FORECAST*
*Spring Outlook: Warmer-Than-Average Temperatures to Dominate By April, May*
*By Chris Dolce
2 days ago*









						Spring Outlook: Warmer-Than-Average Temperatures to Dominate By April, May | The Weather Channel
					

A trend toward much above-average temperatures is expected deeper into spring. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com




					weather.com


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> This idiocy about "cold in Florida or Colorado last few days" is still just WEATHER, not relevant to Climate change.
> Even this much larger SEASONAL Forecast for the WHOLE USA (WARMER SPRING) is just WEATHER.
> So please spared us you IDIOTIC local weekend irrelevances.
> 
> ...


 Punkinpusss, if you really wanted serious debate and conversation about "Climate Change", you wouldn't whine like a little bitch every time I bring up geo-engineering aka the Stratospheric Aerosol  Injection Spraying program of heavy metal nano-particulates that became a mandate for all NATO countries starting in 1997. You avoid it and lamely attempt to squelch any acknowledgement of this because it flies in the face of your uneducated  contention that an abiotic fluid and the use thereof is causing weather anomalies. Face the facts, you are just a disinfo fucktard and you are not causing anyone to sit back and reflect on stats provided by the IPCC that works at the leisure and behest of the U.N and their offshoot group of elitists known as the Club of Rome. Flail away, little man....and I will be there to slap ya down as only I can.

(snicker)


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Eaglekeeper said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...









No, they haven't.   Their "evidence" consists of computer generated fiction.  So yeah, your game is over.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Here I will help you out pumpkin as I am originally from the San Antonio to Austin area--------its snowing, it generally doesnt snow there.  It's colder this year than most years by far and away.   Yes, the weather man predict but are usually wrong in texas------but yes the weather is known to fluctuate...quit a bit...but this year is much colder than most.  Sorry that you don't like the truth--------and get so pissy when you are confronted with the facts.
> ...








Wow, such hostility.  A sign of both a weak argument, and a weak mind.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

Dale Smith said:


> Punkinpusss, if you really wanted serious debate and conversation about "Climate Change", you wouldn't whine like a little bitch every time
> I bring up *geo-engineering aka the Stratospheric Aerosol  Injection Spraying program of heavy metal nano-particulates that became a mandate for all NATO countries starting in 1997.* You avoid it and lamely attempt to squelch any acknowledgement of this because it flies in the face of your uneducated  contention that an abiotic fluid and the use thereof is causing weather anomalies. Face the facts, you are just a disinfo fucktard and you are not causing anyone to sit back and reflect on stats provided by the IPCC that works at the leisure and behest of the U.N and their offshoot group of elitists known as the Club of Rome. Flail away, little man....and I will be there to slap ya down as only I can.
> 
> (snicker)


*You mean CHEMTRAILS You CONSPIRACIST CLOWN. They must have stopped you from Using the actual word.
(WetWall didn't figure that out and gave you a like)
But now you have cloaked the embarrassing term in a less direct description.
Your OCD Standard.
Only on USMB would you be allowed to post with the sane people.*

`

`


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > Here I will help you out pumpkin as I am originally from the San Antonio to Austin area--------its snowing, it generally doesnt snow there.  It's colder this year than most years by far and away.   Yes, the weather man predict but are usually wrong in texas------but yes the weather is known to fluctuate...quit a bit...but this year is much colder than most.  Sorry that you don't like the truth--------and get so pissy when you are confronted with the facts.
> ...


I am sorry that you don't like the facts that it is actually pretty damn cold here..........

I don't know about the others-but as far as Giant Serberia goes----it a fraud average.    See the idiots who keep the temperature equipment decided years ago to relocate those in siberia and other places to areas that weren't as cold which tosses off all of the averages.  Thought you should know since you obviously haven't kept up with the frauds of the UN who stand to make trillions $$$ off the global warming bs.

If anyone actually believed the earth was warming--instead of whining for carbon credits which makes these asshole rich, they would be doing the only logical solution--population control.   But you don't see them asking for population control--instead they want more and more and more people.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> This idiocy about "cold in Florida or Colorado last few days" is still just WEATHER, not relevant to Climate change.
> Even this much larger SEASONAL Forecast for the WHOLE USA (WARMER SPRING) is just WEATHER.
> So please spared us you IDIOTIC local weekend irrelevances.
> 
> ...


Well right now we are below average temperatures so even if the weather predictions of warmer weather late spring--it would just average out and be average.  

Nothing to get a hard on like you are.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> *I am sorry that you don't like the facts that it is actually pretty damn cold here..........*


LOL
ZERO to do with GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
You remain THEE Stupidest person on this message board.


BTW.
I'm in Florida Right now.
WARMER than NORMAL.









						Delray Beach, FL 10-Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Channel | Weather.com
					

Be prepared with the most accurate 10-day forecast for Delray Beach, FL with highs, lows, chance of precipitation from The Weather Channel and Weather.com




					weather.com
				





*OOOPS
I put up PROOF, You put up NOTHING Liar boy.*
`


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > *I am sorry that you don't like the facts that it is actually pretty damn cold here..........*
> ...


I live in florida idiot--by february with a heated pool--I can usually go swimming.  To damn cold to do so now and has been since November which is unusual for where I am at.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

LYING Turtlesoup CAUGHT BY ME ABOVE
.now more evidence he's LYING.

*Tampa:* Midway N/S on West Coast.

*January 2021 Is In The Books. Here's How The Weather Fared*
By Meteorologist Josh Linker Tampa
PUBLISHED - Feb. 01, 2021

*January 2021 is in the books. It was a little Warmer than average and a bit drier than normal, too.*










						January 2021 Is In The Books. Here's How The Weather Fared
					

January 2021 was a little warmer and drier than normal.




					www.baynews9.com
				





YOU CLOWN.
How many new ***holes do I have to cut you?
`


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Punkinpusss, if you really wanted serious debate and conversation about "Climate Change", you wouldn't whine like a little bitch every time
> ...


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

The age of the planet is 4.54 billion years. Geological process happen over millions of years. The climate alarmists panic over 0.000003105726872% of the earth's climate.


----------



## Dale Smith (Feb 13, 2021)




----------



## miketx (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Shut yo lying hole and cut some wood, it's cold outside.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> The age of the planet is 4.54 billion years. Geological process happen over millions of years. The climate alarmists panic over 0.000003105726872% of the earth's climate.


What an idiotic post.
Geologic (actually CLIMATE) processes can happen rather quickly if there is a trigger like a large volcano (or meteorite).. or in this case a slower one like the ending of the Ice age 15K yrs ago, or even faster, like the exploding of GHGs in the air caused by humans/the Industrial revolution 'volcano.'

There have been countless warmings and coolings, not just ONE in "0.000003105726872%", some of them rapid.
So you're not only denying/IGNORANT of AGW, you're denying countless warmings and coolings which can/did happen fairly quickly.


As you can see we are being TROLLED by CHEMTRAIL CONSPIRACIST (and nutbag) Dale Smith. 
Who Ironically DOES believe in man changing the atmosphere (for genociding the population), but gives like to those who say he isn't!
Please report to mods. (Where's Karen SunStrokeTommy when you need him?)


`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2021)

Dale Smith said:


>



Condensation!!!!!

Scary.


----------



## petro (Feb 13, 2021)

When Lake of the Woods looks like this...


Instead of this...



I will believe in Global Warming, at which point I will celebrate with a Mai Tai on our new beaches. 
Until then I don't give a rats ass about it when -5 is my high temp today.


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the planet is 4.54 billion years. Geological process happen over millions of years. The climate alarmists panic over 0.000003105726872% of the earth's climate.
> ...


You should educate yourself, instead of remaining a dumb ass.






						Glacial-Interglacial Cycles | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
					

Feedbacks related to ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide caused abrupt warming during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions.




					www.ncdc.noaa.gov


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> > *I am sorry that you don't like the facts that it is actually pretty damn cold here..........*
> ...


You are the biggest liar on this board, dude.  So you shouldn't be calling others liars.

Tell me more about you being in Mensa.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the planet is 4.54 billion years. Geological process happen over millions of years. The climate alarmists panic over 0.000003105726872% of the earth's climate.
> ...


*** WARNING ^^^^ Full of shit dumb post WARNING ***


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Caveman said:
> ...



Educate yourself, little boy. You're in the big world now. Don't be fooled by the fucking climate alarmist stupids.


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 13, 2021)

COOL ! or ???


----------



## abu afak (Feb 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Caveman said:
> ...


So be clear, you had NO factual reply to me Ripping your idiotic "0.000003105726872%" post to shreds, just frustration.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Apparently you don't understand my position.


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Let's talk climate.  You ready?


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

abu afak to understand the earth's climate you first have to understand earth's climate history.  Do you understand the earth's climate history?






						What Did the Continents Look Like Millions of Years Ago?
					

An artist-geologist renders the history of the Earth with maps.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Apparently you don't understand my position.


Couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you don't understand my position.
> ...


Of course you couldn't.  But you did give enough of a fuck to let me know you didn't give a fuck.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Captain Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Your position is Climate Alarmist and Doomster.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 13, 2021)

Let's build millions of Wind Turbines to save the planet.

One Wind Turbine Takes 900 Tons of Steel , 2500 Tons Of Concrete , 45 Tons of Plastic. One ton of concrete produces 150kg of co2.

The planet suffers from climate alarmist fools.


----------



## ding (Feb 13, 2021)

Captain Caveman said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Caveman said:
> ...


That would be incorrect.   Care to try again?  Or would you like to tell me how you don't give a fuck again?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2021)

Nostra said:
			
		

> *How is that Man Made Global Warming workin’ out for ya?*


Very well.
thx
You're an IDIOT confusing local short term Weather with GLOBA:L Climate.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Nostra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You just created a thread arguing the exact same silly thing.


----------



## Eaglekeeper (Feb 26, 2021)

Might be time to introduce those interested in rational thought to William Happer, Professor Emeritus and Dean of Faculty, Princeton University. Co-founder and Chair of the co2coalition.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Jimmy_Chitwood said:
> 
> 
> > wtf - it's cold here this morning
> ...


That would be climate change


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2021)

AMart said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > AMart said:
> ...


Post that link then


----------



## abu afak (Apr 6, 2021)

Eaglekeeper said:


> Might be time to introduce those interested in rational thought to William Happer, Professor Emeritus and Dean of Faculty, Princeton University. Co-founder and Chair of the co2coalition.


True, but it's a mistake to just use CO2 rather than the other GHG's like Methane which is 20-80 as powerful depending on how long it lingers/what stage it's in.


----------



## ding (Apr 6, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Eaglekeeper said:
> 
> 
> > Might be time to introduce those interested in rational thought to William Happer, Professor Emeritus and Dean of Faculty, Princeton University. Co-founder and Chair of the co2coalition.
> ...


You live in an ice age and want the planet to be colder why?


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Eaglekeeper said:
> 
> 
> > Might be time to introduce those interested in rational thought to William Happer, Professor Emeritus and Dean of Faculty, Princeton University. Co-founder and Chair of the co2coalition.
> ...












And is an infinitesimal percentage of the atmosphere. 

But you idiots are experts at moving goalposts.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2021)

ding said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglekeeper said:
> ...





Because he's a moron.


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2021)

westwall said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglekeeper said:
> ...



I have had a conversation with William Happer several years ago and I can tell you from first hand experience that even then he suffered badly from dementia and/or Alzheimers.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2021)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...







I doubt that you have ever talked to ANYONE in academia.  You simply aren't smart enough.  But, aside from your obvious attempt to derail this conversation, what does your fantasy talk with Happer have to do with anything?


----------



## Crick (Apr 7, 2021)

Did you not see EagleKeeper's suggestion that we should all get to know Happer?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Before 1850, Death Valley was known as Moderate Valley!!


----------



## miketx (Jan 15, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Before 1850, Death Valley was known as Moderate Valley!!


Seriously injured valley!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2022)

miketex said:


> Seriously injured valley!


They still don’t understand spin, water, land, and location


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have had a conversation with William Happer several years ago and I can tell you from first hand experience that even then he suffered badly from dementia and/or Alzheimers.


Hahaha hahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Hahaha hahaha


westwall , then crick woke up!!!!


----------



## elektra (Jan 19, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


another wall st journal article behind a paid subscription

why do you think the rich, Wall St., would promote global warming when the solution is to increase the trading of lithium, cobal, silica, oil, coal, hydrogen gas, etc., etc.,

WSJ, promotes what makes the rich richer

of course abu the dumby afk cant see this, now the rich republican rag is the dumb ass liberal's source?????


----------



## abu afak (Jan 19, 2022)

elektra said:


> another* wall st journal article* behind a paid subscription
> *why do you think the rich, Wall St., would promote global warming when the solution is to increase the trading of lithium, cobal, silica, oil, coal, hydrogen gas, etc., etc.,
> WSJ, promotes what makes the rich richer*
> 
> of course abu the dumby afk cant see this, now the rich republican rag is the dumb ass liberal's source?????


*WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch you idiot, along with FOX News.
The Op-Ed section very RW, but this is Real News .. with economic impact.
(LOL, a lithium, cobalt, AND oil, conspiracy theory!!! YOU WHACK JOB!)

elektra needs a week (10 years?) to cool off/grow up he's is emptily combative and cannot make a topical Response. (or very likely an IQ or Psych issue)
I Can't post RW WSJ and can't post Miami Herald talking about the city's actual (sea level) plan!*
Game over combative clown.
I'm done with you now BOY.

*NO Further responses to elektra's 100% empty obfuscations.*
`

*EDIT: Westwall is late!
I didn't get one of his daily 300 Feedbacks yet!
(maybe he had 'a change of heart.' Yeah that's it.)*
`


----------



## elektra (Jan 19, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch you idiot, along with FOX News.
> The Op-Ed section very RW, but this is Real News .. with economic impact.
> (LOL, a lithium, cobalt, AND oil, conspiracy theory!!! YOU WHACK JOB!)*
> `


That is right, moron, you quote the very rich who support Democrat politicians and the policies that make them richer. 

Hey, I just googled "abu afak is stupid", I got over 400,000 results. It is official, by your reasoning, by your source, abu afak is stupid. You should do something stupid as well and google my name, you know, copy me like you are a trained monkey, go ahead, I will give you a nice big banana monkey boy.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 26, 2022)

elektra said:


> That is right, moron, you quote the very rich who support Democrat politicians and the policies that make them richer.
> 
> Hey, I just googled "abu afak is stupid", I got over 400,000 results. It is official, by your reasoning, by your source, abu afak is stupid. You should do something stupid as well and google my name, you know, copy me like you are a trained monkey, go ahead, I will give you a nice big banana monkey boy.
> 
> View attachment 590212



His publications have been warming deniers until 2020 at least.
Living on a large Island he must have noticed many Undeniable issues.
ie









						Rupert Murdoch’s Australia News Outlets to Ease Their Climate Denial (Published 2021)
					

The campaign, if sustained, could put pressure on Fox News, though critics were skeptical that a sea change was in store.




					www.nytimes.com
				













						What’s behind Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp’s U-turn on climate change?
					

Given the firm’s long-held climate denialist stance, the change has surprised Australian media observers.




					scroll.in
				











`


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> His publications have been warming deniers until 2020 at least.
> Living on a large Island he must have noticed many Undeniable issues.
> ie
> 
> ...


are you saying Guam tipped over?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, they haven't.   Their "evidence" consists of computer generated fiction.  So yeah, your game is over.


NOAA and HASA are fiction only in the face of your low IQ and several poster's here pronouncements that it's very cold one day a month near them

Which is where you data must come from. That and your RW politics you LIED about for years.
`


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> NOAA and HASA are fiction only in the face of your low IQ and several poster's here pronouncements that it's very cold one day a month near them
> 
> Which is where you data must come from. That and your RW politics you LIED about for years.
> `


We're in an interglacial cycle, dummy.  Relax.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And within the fastest warming and GHG injection/increase ever.



Fastest warming ever? Link?


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And within the fastest warming and GHG injection/increase ever.
> 
> About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
> *Search Results
> ...


Untrue.  D-O events rose and fell by as much as 5C over a period of a few decades, dummy.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

CO2 does not drive the earth's climate.  The earth's landmass, circulation systems and the sun's solar variability do. 

All it takes is one bad winter where the snow doesn't melt off during the summer and bam.... you fuckers are done.


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And within the fastest warming and GHG injection/increase ever.
> 
> About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
> *Search Results
> ...


I love how I am able to make you keep posting the same thing.  I own you.

D-O events rose and fell by as much as 5C over a period of a few decades, dummy.  Look it up.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 31, 2022)

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
*Search Results
Web results*

*How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

*How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

*How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...*
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

*Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles*
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
*How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...*
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections*
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to *Natural* and human factors that influence the *climate* (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak said:


> About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
> *Search Results
> Web results*
> 
> ...


_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

ding said:


> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*You've posted that stupid denier paper many times. (Connoly/Soon)
The overwhelming majority of scientists and ALL the world's scientific orgs acknowledge AGW.*

It's rather funny in that:
*








						Some observations about Connolly et al (2021) “How much has the sun influenced northern hemisphere temperature trends”
					

Test article Test Article The Connolly et al paper can be found at: https://iopscience.iop.




					www.linkedin.com
				



*
Among the many problems in the infamous POS paper/authors are:

*1. It only deals with the Northern Hemisphere, Not GW. :^)

2.  The Lockwood paper referenced by Connolly doesn't support what he is saying.

3. The most cited person BY FAR in the Connolly Soon Paper is... Soon himself. 149 Times!*
who is he?
Wiki:
*“Willie Wei-Hock Soon*

Soon is a climate change denier,[4][6] disputing the scientific understanding of climate change, and contends that most global warming is caused by solar variation rather than by human activity.[7][8] *He co-wrote a paper whose methodology was widely criticised by the scientific community.*[9] *Climate scientists such as Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies have Refuted Soon's arguments, and the Smithsonian does not support his conclusions. *He is nonetheless frequently cited by politicians opposed to climate-change legislation.[4][6]​[.....]​​*From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work”*​​
Wiki:
*Opposing *(The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..









						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Little TrollTwerp Ding tried more than one line with his worn out, Refuted, and renegade paper.
Busted.

.


----------



## ding (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *You've posted that stupid denier paper many times. (Connoly/Soon)
> The overwhelming majority of scientists and ALL the world's scientific orgs acknowledge AGW.*
> 
> It's rather funny in that:
> ...


There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


The Iguanas are freezing and falling out of the trees in Florida---
And the idiot libs think it is warm?


----------



## JoeBlow (Feb 1, 2022)

ding said:


> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's God having some fun with us. Fricking hot, then cold, then too hot, then too cold... lol


----------



## ding (Feb 1, 2022)

JoeBlow said:


> It's God having some fun with us. Fricking hot, then cold, then too hot, then too cold... lol


It wouldn't surprise me if you really believed that.  After all... you believe that a 120 ppm increase in CO2 will reverse a 3 million year trend of the planet cooling, right?


----------



## JoeBlow (Feb 1, 2022)

ding said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if you really believed that.  After all... you believe that a 120 ppm increase in CO2 will reverse a 3 million year trend of the planet cooling, right?


Since I have no idea wtf you're on about, that would be a "no".


----------



## ding (Feb 1, 2022)

JoeBlow said:


> Since I have no idea wtf you're on about, that would be a "no".


You must have made a wrong turn.  You're in the science forum.


----------



## JoeBlow (Feb 1, 2022)

ding said:


> You must have made a wrong turn.  You're in the science forum.


Wrong again, we're in the "Environment" section.


----------



## ding (Feb 1, 2022)

JoeBlow said:


> Wrong again, we're in the "Environment" section.


Right you are.  That's a first for you


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


of course NASA is going to say such bullshit while a progressive is in charge of the Senate, House and Presidency, because where do they get their funding?  Yeah, Congress with the approval of the Senate and President, so NASA will say whatever it is supposed to say.  While intelligent people with their own eyes see shit happening that just doesnt conform with the religious zealotry of you left wing radicals so ready to freeze to death because of your stupidity.  Just do it, remove yourselves from the world, thus creating less CO2 and when there arent any of you left, then global warming goes away. 

Midweek winter storm to wreak havoc for 2,000 miles from the Rockies to the Northeast


> Another week, another big winter storm for the U.S.
> This week's storm will target a 2,000-mile swath of the nation from the Rockies to the Northeast with a nasty mix of snow, ice and rain from later Tuesday through Friday.
> Cities such as Denver, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, Kansas City, Chicago, Indianapolis and Detroit are in the path of the system.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> of course NASA is going to say such bullshit while a progressive is in charge of the Senate, House and Presidency, because where do they get their funding?  Yeah, Congress with the approval of the Senate and President, so NASA will say whatever it is supposed to say.  While intelligent people with their own eyes see shit happening that just doesnt conform with the religious zealotry of you left wing radicals so ready to freeze to death because of your stupidity.  Just do it, remove yourselves from the world, thus creating less CO2 and when there arent any of you left, then global warming goes away.
> 
> Midweek winter storm to wreak havoc for 2,000 miles from the Rockies to the Northeast
> 
> View attachment 595642


You deny NASA and repace Climate with a WEATHER EVENT you IDIOT!
A snow storm in winter is  SHORT TERM WEATHER.

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You deny NASA and repace Climate with a WEATHER EVENT you IDIOT!
> A snow storm in winter is  SHORT TERM WEATHER.
> 
> `


Yeah and a hot day in the summertime, by you stupid fucks "Is just proof that the Earth is warming", while it is just a short term weather event.  Go look a the Acrtic circle where the supposed ice is melting(over 32 degrees) and look at the upper midwest where the temperatures are ranging below zero.  You just cant admit that you are being fooled, by your prog masters while they steal you money in taxing your CO2.  Such stupid people who vote Dimitocrap.
Oh and i deny NASA, FBI , CIA and any other government agency because of their corruption.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Yeah and a hot day in the summertime, by you stupid fucks "Is just proof that the Earth is warming", while it is just a short term weather event.  Go look a the Acrtic circle where the supposed ice is melting(over 32 degrees) and look at the upper midwest where the temperatures are ranging below zero.  You just cant admit that you are being fooled, by your prog masters while they steal you money in taxing your CO2.  Such stupid people who vote Dimitocrap.
> Oh and i deny NASA, FBI , CIA and any other government agency because of their corruption.
> View attachment 595713


There is a Nine YEAR Running thread Skookerassbil's "Proof the skeptics are winning" that is virtually all WEATHER.
Most OF the weather threads are by Warming deniers saying it's cold in Denver/my backyard today.
You were just the latest fallacious CLOWN.
`


----------



## Flash (Feb 1, 2022)

*NASA, along with NOAA, got caught fabricating data during the Worthless Negro's administration.  They have no credibility, especially with that dishonest Democrat moron clown Bill Nelson running the organization.*


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> The Iguanas are freezing and falling out of the trees in Florida---
> And the idiot libs think it is warm?


WEATHER moron, not climate.
`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 1, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WEATHER moron, not climate.
> `


Bwaaaahhhaaaaaa....If man is so bad by creating so much CO2, why are you still here, using plenty of CO2 in energy usage?  Show us the way, be the first to prove what you are saying.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Bwaaaahhhaaaaaa....If man is so bad by creating so much CO2, why are you still here, using plenty of CO2 in energy usage
> Show us the way, be the first to prove what you are sayi
> View attachment 595810



Low IQ
non sequitur
Gibberish.

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Low IQ
> non sequitur
> Gibberish.
> 
> `


Abubu , why are you such a GW religious Zealot?  Do you like having your CO2 taxed so much that the poor can barely survive?  You are an evil mother fucker.





__





						Gore Dodges Fact-Check on His 2006 Prediction: Earth at ‘Point of No Return Within 10 Years’
					

.




					www.cnsnews.com


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Low IQ
> non sequitur
> Gibberish.
> 
> `


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

`
*2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows*
www.nasa.gov › press-release › 2020-tied-for-warmest-...
6 days ago — Globally, _2020_ was the _hottest year_ on record, effectively tying 2016, the previous record. Overall, Earth's average temperature has risen more ...

*NASA Says 2020 Tied for Hottest Year on Record - Scientific ...*
www.scientificamerican.com › article › 2020-will-rival-...
6 days ago — The results are finally in: _2020_ was one of the _hottest years_ in recorded history, according to data released today by NASA and the National ...

*Has 2020 Ended as the Warmest Year on Record? | Discover ...*
www.discovermagazine.com › environment › will-202...
Dec 31, 2020 — "With 99% of this epic rollercoaster of a _year_ completed, time to reveal an estimate of _2020's_ global temperature: As far as GISTEMP is concerned, ...

*2020 was Earth's 2nd-hottest year, just behind 2016 | National ...*
www.noaa.gov › news › 2020-was-earth-s-2nd-hottest-...
6 days ago — It's official: _2020_ ranks as the second-_hottest year on_ record for the planet, knocking 2019 down to third _hottest_, according to an analysis by NOAA scientists.

`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"






`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> `
> *2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows*
> www.nasa.gov › press-release › 2020-tied-for-warmest-...
> 6 days ago — Globally, _2020_ was the _hottest year_ on record, effectively tying 2016, the previous record. Overall, Earth's average temperature has risen more ...
> ...


But, but, but...If the Earf(earth in inner city talk) is warming up year after year, since Al Gore made his prediction in 2006, we should be able to swim across the Arctic ocean, yet we cant, because of the freezing cold air that is coming down from there, causing major ice storms across the US.  Your eyes dont lie, but your political scum Democrats do all the time..


----------



## abu afak (Feb 5, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> But, but, but...If the Earf(earth in inner city talk) is warming up year after year, since Al Gore made his prediction in 2006, we should be able to swim across the Arctic ocean, yet we cant, because of the freezing cold air that is coming down from there, causing major ice storms across the US.  Your eyes dont lie, but your political scum Democrats do all the time..


What a politician said does not negate science, temperature, and certainly not sea level rise. 
tho we could have mitigated current warming in some degree (and avoided a few wars) if Gore had won.
.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 5, 2022)

Nobody cares that it is a wee bitty "hotter" by a sliver of one degree.....dOy.

Only knuckle draggers are suckered by loose association terms like "hotter"....dOy....again.

They all....to a person....got suckered by the term "colussion". Fucking asshats  . Suckered for two years!

If you packaged up a bag of dog doo just right for these progressives and sold them for $1,000 bucks a pop you could have a thriving business.

"Hotter"


----------



## abu afak (Feb 10, 2022)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares that it is a wee bitty "hotter" by a sliver of one degree.....dOy.
> 
> Only knuckle draggers are suckered by loose association terms like "hotter"....dOy....again.
> 
> ...


When SkookerAssbil LOSES/Feels it all slipping away, he resorts to "who cares."

*IOW, "the Skeptics are Losing" !*

Of course, HE spends ALL HIS time posting climate denial. Fallaciously/Stupidly ALWAYS using Only LOCAL short term WEATHER to 'prove' it. Oooph!

HE Cares obviously.

He doesn't realize he's posting LOW IQ, Not Low temperature.

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> What a politician said does not negate science, temperature, and certainly not sea level rise.
> tho we could have mitigated current warming in some degree (and avoided a few wars) if Gore had won.
> .


Are you fucking kidding me?  Al Jazeera Gore, has 3 mansions that burn more energy than small cities do.  Why do you allow such a creatin to live with is while telling you, that you cant?  Are you a progressive's slave?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 16, 2022)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares that it is a wee bitty "hotter" by a sliver of one degree.....dOy.
> 
> Only knuckle draggers are suckered by loose association terms like "hotter"....dOy....again.
> 
> ...


No it isnt hotter, when you listen to a weatherman on TV, they say that the high will be "92 degrees" but feels like 97 degrees, because the record temp was 96 degrees that day.  The whole leftist lie is all about getting stupid people to give up their money so the prog elites can live like kings.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> *No it isnt hotter, when you listen to a weatherman on TV, they say that the high will be "92 degrees" but feels like 97 degrees, because the record temp was 96 degrees that day. * The whole leftist lie is all about getting stupid people to give up their money so the prog elites can live like kings.
> 
> View attachment 602242



Chicken feed!
You got it backwards.
You missed the board Clown's (beside ding) recent OP?

Skookerasbil started a thread it "Its 91 below in Alaska."
In fact, it was Wind Chill -81, Real Temp -51.

IOW, he wind-chilled 30 degrees, and LIED another 10. !!

`
"


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 16, 2022)

AMart said:


> The population of Africa will grow from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion by the end of the century. Bill Gates better get busy.


It because he saved all.those lives You nutter.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Chicken feed!
> You got it backwards.
> You missed the board Clown's (beside ding) recent OP?
> 
> ...


So if the Arctic ocean is melting (above 32 degrees) how can you have -51 degrees in Alaska?  No one ever tells me how that happens.  They just say "weather".  Such stupid people are like Abubu...


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> So if the Arctic ocean is melting (above 32 degrees) how can you have -51 degrees in Alaska?  No one ever tells me how that happens.  They just say "weather".  Such stupid people are like Abubu...


*:^)*
We are talking Air Temperature for one.
And AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature for another.
And Weather for a third.
Winter for a forth.
What was the Temp in Australia
Your post makes NO sense. 
Mind-blowing.. blown.

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 17, 2022)

So any one with half a brain knows world temp went up over the last hundred years. So anyone with half a brain would KNOW that of COURSE temps around the world would go UP because of it. So stop with the idiotic hottest temp  crap.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So any one with half a brain knows world temp went up over the last hundred years. So anyone with half a brain would KNOW that of COURSE temps around the world would go UP because of it. So stop with the idiotic hottest temp  crap.


And how is this an argument against AGW?
Perhaps if you could show that warming was slowing or reversing over 100 years despite increasing GHGs, you'd have a point.
But..

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And how is this an argument against AGW?
> Perhaps if you could show that warming was slowing over 100 years despite increasing GHGs, you'd have a point.
> But..
> 
> `


You can not show that the warming was any higher then by normal means. In other words you cant prove humans did it increased it or are at fault at all.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not show that the warming was any higher then by normal means. In other words you cant prove humans did it increased it or are at fault at all.


The thread Immediately below this one at the moment, and running for years you missed?





__





						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The thread Immediately below this one at the moment, and running fort years you missed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is it because the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earth's history?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> Is it because the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earth's history?


Duh no.
Do ya think scientists don't know it's "warmed before."
Because that is your sole Idiotic claim in every thread.

They've look at WHY past ones happened and WHY THIS one is happening.
Hark!

That's why I made a thread about HOW they know
Hark!





__





						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *:^)*
> We are talking Air Temperature for one.
> And AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature for another.
> And Weather for a third.
> ...


Nice diversion away from my question once again.  Arctic ice melting Above 32 degrees, the polar cap ice will be gone, how can you have -51 degree temperature in Alaska?  Answer the fucking question....


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Nice diversion away from my question once again.  Arctic ice melting Above 32 degrees, the polar cap ice will be gone, how can you have -51 degree temperature in Alaska?  Answer the fucking question....


According to your 'logic' we can't have Florida and Alaska at the same time.

BTW Alaska (is large N/S) and hit 90 degree record highs summer before last.... and there have been brushfires in the arctic and Greenland the last few years?

You realize it's warmer at lower latitudes/colder at higher?....

.... and temperature seasonal too?

I guess not.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Duh no.
> Do ya think scientists don't know it's "warmed before."
> Because that is your sole Idiotic claim in every thread.
> 
> ...


So the recent warming trend is unprecedented but the cooling trend of the little ice age wasn't unprecedented.  

Do you have a link for that?


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Duh no.
> Do ya think scientists don't know it's "warmed before."
> Because that is your sole Idiotic claim in every thread.
> 
> ...


Why did you answer yes to the poll question that the recent warming trend is unprecedented in earths history then?






Here's what crick has to say about you for saying that...



Crick said:


> No one with a modicum of science education has ever claimed that the warming trend is unprecedented in Earth's history.


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> *So the recent warming trend is unprecedented but the cooling trend of the little ice age wasn't unprecedented. *
> 
> Do you have a link for that?



That's NOT what I said.
*Lying little turd.
Master Troll of the DISHONEST (or obtuse) non sequitur 'reply.'

I said they know WHY this one is 'Different from' ('Unprecented') the Other ones after study them for decades.*





__





						How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?
					

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.  About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results  How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Want it repeated again?


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Thats NOT what I said.
> Lying little turd.
> Master Troll of the DISHONEST non sequitur 'reply.'
> 
> ...


You are all over the map on what you are saying.  First you voted yes to the poll question is the recent warming trend really unprecedented in earth's history, then you literally argued that it was and you are now arguing that the recent warming trend isn't unprecedented in earth's history.

What is your final answer?


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)




----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot that's how it's done.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> You are all over the map on what you are saying.  First you voted yes to the poll question is the recent warming trend really unprecedented in earth's history, then you literally argued that it was and you are now arguing that the recent warming trend isn't unprecedented in earth's history.
> 
> What is your final answer?


Again:
Asked and answered in my last post.
This Warming, in that it IS MAN MADE - IS (and remains) "Unprecedented."

ding is on another Bipolar spree in this thread and section.
Out of control multi-posting/attempted bulling/burying.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Again:
> Asked and answered in the above post.
> This Warming, in that is IS MAN MADE - IS (and remains) "Unprecedented."
> 
> `


Scientists reach opposite conclusions on the cause of the recent warming trend depending upon which datasets they use.


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

_For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

ding said:


> *Scientists* reach opposite conclusions on the cause of the recent warming trend depending upon which datasets they use.


"scientists" is Meaningless post without quantification.
I have quantified and it's overwhelming for AGW. As well as posted the logic.
You still lost.

Next reply to your lost-last-wording will be at my convenience.
bye
`

*EDIT: 100th Graphic Dump, and 2-fer-1 inadequacy replies of Ding, doesn't change the fact of AGW being the cause of current warming. *
As you can see he also likes 'running the section' with last words to 6-8 threads at a time.
*`*


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Meaningless post without quantification.
> I have quantified and it's overwhelming for AGW. As well as posted the logic.
> You still lost.
> 
> ...


The trend for the last 50 million years is that the planet has gotten colder, dummy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 17, 2022)

When science has 2 equally competing models then nothing is DECIDED and you can take all your yes boys and pound sand. It is NOT decided at all.


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> When science has 2 equally competing models then nothing is DECIDED and you can take all your yes boys and pound sand. It is NOT decided at all.


And they do.





__





						2020 Ties for Hottest Year on Record, NASA Says (Nullfying 10,000 "it's cold this morning" posts here)
					

Duh no. Do ya think scientists don't know it's "warmed before." Because that is your sole Idiotic claim in every thread.  They've look at WHY past ones happened and WHY THIS one is happening. Hark!  That's why I made a thread about HOW they know Hark...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

Furthermore, given the climate fluctuations of the past - especially the last three million years when the planet transitioned to an icehouse planet - the geologic record is choke-full of examples of changing trends within interglacial cycles - none of which were driven by CO2.  So it would be an error of the grave magnitude to ignore natural factors which have been known to cause warming and cooling trends.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> According to your 'logic' we can't have Florida and Alaska at the same time.
> 
> BTW Alaska (is large N/S) and hit 90 degree record highs summer before last.... and there have been brushfires in the arctic and Greenland the last few years?
> 
> ...


If the ice caps are melting, above 32 degrees, where does the -51 degrees come from.  Use some fucking common sense, instead of being a progressive slave.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 17, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> *If the ice caps are melting, above 32 degrees, where does the -51 degrees come from. * - - - *Use some fucking common sense, instead of being a progressive slave.*


Who said the ice caps are melting and it's over 32 degrees Year Round?
You really are too stupid to debate.
Think 'S E A S O N S,' like 'W I N T E R' and 'S U M M E R.'
this is Mind-blowing.
Perhaps theeeeee stupidest post/postS Ever.
No offense, just impossible too debate.

In the winter the Arctic Ice grows because it's Under 32, in the summer it retreats/melts.
Over time it is slowly losing Ice on NET... NOT EVERY DAY YOU MORON. NOT IN FEBRUARY.
It (and Northern Alaska) could be -anything (+30/-70) in the winter, and as high as plus 60/70/80? in the summer.

Incredible with an IQ nearing (under?) the 70 IQ disability border.
(where else could I have a 'debate' with someone literally Half my IQ)

`


----------



## ding (Feb 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Who said the ice caps are melting and it's over 32 degrees Year Round?
> You really are too stupid to debate.
> Think 'S E A S O N S,' like 'W I N T E R' and 'S U M M E R.'
> this is Mind-blowing.
> ...


What's your first language?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 20, 2022)

Eaglekeeper said:


> Might be time to introduce those interested in rational thought to William Happer, Professor Emeritus and Dean of Faculty, Princeton University. Co-founder and Chair of the co2coalition.


True, but it's a mistake to just use CO2 rather than the other GHG's like Methane which is 20-80 as powerful depending on how long it lingers/what stage it's in.

`


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 20, 2022)

abu afak said:


> True, but it's a mistake to just use CO2 rather than the other GHG's like Methane which is 20-80 as powerful depending on how long it lingers/what stage it's in.
> 
> `


Thats cause CO2 does not lead to heating. It follows heating and raises after heating occurs.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 20, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Thats cause CO2 does not lead to heating. It follows heating and raises after heating occurs.


As I've explained many times.. it has been the case until this latest warming cycle that CO2 (and other GHGs) usually follow AND EXACERBATE solar forced warming periods.

HOWEVER, for the first time, humans (since the Industrial Revolution/mainly 20th C/especially Late 20th C) have flooded the atmosphere with CO2, CH4, etc, and that has LED to THIS warming.

Scientists have measured if it was the sun/solar forcing and it isn't/wasn't.. It's our increasingly thick GHG Blanket which is trapping radiation from being reflected back out into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of those GHGs.

That's it in a nutshell.
Hope it increases your understanding even if it doesn't override your blinding politics.

`


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 20, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Your ignorance seems to be pissing him off.



Yet YOU couldn't pony up the REQUESTED link to NASA for the data ReinyDays asked for.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 20, 2022)

abu afak said:


> As I've explained many times.. it has been the case until this latest warming cycle that CO2 (and other GHGs) usually follow AND EXACERBATE solar forced warming periods.
> 
> HOWEVER, for the first time, humans (since the Industrial Revolution/mainly 20th C/especially Late 20th C) have flooded the atmosphere with CO2, CH4, etc, and that has LED to THIS warming.
> 
> ...


Wrong some scientist have claimed it is not the sun while others have said it is, And they have data to support their claim. You just chose to ignore it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 20, 2022)

You can be sad all you want but the fact is your claim is bogus.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong some scientist have claimed it is not the sun while others have said it is, And they have data to support their claim. You just chose to ignore it.


Why don't you post the tiny fringe for us.
I've posted mine/the mainstream.
`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can be sad all you want but the fact is your claim is bogus.


We await your refutation.
BTW, How's the propane tank holding up this winter?

My STALKER ding will be along momentatrily.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Why don't you post the tiny fringe for us.
> I've posted mine/the mainstream.
> `


The IPCC would agree with the "tiny fringe" if they didn't include the urban island heat effect dataset and used the high variability solar out put dataset that NASA uses.


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> My STALKER ding will be along momentatrily.


Keeping you honest is a full time job.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Keeping you honest is a full time job.


That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.

You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
`


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Why don't you post the tiny fringe for us.
> I've posted mine/the mainstream.
> `


The studies HAVE been posted so quit stalling and admit you dont believe in science.


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
> I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.
> 
> You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
> `


Don't you agree that the IPCC would agree with the "tiny fringe" if they didn't include the urban island heat effect dataset and used the high variability solar output dataset that NASA uses?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The studies HAVE been posted so quit stalling and admit you dont believe in science.


You can laugh all you want the fact is you are stupid.


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can laugh all you want the fact is you are stupid.


I don't believe that English is his first language.


----------



## Mac-7 (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> It's the WSJ citing/quoting NASA officials.
> Only a Denier IDIOT like you would compare that to the 'National Enquirer.'
> You turd.
> There are some graphics in the article tho, but not reproduceable.
> ...


So far all you have presented is lib/greenie hysteria

what do you plan to do about it?


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

Shouldn't he be arguing with the Chinese


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> So far all you have presented is lib/greenie hysteria
> 
> what do you plan to do about it?


You are Definitely missing all my Renewables thread starts.
Not difficult to find either.
ie




__





						Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021
					

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 [...]"...data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)...  FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						Texas Led the Country in New Renewable Energy Projects Last Year!
					

That's Right. King Oil going cleaner and Cheaper... BIG! CNBC - Feb 18, 2022  KEY POINTS  Texas led the country in new renewable energy projects last year, according to a report released this week by the American Clean Power Association. Texas installed 7,352 megawatts of new wind, solar and...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				








__





						Solar is now ‘Cheapest Electricity in History’, confirms IEA
					

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA  https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea  ""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




This country is doing amazingly well on that front.
Faster than any legislated GND!
It's cheaper in many respects and investment is very socially conscious these days

But I'm afraid the warming/Sea Level Rise is already baked into the cards and up to our hips, due to lack of effort outside us and the EU. Chindia is a disaster and there are many mini-versions.
The last chance to significantly mitigate it would have probably been Gore 2000.

`

`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You are Definitely missing all my Renewables thread starts.
> Not difficult to find either.
> ie
> 
> ...


Do you believe renewables should have storage capacity so that when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow the supply of electricity will remain the same?  Don't you think that would be a good idea?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Thats cause CO2 does not lead to heating. It follows heating and raises after heating occurs.


Abu fuck nut doesnt know basic science and wants to lecture us on it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not show that the warming was any higher then by normal means. In other words you cant prove humans did it increased it or are at fault at all.


When there are TWO theories of what caused something, with scientific facts to back both one can NOT claim one is proof of anything until they disprove the other.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Feb 23, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The Industrial Rev/GHG warming is what's at issue.
> Obviously it has been warmer many times in Earth's history, but of course we know why it was and WHY this time is caused by humans.
> 
> Are you like 12 yrs old?
> ...


And you're a REAL science guy, so there!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> And you're a REAL science guy, so there!


I wonder why when there is really cold weather, the global zealots never put those days in for the average?  Wouldnt those days affect the total temperature over the year?  But they never do, only the hot days are recorded.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Feb 23, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> I wonder why when there is really cold weather, the global zealots never put those days in for the average?  Wouldnt those days affect the total temperature over the year?  But they never do, only the hot days are recorded.


It's -10° at my house.  Damn, I could use some of that selective data collection.


----------



## Rogue AI (Feb 23, 2022)

How can it be GLOBAL WARMING if every year isn't warmer? Which of those two words is confusing the cultists?


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> How can it be GLOBAL WARMING if every year isn't warmer? Which of those two words is confusing the cultists?


Because other folks aren't as stupid as you are.  How would you describe this trend?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because other folks aren't as stupid as you are.  How would you describe this trend?
> 
> View attachment 605377


Because the prog GW zealots never average the coldest days into the global average temperatures.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because other folks aren't as stupid as you are.  How would you describe this trend?
> 
> View attachment 605377


I would call it a global warming trend.  So would just about every other person on the planet.  That makes you REALLY special.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Because the prog GW zealots never average the coldest days into the global average temperatures.





andaronjim said:


> Because the prog GW zealots never average the coldest days into the global average temperatures.


On what evidence do you base that claim?  

[Watch me predict the future - Jim here will provide no such evidence to support his vapid fantasy]


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because other folks aren't as stupid as you are.  How would you describe this trend?
> 
> View attachment 605377


Damn, Cletus, that's a purty picture you made on that there computer of yours!


----------



## Rogue AI (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because other folks aren't as stupid as you are.  How would you describe this trend?
> 
> View attachment 605377


Global trending, because every dip on your graph puts the lie in the warming myth. Then again, trending isn't scary enough to ruin economies and usher in the pipe dream of 100% green energy. 

Trends change, warming is a one way trip, and we aren't seeing that, you fraudulent hack.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 23, 2022)

abu afak said:


> `
> *2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows*
> www.nasa.gov › press-release › 2020-tied-for-warmest-...
> 6 days ago — Globally, _2020_ was the _hottest year_ on record, effectively tying 2016, the previous record. Overall, Earth's average temperature has risen more ...
> ...


Asphalt and concret raise the local temperature...as there are more people, more people start building around weather taking centers raising the local temperature.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Feb 23, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> Asphalt and concret raise the local temperature...as there are more people, more people start building around weather taking centers raising the local temperature.


It's called an urban heat island, and the Warmistas are fond of placing temperature monitors there.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> I would call it a global warming trend.  So would just about every other person on the planet.  That makes you REALLY special.


Except for that nagging problem where your side INCLUDES temps from heat sinks, thus raising a false temp record.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

The urban heat island effect is well studied, is incorporated into all major AGW studies and is NOT the source of global warming.



			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431169208904271
		



			https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/47716934/A_study_of_the_Urban_Heat_Island_of_Gran20160802-19657-az8oq2-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1645625818&Signature=Wb~CoN-urbxJ-1mQzxsaVE6ztuSW55P-1qjkzRa9vbtqr8Jmtkq~ta7eeLduyA2s3JBQbqO4e3A95OYfztEmbStaxsYvysacfq~oI~Arns16Ji~ozqESADvwP6yRmOLFS~SucXVn8M01U2o~EegIbmXZAIcwZikOlL4O0kfxvtYdz8D7n56BAq2SD-oiQY66EhuDkN6w0MzQWGD0jI7i3LRj3~BIi1UinvJjWdyh0eXrQTsS374PoKvl0cIx7lhIfBvgng3~izoC7kbULX-Ltpgl26LLCILuLdBuc0f5h~bU-l-WiRELrSbA-k~mLFlxRQQuy~8nCbVIBPIax8SPtw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
		









						A Numerical Model of the Urban Heat Island
					

Abstract The heat island phenomenon is surveyed. Existing theories are criticized as being excessively qualitative. A general purpose, numerical energy budget model is described and applied to the urban atmosphere. Calculations for several special cases as well as a sensitivity analysis are...




					journals.ametsoc.org
				











						Research on Urban Heat-Island Effect
					

Urban heat island (UHI) effect is a kind of heat accumulation phenomenon within urban area due to urban construction and human activities. It is recog…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except for that nagging problem where your side INCLUDES temps from heat sinks, thus raising a false temp record.


Evidence please?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Evidence please?


2 studies already posted one using the heat sinks one with out and guess what the one with out has lower temps. And the study concludes that the sun caused the warming.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> On what evidence do you base that claim?
> 
> [Watch me predict the future - Jim here will provide no such evidence to support his vapid fantasy]


If the world has been warming up year after year, in 30 years since Al Jazeera Gore predicted the end of the world, how can there be record Arctic freezes across this country?  Think about this Jeb, there cant be below normal temperatures when the Earth is burning up.  
Because like every good religion if there is any proof that there inst Global Warming year after year, then it has been one continuous lie and the money stops flowing into all those progressive elites coffers.  That is why the Zealots are out their lying to everyone.   And you can bet these below normal temps wont be added into the GW statistics.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.





__





						Winter not over: Arctic cold front to bring bitter temperatures, heavy snow to parts of US
					





					www.msn.com


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

Please explain why you think the heat produced by the UHI should not be included when attempting to determine the temperature of the planet.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Feb 23, 2022)

THUD.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Please explain why you think the heat produced by the UHI should not be included when attempting to determine the temperature of the whole planet.


Because it is NOT actually heat caused by Nature you fucking retard.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

By the way, dozens of graphs similar to the one below are available.  Almost all of them contain an entry for "changes due to land use".  That includes your urban heat island effect.  Note the the sum total effect of land use changes is small and NEGATIVE.  You will find the same in all such graphs.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Because it is NOT actually heat caused by Nature you fucking retard.


Ah, you ARE that stupid.  Please show us the title on all these temperature graphs that says "heat caused by nature".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Ah, you ARE that stupid.  Please show us the title on all these temperature graphs that says "heat caused by nature".


Look retard the earth isnt heating up  caused by man because of heat sinks that is false info, Natural heating is what matters and YOU know it.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

I know no such thing.  I do know that you have some very fundamental misunderstandings of this entire topic.  People noticed that the world was getting warmer.  They did research to find out why.  Many different factors were found to have various effects, but the largest was the warming being caused by human GHG emissions.  THAT is what matters.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> I know no such thing.  I do know that you have very fundamental misunderstandings of this entire topic.  People noticed that the world was getting warmer.  They did research to find out why.  Many different factors were found to have various effects, but the largest was the warming being caused by human GHG emissions.  THAT is what matters.


There is no compelling proof of that. There are 2 competing views both supported by info that would appear to support the claim but in one we have false heating and in the other we have natural heating golly which one is tainted?


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

There is no compelling proof of WHAT?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> By the way, dozens of graphs similar to the one below are available.  Almost all of them contain an entry for "changes due to land use".  That includes your urban heat island effect.  Note the the sum total effect of land use changes is small and NEGATIVE.  You will find the same in all such graphs.
> 
> View attachment 605411


I was really good in math, i did great graphs also.  

There are lies, GW Lies, and statistics.


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

Evidence?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> I know no such thing.  I do know that you have some very fundamental misunderstandings of this entire topic.  People noticed that the world was getting warmer.  They did research to find out why.  Many different factors were found to have various effects, but the largest was the warming being caused by human GHG emissions.  THAT is what matters.


Winter not over: Arctic cold front to bring bitter temperatures, heavy snow to parts of US 


> CNN reported that over the next week, more than 70% of Americans in the Lower 48 will experience temperatures below the freezing mark, and more than 15 million will endure temperatures below zero.


will these people notice the world is getting warmer, of is it just more lies from the left so they can steal our taxes for their Climate Change agenda?  Do you own stock in solar panels Crickie?
​


​


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Winter not over: Arctic cold front to bring bitter temperatures, heavy snow to parts of US
> 
> will these people notice the world is getting warmer, of is it just more lies from the left so they can steal our taxes for their Climate Change agenda?  Do you own stock in solar panels Crickie?



Winter is not over.  I never said it was.  No one ever said it was.  Attacking an idea that no one has proposed is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.

The world IS getting warmer.  That there is still lots of temperature variation around the planet and during the course of the seasons is completely irrelevant.  Most 6th graders can understand that Jim.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 23, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> Asphalt and concret raise the local temperature...as there are more people, more people start building around weather taking centers raising the local temperature.


The oceans are warmer every year too. NO asphalt.
Except your ass Fault.
LOL
bye.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Winter is not over.  I never said it was.  No one ever said it was.  Attacking an idea that no one has proposed is a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument.
> 
> The world IS getting warmer.  That there is still lots of temperature variation around the planet and during the course of the seasons is completely irrelevant.  Most 6th graders can understand that Jim.


Since 2006 we have heard that the Earth was doomed in 10 years if we didnt do anything.  China hasnt done anything, Russia hasnt done anything, most of Africa hasnt done anything, yet, we still are here and the winters are setting record cold, which flies in the face of the Global Warming Zealots.  Do you own stocks in solar panels?  That would explain your vehemence to any that challenge your religion.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 23, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The oceans are warmer every year too. NO asphalt.
> Except your ass Fault.
> LOL
> bye.


I think it is the crocodile tears of the left that is causing the oceans to warm and get higher.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> The urban heat island effect is well studied, is incorporated into all major AGW studies and is NOT the source of global warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The urban heat island effect is real and should be excluded when studying the effect of CO2.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Please explain why you think the heat produced by the UHI should not be included when attempting to determine the temperature of the planet.


Because it is disingenuous to attribute that effect to CO2.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> By the way, dozens of graphs similar to the one below are available.  Almost all of them contain an entry for "changes due to land use".  That includes your urban heat island effect.  Note the the sum total effect of land use changes is small and NEGATIVE.  You will find the same in all such graphs.
> 
> View attachment 605411


That's great.  Use that graphic to explain these temperature changes because CO2 is not a reason for any of them.


----------



## ding (Feb 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no compelling proof of that. There are 2 competing views both supported by info that would appear to support the claim but in one we have false heating and in the other we have natural heating golly which one is tainted?


Next time tell him this...  Feel free to use this as your own.  

_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2022)

ding said:


> Let's talk climate.  You ready?
> 
> View attachment 456786
> 
> View attachment 456789


WillHaftawaite said:
*got a link to that graph?

"It's the posters job"

2 graphs actually.*


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2022)

ding said:


> That's great.  Use that graphic to explain these temperature changes because CO2 is not a reason for any of them.
> 
> View attachment 605523
> View attachment 605524


WillHaftawaite said:
*"got a link to that graph?"

"It's the posters job"

2 more Graphs actually. *


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> *got a link to that graph?
> 
> "It's the posters job"
> ...


It's the exact same data with a different time scale on the x-axis, dummy.  But yes... I do.  









						Climate Effects on Human Evolution
					






					humanorigins.si.edu


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> *"got a link to that graph?"
> 
> "It's the posters job"
> ...


Yeah... I have those too dummy.  



			Ice Cores
		






__





						The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Kalte Sonne
					






					kaltesonne.de


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

Ban him, Will, ban him.


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak please read the rules and follow them, pretty please.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 24, 2022)

A dangerous ice storm is developing as cold and warm temperatures clash


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is no compelling proof of that. There are 2 competing views both supported by info that would appear to support the claim but in one we have false heating and in the other we have natural heating golly which one is tainted?


The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.

It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
> We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.
> 
> It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
> `


Scientists come to opposite conclusions depending upon which datasets they use.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The fact that the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists believe AGW is a conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence. (they've published).
> We got your usual baseLess LinkLess claim again.
> 
> It's no wonder you got dishonorably discharged.
> `


You are a liar. If I was dishonorable discharged then you are a queer gender challenged little girl.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are a liar. If I was dishonorable discharged then you are a queer gender challenged little girl.


Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
Completely empty and one you never have a link for. 
RW Numb nuts?
`


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
> Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
> Completely empty and one you never have a link for.
> RW Numb nuts?
> `


_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Feb 24, 2022)

ding said:


> _*Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change *depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Asked and answered/Same as we do almost Daily because you are a TROLL.
Baiting REPEAT POST PRlCK.

And yours is Only Northern Hemisphere NOT Global.*









						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. *5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.*[138][139][140][141]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To *the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.*

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures*. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]



> It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.


A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]



> (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these *"97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".*[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]




Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. *Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.*[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] *In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.*[2]

*A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.*[153]

*Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted* (20+ papers published).[4]
........

Ding Gets Donged #827.

EDIT;
I finished you off again BOY.
You well keep posting, but it's gameover last-wording little plick.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Asked and answered/Sammed as we do almost Daily because you are a TROLL
> Baiting REPEAT POST PRlCK.*
> 
> 
> ...


Not asked and answered, dummy.  Asked and not answered.  There's only one way you can dispute the allegation and that's to show the IPCC isn't using urban temperature measurements and isn't using low variability solar output datasets.

Which you can't disprove because that is exactly what they are using to get their match. 

And you cannot disprove that if they excluded urban temperature measurements which are affected by the urban heat island effect and used the high variability solar output datasets they would conclude the cause for the recent warming trend was due to solar irradiance.

I can do this all day. 

Your copy and pasting isn't addressing the question.  Address the question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures*.



Very impressive.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Feb 25, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?
> Your daily baseLess LinkLess claim.
> Completely empty and one you never have a link for.
> RW Numb nuts?
> `





> Then why do you think the Vast Majority of the World's climate scientists are promoting a conspiracy theory?


 Some people will say anything you want, if you pay them enough.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I know no such thing.  I do know that you have some very fundamental misunderstandings of this entire topic.  People noticed that the world was getting warmer.  They did research to find out why.  Many different factors were found to have various effects, but the largest was the warming being caused by human GHG emissions.  THAT is what matters.



But the energy policy makers haven't noticed   In fact, they don't care....which makes your point 100% moot.

Ukraine will make climate science even more irrelevant as geopolitical realities dictate the direction of energy policies moving forward. Navigating in Oz isn't going to cut it!

World stability > Green agendas 

That's the way it's gonna be.

Means the science won't be mattering more than ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 25, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Some people will say anything you want, if you pay them enough.
> 
> View attachment 606639



Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?


Did you mean to say Michael Mann would never lie for low productivity... would he?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Renewable jobs are low productivity.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 27, 2022)

Anomalism said:


> Your ignorance seems to be pissing him off.



Then YOU know where that requested link is?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Drop in temps from 2016 to 2020.  Sorry, that's not Global Warming,  That is actually cooling.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann would never lie for money.....would he?


He never has.  Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

ding said:


> Did you mean to say Michael Mann would never lie for low productivity... would he?



He'd never molest the data for fame and fortune.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> He never has.  Why?



He never lied?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 27, 2022)

saveliberty said:


> *Drop in temps from 2016 to 2020.  Sorry, that's not Global Warming,  That is actually cooling.*



*Nothing goes straight up Moron.*








2






`


----------



## ding (Feb 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *No thing goes straight up Moron*
> 
> 
> View attachment 608376
> ...


What else would you expect in an interglacial that was 2C cooler than the previous interglacial?


----------



## saveliberty (Feb 27, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Nothing goes straight up Moron.*
> 
> 
> It does when you make a hockey stick.  Manipulate data to match your theory.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 28, 2022)

ding said:


> *What else would you expect in an interglacial that was 2C cooler than the previous interglacial?*



*Feb 16, 2022 - (3rd Time, Now #5)*



> *ding said:
> And yet our planet is 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2.*[/B]


I just explained why you repeat Trolling POS
Here's a more official version.

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf



*The LYING TROLL DING's OP said ""but I've never seen anyone ever attempt to actually back up that claim by presenting any evidence.""
When in fact I have an OP on it he's participated in and some of the posts made TO him.*
`


*IOW, DING IS A REPEAT TROLL. 
INTENTIONAL BAITING PEST. 
AS BELOW, HE ALSO MULTI-POST/BARRAGE ANSWERS.
(ESPECIALLY WHEN HE LOSES, TO COVER IT UP.)*
`


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2022)

abu afak said:


> In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
> In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
> Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.


I never said orbital forcing is causing the climate to fluctuate, dummy. Orbital forcing initiates glacial cycles. Solar insolation and albedo are the cause of climate fluctuations.


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2022)

abu afak what do you believe caused these temperature swings?








__





						The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Kalte Sonne
					






					kaltesonne.de


----------



## ding (Feb 28, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Mar 11, 2022)

skookerasbil said:


> A dangerous ice storm is developing as cold and warm temperatures clash
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 606315



Sometimes a Weatherman is a good thing.
But not in a Climate debate.
and not a Moron like you. 

`


----------



## ding (Mar 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Sometimes a Weatherman is a good thing.
> But not in a Climate debate.
> and not a Moron like you.
> 
> `


----------



## abu afak (Mar 14, 2022)

#1 NOAA, 10 Warmest years

Anyone think this is *"Cooling?"*









#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon








*And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.*



`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2022)

ding said:


> abu afak what do you believe caused these temperature swings?
> 
> View attachment 608715
> 
> ...


There you go injecting historical data that blows Abu Fk FK's meme all to hell..  It was way warmer 6,000 years ago and it cooled...  I'm sure that the Egyptians were using fossil fuel...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> #1 NOAA, 10 Warmest years
> 
> Anyone think this is *"Cooling?"*
> 
> ...


You clearly do not understand how a synodal pattern works, do you?  Let me help you...

Here is a synodal pattern..




As you reach the top of a wave there is a longer flat of temperature.
This has happened in global history over and over again.





When you look at longer time spans you see what is coming for us very quickly...





WHen we return to a glacial cycle the base line will move down about 4 deg C.   That will end this madness about man made anything.  Its coming...





Everything going on today has happened before. Everything can be shown to be driven by natural variations of the solar output and the earth.  This is not denial that the climate is changing, it has been for over 4.5 million years. This is looking at what man can REALISTICALLY impact in our climate system and quantifying it by understanding the past.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 15, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You clearly do not understand how a synodal pattern works, do you?  Let me help you...
> 
> Here is a synodal pattern..
> View attachment 616118
> ...


Answered above on this very page!

Cute Graphs! Get em from Tommy or one of his Denier Blogs?
No source?
Anyone can fabricate them.
Understand?
Yours are only "Central Greenland," NOT Global.
Willhafta-lightweight said they have to have links.

*NOAA
Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago*

""Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene," a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day. Terms like the Altithermal or Hypsithermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period.
Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed. What is most remarkable about the mid-Holocene is that we now have a good understanding of both the global patterns of temperature change during that period and what caused them.

It appears clear that changes in Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of Earth during each month. *These Orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the Northern Hemisphere Should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer and colder in the winter. *The combination of warmer summers and colder winters is apparent for some regions in the proxy records and model simulations. There are some important exceptions to this pattern, however, including colder summers in the monsoon regions of Africa and Asia due to stronger monsoons with associated increased cloud cover during the mid-Holocene, and warmer winters at high latitudes due to reduction of winter sea ice cover caused by more summer melting.

*In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In some locations, this could be true for winter as well.
Moreover, we clearly know the cause of this Natural warming, and we know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism CANNOT be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.*

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/12 Mid-Holocene Warm Period & Penultimate Interglacial Period & Early Eocene Period -FINAL OCT 2021.pdf

`


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 15, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Answered above on this very page!
> 
> Cute Graphs! Get em from Tommy or one of his Denier Blogs?
> No source?
> ...


Your simple cut and pastes are garbage.  I am laughing because you don't have a clue about this subject.  You can't even ascertain that most of the information is well known and easily found.  Just because your sources say it's true, doesn't mean it is.  You have to be well versed enough to understand the hypothesis and the intricacies of it, you are not.  You are incapable of seeing the very easily seen empirical data that disproves the hypothesis.

You keep posting up the same links that I have torn apart and shredded multiple times.  This is why you are nothing more than a parrot.  You are incapable of introspection and evaluation.  This means you are a cultist and nothing more.  You live by faith in the CAGW mantra which is easily disproved. You didn't even go to the link in the lower graph or you would have found the information.  That is how lazy you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 15, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your simple cut and pastes are garbage.  I am laughing because you don't have a clue about this subject.  You can't even ascertain that most of the information is well known and easily found.  Just because your sources say it's true, doesn't mean it is.  You have to be well versed enough to understand the hypothesis and the intricacies of it, you are not.  You are incapable of seeing the very easily seen empirical data that disproves the hypothesis.
> 
> You keep posting up the same links that I have torn apart and shredded multiple times.  This is why you are nothing more than a parrot.  You are incapable of introspection and evaluation.  This means you are a cultist and nothing more.  You live by faith in the CAGW mantra which is easily disproved. You didn't even go to the link in the lower graph or you would have found the information.  That is how lazy you are.



No publication date yet?


----------



## abu afak (Apr 2, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your simple cut and pastes are garbage.  I am laughing because you don't have a clue about this subject.  You can't even ascertain that most of the information is well known and easily found.  Just because your sources say it's true, doesn't mean it is.  You have to be well versed enough to understand the hypothesis and the intricacies of it, you are not.  You are incapable of seeing the very easily seen empirical data that disproves the hypothesis.
> 
> You keep posting up the same links that I have torn apart and shredded multiple times.  This is why you are nothing more than a parrot.  You are incapable of introspection and evaluation.  This means you are a cultist and nothing more.  You live by faith in the CAGW mantra which is easily disproved. You didn't even go to the link in the lower graph or you would have found the information.  That is how lazy you are.


I have explained it in my own words many times.
I have used links many times.
Unlike my opponents who use one sentence trolls, or at best use Blogs like WUWT, I use, NASA, NOAA, Yale, Columbia, etc.
None has ever been "shredded," just trolled by trolls like you.
`


----------



## Crick (Apr 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I have explained it in my own words many times.
> I have used links many times.
> Unlike my opponents who use Blogs like WUWT, I use, NASA, NOAA, Yale, Columbia, etc.
> None has ever been "shredded," just trolled by no content trolls like you.
> `





Billy_Bob said:


> Your simple cut and pastes are garbage.  I am laughing because you don't have a clue about this subject.  You can't even ascertain that most of the information is well known and easily found.  Just because your sources say it's true, doesn't mean it is.  You have to be well versed enough to understand the hypothesis and the intricacies of it, you are not.  You are incapable of seeing the very easily seen empirical data that disproves the hypothesis.
> 
> You keep posting up the same links that I have torn apart and shredded multiple times.  This is why you are nothing more than a parrot.  You are incapable of introspection and evaluation.  This means you are a cultist and nothing more.  You live by faith in the CAGW mantra which is easily disproved. You didn't even go to the link in the lower graph or you would have found the information.  That is how lazy you are.



Billy Bob, Abu is correct.  You have never shredded anyone save perhaps with laughter at some of your contentions.  Do you remember telling us that gravity and magnetism were the same thing?  Do you remember telling us that changes in the Earth's climate were due to the collapse of its magnetic field?  Do you remember your claim that whether or not the photon had mass was in intense debate among msainstream scientists?  Do you remember all your efforts to support the idea that matter selectively radiates only to matter that is colder than itself?  You should.  I have a collection of quotes from your posts discussing these topics.  Remember THAT the next time you want to claim a superior understanding of ANY science topic you lying sack of shit.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2022)

Just today it was announced that in my area we had a new record rain fall, almost double what it was when the first record was set, also we are moving into below average cooling for the next few days, and again, to the Global Warming Religious Zealots, with the Earth getting warmer year after year and the United States supposedly going into dryness that will cause crop failures, how can you have record levels of rainfall and well below normal temps when we are supposed to be 10 degrees hotter than 14 years ago.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "Greenie Hysteria" from NASA, Yale, Columbia, NOAA, etc, etc?
> What have you put up?
> `


Yeah, just follow the money, as anyone will say anything for the almighty dollar.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 8, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Just today it was announced that in my area we had a new record rain fall, almost double what it was when the first record was set, also we are moving into below average cooling for the next few days, and again, to the Global Warming Religious Zealots, with the Earth getting warmer year after year and the United States supposedly going into dryness that will cause crop failures, how can you have record levels of rainfall and well below normal temps when we are supposed to be 10 degrees hotter than 14 years ago.


it's been my questions for forever.  Constantly cold here in Chitown.  And all around us in the region.  Flip the globe the same thing.  Not sure where it's warming except in some warmers back yard.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

> Mac-7 said:
> So far all you have presented is lib/greenie hysteria
> 
> what do you plan to do about it?


"Greenie Hysteria" from NASA, Yale, Columbia, NOAA, NAS/Natl Academy of Sciences, etc, etc?
What have you put up?

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> it's been my questions for forever.  Constantly cold here in Chitown.  And all around us in the region.  Flip the globe the same thing.  Not sure where it's warming except in some warmers back yard.


I found that NOAA has been taking the hottest days of the year, but not adding in the coldest days of the year, then getting an average which is screwed up.  I have as much faith in any government org, as i do the shitter in chief Joe Biteme.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> *I found that NOAA has been taking the hottest days of the year, but Not adding in the coldest days of the year, then getting an average which is screwed up.*  I have as much faith in any government org, as i do the shitter in chief Joe Biteme.


And where did you "found" (FABRICATE) that you raging idiot?
What an @sinine claim/Lie.

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And where did you "found" (FABRICATE) that you raging idiot?
> What an @sinine claim/Lie.
> 
> `


Oh yeah, prove me wrong..

U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming - The New American


> Numerous scientists and experts confirmed Goddard’s explosive findings, but in separate responses to _The New American_, both NOAA and NASA attempted to downplay the significance of the accusations. The major problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records of federal bureaucracies relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States.* While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, *Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that *biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.  *


 

You are such a Global Warming, Religious Zealot, moronic idiot.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Oh yeah, prove me wrong..
> 
> U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming - The New American
> 
> ...



The 2014 Article on a RW Conspiracy website, citing another Right Wing Conspiracy website on his 'work' many years before that.... as he DIED in 2012.








						Real Science Announces the Death of Steve Goddard
					

The web site Real Science has posted an announcement of the death of blogger and former WUWT contributor Steve Goddard. WUWT has not yet been able to verify any of the details but Anthony has asked…




					wattsupwiththat.com
				




Further... Another RW Conspiarcy blog








						Real Science’s ‘Steven Goddard’ Outs Himself — Reveals True Identity: ‘My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower’
					

Visit the post for more.



					www.climatedepot.com
				




and Finally Who IS your article citing?

Real Climate Science​Last updated on January 14th, 2022 at 07:28 am








CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE​Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category _may_ publish unverifiable information that is _not always_ supported by evidence. These sources _may_ be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.


*Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change.*
Detailed Report​Bias Rating: *RIGHT CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE*
Factual Reporting: *LOW*
Country: *USA*
Press Freedom Rank:* MOSTLY FREE*
Media Type: *Website*
Traffic/Popularity: *Minimal Traffic*
MBFC Credibility Rating: *LOW CREDIBILITY*
*History*​Founded in 2015, Real Climate Science is a skeptical climate science blog created by Tony Heller (formerly known as Steven *Goddard*). According to their about page, Tony Heller is an electrical engineer who worked as a science teacher and geologist. The page further states, “climate science doesn’t work because it is done largely by dishonest, incompetent hacks who don’t follow or even understand any legitimate methodology.”

Read our profile on the United States government and media.
*Funded by / Ownership*​Real Climate Science is owned by Tony Heller and is funded through advertising and donations.

*Analysis / Bias*​In review, Real Climate Science is the personal blog of Tony Heller, whose mission is to debunk the consensus that climate change is strongly human-influenced. Articles and headlines often feature highly emotional wording such as this Alarmists Using Children For Climate Fodder. This is a video story narrated by Tony Heller that claims the solutions for climate change are the same as communism. Politically, Real Climate Science aligns with the right through the support of former President Trump’s environmental deregulation and human-influenced climate change denial Obama’s Plan Vs. Trump’s Plan. In general, Tony Heller and his Real Climate Science blog believe that climate change is The Biggest Fraud In History. This theory is at odds with the consensus of science. According to a recent report by Cornell University, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
Most of the information published on this blog is not derived from peer-reviewed research; in fact, Mr. Heller explains why peer-reviewed studies in climate change are “worthless” Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless. In general, Real Climate Science is opposed to Real Climate Science.
*Failed Fact Checks*​
“[T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[…] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it’s all because they’ve altered the data.” – *Inaccurate*
“NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – *Pants on Fire*
“[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[…] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.” – *Inaccurate*
Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change. (D. Van Zandt 1/25/2020) Updated (01/14/2022)

Source: Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

 - - - -  - - - - - - - - -








						Real Climate Science
					

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.




					cc.bingj.com
				





YOU EFFFING MORON YOU RE A LOWLIFE RW SCVMBAG CONSPIRACYST.


`


----------



## abu afak (Apr 14, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> So far all you have presented is lib/greenie hysteria
> 
> what do you plan to do about it?










2







`


----------



## Mac-7 (Apr 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> 2
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No one is convinced by the data presented by man-made global warming zealots

the climate has never been static


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> *No one is convinced by the data presented by man-made global warming zealots*
> 
> the climate has never been static


Most people are convinced, and 98% of Climate scientists are Convinced.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Most people are convinced, and 98% of Climate scientists are Convinced.
> 
> `



Just not convinced enough to spend their own money.


----------



## Flash (Apr 24, 2022)

*NASA was  caught falsifying climate data several times when The Worthless Negro was President and now they are back doing it again with President Potatohead.

They have no credibility.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Most people are convinced, and 98% of Climate scientists are Convinced.
> 
> `


What a bold face lie.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

Flash said:


> *NASA was  caught falsifying climate data several times when The Worthless Negro was President and now they are back doing it again with President Potatohead.
> 
> They have no credibility.*


Was Global Warming Data ‘Faked’ to ‘Fit Climate Change Fictions’?​That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.​
Published 3 October 2019 - Snopes

Claim​NASA and NOAA faked climate data in the GISTEMP global temperature record to exaggerate global warming.
Rating​





False
Origin​Since 2014, climate-change deniers have squeezed millions of views, Facebook shares, and Twitter retweets by retelling a story alleging the discovery of “faked” NASA data designed to “fit a climate change narrative.” *Though copied almost wholesale from a blog post, the version of the story that has had the most online traction was published on the one-stop Conspiracy theory/supplement shop that goes by the name Natural News*....
[..............]

[..............]

[..............]









						Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?
					

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.




					www.snopes.com
				




`


----------



## ding (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Most people are convinced, and 98% of Climate scientists are Convinced.
> 
> `


Are they?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Was Global Warming Data ‘Faked’ to ‘Fit Climate Change Fictions’?​That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.​
> Published 3 October 2019 - Snopes
> 
> Claim​NASA and NOAA faked climate data in the GISTEMP global temperature record to exaggerate global warming.
> ...


 Snopes


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> Snopes


vs Dopes.

`


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> vs Dopes.
> 
> `


every fucking argument you bring up with Snopes is a failure...Only Joe Biden voters believe that snopes is a fact checker.....









						Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers: Snopes Exposes Its Left-Wing Bias with Sham Pro-AOC 'Fact Check'
					

In a Wednesday fact-check, Snopes took aim at several stories while misstating - perhaps deliberately - what it aimed to prove.




					www.westernjournal.com


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

andaronjim said:


> every fucking argument you bring up with Snopes is a failure...Only Joe Biden voters believe that snopes is a fact checker.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You post Pronouncements, No facts, No backing.
You're just an empty Partisan TROLL.
100% Empty.
Put up some ON TOPIC meaty responses.
"NO" is not an answer you Empty POS.
`


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You post Pronouncements, No facts, No backing.
> You're just an empty Partisan TROLL.
> 100% Empty.


You post Links.
You're just an empty Partisan TROLL.
100% Empty.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> vs Dopes.
> 
> `





Indeependent said:


> You post Links.
> You're just an empty Partisan TROLL.
> 100% Empty.


That's not true.
I post plenty of long meaty posts in my own words Orthoducks boy.
Why don't you brag that you know some smart Jew again (because you ain't)... you're only 'debate.'
`


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's not true.
> I post plenty of long meaty posts in my own words Orthoducks boy.
> `


You are a liar.
Your "narratives" are the *content* of the Links.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You are a liar.
> Your "narratives" are the *content* of the Links.








						Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
					

They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?  Insanity!  What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?



					www.usmessageboard.com
				









						Why Are Some of My Fellow Conservatives Being Irrational About COVID-19 Vaccination?
					

Getting COVID-19 is much riskier for your heart than vaccination Health Updated on Jan 21, 2022  — Published on Jan 18, 2022 PBS.org  ""The heart has played a central role in COVID-19 since the beginning. Cardiovascular conditions are among the highest risk factors for hospitalization. A...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution
> 
> 
> They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon?  Insanity!  What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?
> ...


More Links!
I'm shocked!

In the meanwhile, the Smithsonian is very excited about the Temple Mount being dug thus far down to the 19th level.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 24, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> PMore Links!
> I'm shocked!
> 
> In the meanwhile, the Smithsonian is very excited about the Temple Mount being dug thus far down to the 19th level.


*You've never even posted a Paragraph you CLOWN.
Post ON TOPIC or leave the thread.*

I proved you Lied on my posts, and those are just 1 day old.
Tons more.
`


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 24, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *You've never even posted a Paragraph you CLOWN.
> Post ON TOPIC or leave the thread.*
> 
> I proved you Lied on my posts and this are just 1 day old.
> `


You've never even posted a Paragraph, you CLOWN.
Post an original thought or leave the thread.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 2, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You are a liar.
> Your "narratives" are the *content* of the Links.


Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution​They think that the very idea of "me" is supposed to be...what, chemistry? A slightly different ratio of carbon? Insanity! What else would it be? Do you think your brain is made up of lucky charms?
www.usmessageboard.com

Why Are Some of My Fellow Conservatives Being Irrational About COVID-19 Vaccination?​Getting COVID-19 is much riskier for your heart than vaccination Health Updated on Jan 21, 2022 — Published on Jan 18, 2022 PBS.org ""The heart has played a central role in COVID-19 since the beginning. Cardiovascular conditions are among the highest risk factors for hospitalization. A...
www.usmessageboard.com

`


----------



## Dagosa (Tuesday at 6:01 PM)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> wtf - it's cold here this morning


You could get off your asteroid and move around.,


----------



## jc456 (Tuesday at 6:27 PM)

Dagosa said:


> You could get off your asteroid and move around.,


He should fart fart fart and get warm right? Hahaha


----------



## Dagosa (Tuesday at 10:18 PM)

jc456 said:


> He should fart fart fart and get warm right? Hahaha


We’ll leave that to you.


----------



## ReinyDays (Yesterday at 6:14 AM)

Dagosa said:


> You could get off your asteroid and move around.,



It took you six solid months to come up with that zinger? ...


----------



## Likkmee (Yesterday at 6:20 AM)

abu afak said:


> Rising temperatures last year capped the world’s warmest decade in modern times, federal climate scientists said Thursday.
> 
> In a new climate study, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ranked 2020 in a dead heat with 2016 as the warmest year since official record-keeping began in 1880. The *record-tying warmth came despite a cooling La Niña Pacific Ocean current, which tamped down global temperatures slightly in December.*
> 
> ...


Yeah. And there are no such thing as UFO(UAV) and they know of no other planetary life


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 6:26 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> It took you six solid months to come up with that zinger? ...


.



Cultist jabbie doesn't have much to do but sit in mommy's basement waiting for jab death and reading year-old posts, looking for an opportunity to fling lame insults at those who disagree with him/her/it politically.

Look at how much that post actually has to do with the lying premise of the OP.   

Shining example of the leftist cult.












but he/she/it makes a nice off-topic post about the environment.


----------



## ReinyDays (Yesterday at 8:15 AM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But but but but but ... 2021 was the *SIXTH WARMEST YEAR* in the past six years ... doesn't that mean anything to you? ... think of the children !!!! ...


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 8:40 AM)

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Thinking of the children would be an excellent idea.


----------



## jc456 (Yesterday at 8:53 AM)

Crick said:


> Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


where's evidence of a catastrophe?


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 9:31 AM)

jc456 said:


> where's evidence of a catastrophe?


TROLL


----------



## ReinyDays (Yesterday at 10:16 AM)

No evidence then ... couple of degrees over a hundred years is trivial ... no measurable effect ...


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 10:19 AM)

Crick said:


> TROLL


.











Okay, Saul.













.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 10:34 AM)

ReinyDays said:


> No evidence then ... couple of degrees over a hundred years is trivial ... no measurable effect ...


Almost every single one of the people who know better - the PhD scientists who've been actively researching this topic for their entire professional lives - disagree with you COMPLETELY.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 10:37 AM)

Crick said:


> Almost every single one of the people who know better - the PhD scientists who've been actively researching this topic for their entire professional lives - disagree with you COMPLETELY.


.










Nobody gives a fuck what your so-called "experts" think.

Your cult -- even the ones with so-called "credentials" -- lies, cheats and steals and this is the reason no one believes a word you say.













.


----------



## Flash (Yesterday at 10:44 AM)

When it is hot the Moon Bats say "man made CLIMATE change.

However, when it is cold the Moon Bats say "it is only weather".


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 10:46 AM)

Flash said:


> When it is hot the Moon Bats say "man made CLIMATE change.
> 
> However, when it is cold the Moon Bats say "it is only weather".


.






Easy.

They lie.










.


----------



## jc456 (Yesterday at 11:05 AM)

Crick said:


> TROLL


didn't think so


----------



## jc456 (Yesterday at 11:06 AM)

Crick said:


> Almost every single one of the people who know better - the PhD scientists who've been actively researching this topic for their entire professional lives - disagree with you COMPLETELY.


so what do they know?


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 1:06 PM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> .Nobody gives a fuck what your so-called "experts" think.


Wrong.  Most people, particularly outside the United States, care deeply about this problem.  What you mean to say is that YOU don't give a fuck and that's because your either sociopathic or stupid.


OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Your cult -- even the ones with so-called "credentials" -- lies, cheats and steals and this is the reason no one believes a word you say.


Speaking of lies, you make that charge with no evidence whatsoever.  It would be like me accusing you of being intelligent.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 1:28 PM)

Crick said:


> Wrong.  Most people, particularly outside the United States, care deeply about this problem.  What you mean to say is that YOU don't give a fuck and that's because your either sociopathic or stupid.
> 
> Speaking of lies, you make that charge with no evidence whatsoever.  It would be like me accusing you of being intelligent.


.





Wow!  

I think you need to work on reading comprehension.  

You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

I'm not surprised, however.

Nevermind.  It's useless to debate with someone who has so little intellectual honesty.





.




.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 1:45 PM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> Wow!
> 
> I think you need to work on reading comprehension.
> 
> ...



I agree.  But it's still good to show everyone else how wrong they are.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 2:15 PM)

Crick said:


> I agree.  But it's still good to show everyone else how wrong they are.


.




Okay, Saul.






.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 2:22 PM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let me guess, Alinsky?  I saw that the article to which you linked in the OP of your democrats-are-trying-to-control-your-thermostat jumped right off calling democrats communists.  Wow.  You've really caught us all red-handed.  How are we ever going to destroy the Capitalist Christian Republican Gas-Burning world with superbrains like you on guard?


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 2:27 PM)

Crick said:


> Let me guess, Alinsky?  I saw that the article to which you linked in the OP of your democrats-are-trying-to-control-your-thermostat jumped right off calling democrats communists.  Wow.  You've really caught us all red-handed.  How are we ever going to destroy the Capitalist Christian Republican Gas-Burning world with superbrains like you on guard?


.







Now your trolling has filed you in the "History" column.

Goodbye.







.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 2:46 PM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you format your posts like this?  And why does your avatar sport a swastika?  Are you a nazi?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Yesterday at 2:53 PM)

Crick said:


> Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The children must freeze in the winter, because CO2 is very, very bad.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 3:10 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The children must freeze in the winter, because CO2 is very, very bad.


They can keep themselves warm by doing their homework, cleaning the house and going door-to-door on behalf of liberal candidates for city council and school board


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Yesterday at 4:34 PM)

Crick said:


> They can keep themselves warm by doing their homework, cleaning the house and going door-to-door on behalf of liberal candidates for city council and school board



Or they could burn dung.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Yesterday at 4:48 PM)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or they could burn dung.


.



There's plenty of it on the left.




.


----------



## Crick (Yesterday at 8:18 PM)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So... rightwingers don't shit?  I think you may have identified the source of the problem.


----------

