# 2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says

Helloooo?


----------



## Tax Man (Jan 20, 2016)

Da reich wingers will not be happy and will slam you.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?


The nutters are out in full force... Algore and his billions of green lobby money are behind this no doubt. Lol


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2016)

And the left turds make fun of the bible thumpers? At least they think the earth is 6,000 years old not only around 100 years old


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> ...



^see what I mean?

NASA and NOAA are dismissed as the pawns of Al Gore.  The shit one has to make up to believe in fairy tales.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

Rustic said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.



Nah,  you can wipe your own ass by now, I believe in you.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 20, 2016)




----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

What gets me is the actual temperature record only goes back until we actually put satellites in space to measure the temps over the entire planet.  Anything else before that is incomplete data or pure speculation.


----------



## Rozman (Jan 20, 2016)

The Summer of 2015 was one of the nicest Summers the NYC area had in some time.
Mild temps and low humidity through out most of the Summer.....Nice!


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme


BS, they have ice cores etc etc for thousands of years. Read something, ignorant dupe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme
> ...



Excellent! Using the ice core data, how hot was the year 1256 BC?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

The GOP, only party in the world that denies GW. And a lot of other stuff...a disgrace. And ty for wrecking the world...multiple times...


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme
> ...



Ice cores can tell us what the temp was in 927 AD to the tenth of a degree? LMFAO You silly loons


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


Look it up, Pubtroll. It hasn't been this hot since the dinosaurs, climatologists believe.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme
> ...



Ice cores will tell you the temperature on January 12, 524 AD in the Congo?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Look at the word in red text.

You know, I can excuse stupidity by those who are just plain stupid, but willful ignorance is another matter altogether. You fall into that latter category for certain.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



HAHAHAHAHAHA They "BELIEVE"? Sorry I need real proof and data


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> The GOP, only party in the world that denies GW. And a lot of other stuff...a disgrace. And ty for wrecking the world...multiple times...



Do you know the difference in global warming and anthropogenic global warming?

I know the first is probably true.

There is no proof for the second.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

Ice Cores May Not Be Accurate Thermometers - Astrobiology Magazine


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?



Anyone who believes the NOAA is a fool.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



It has been demonstrated too many times to count that their data is a big fat lie.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

The Earth's Climate in the Past | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

Duh.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Duh.



If you overlay the graphs you'll not that the temperature increased *BEFORE *the CO2 increased.

Duh!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> The Earth's Climate in the Past | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA



Nice source!  They are one of the worst offenders at misinformation in the history of government!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Duh.
> ...



Shhhhh!  The climatologists can't seem to explain that, but any high school chemistry student knows that if you increase the temperature of water, it can hold less dissolved gases, like say, oh, I don't know!  How about CO2?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP, only party in the world that denies GW. And a lot of other stuff...a disgrace. And ty for wrecking the world...multiple times...
> ...


HA!






Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth's Climate in the Past | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA
> ...


For example?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

*Today's Climate Change Is Different!*

Today's climate change is different from past climate change in several important ways:

*Natural causes are not responsible.*None of the natural causes of climate change, including variations in the sun's energy and the Earth's orbit, can fully explain the climate changes we are seeing today. Learn more about how we know this.
*People's activities are the main cause.* By burning lots of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, people are overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and adding to the greenhouse effect. People are also adding other heat–trapping greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, to the atmosphere.
*Greenhouse gases are at record levels in the atmosphere.* For hundreds of thousands of years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stayed between 200 and 300 parts per million. Today, it's up to nearly 400 parts per million, and the amount is still rising. Along with other greenhouse gases, this extra carbon dioxide is trapping heat and causing the climate to change.




​


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?


franco you ok?....i heard it was like 30 below in the homeland....is this true?....


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?


Got any stats for the other 4.5 billion years, Ephus?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



You want me to find proof for your claim? LOL!
Your claim was wrong.
Your failure to answer my question highlights your error.
*
It hasn't been this hot since the dinosaurs,
*
Hotter than it's been in over 60 million years? Based on 60 million years of ice cores? Durr.
Wow, you fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Do you think posting information that does not support your position is actually going to help your argument?

Correlation is not causation.

Maybe when you graduate from high school you will be educated enough to recognize your mistakes.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

deltex1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> ...



He mumbled something about ice cores or some horseshit


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> The Earth's Climate in the Past | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA



Your 5th grade level link is funny.
Did you use it in school yesterday?


----------



## Obiwan (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Hey, Dumbass...

Notice all of the peaks that exceed the "current temperature" on the graph YOU posted???

How do you explain why 2015 was "the warmest year ever" when YOU post evidence proving that you are full of shit????


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Duh.



There were no dinosaurs in the last 500,000 years, despite temperatures warmer than today. Durr.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 20, 2016)

Obiwan said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



one of the reasons they are called libtards


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Actually, they happened at the same time, of course. Ay caramba...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.



What "evidence"? Oh you mean all those bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true. 

That so-called "evidence"?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> *Today's Climate Change Is Different!*
> 
> Today's climate change is different from past climate change in several important ways:
> 
> ...



All your claims are lies.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You can't read your own charts that say temps went up BEFORE CO2 went up?

Maybe a good eye exam is needed.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The atmospheric CO2 has been shown to lag the temperature in the past warming cycles, as shown in the following figure (From http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml).






The IPCC AR4 Scientific Basis report, Part 6 (May 2007), makes the following statements:

“Variations in *CO**2* over the last 420 kyr broadly *followed* Antarctic *temperature*, typically by several centuries to a millennium”

“*The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research*.” 

Many scientific studies have shown that CO2 increase follows temperature increase in the pre-historical records. A few examples:

“Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations” – Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni, Dec, Science 12, 1999 [Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations | Science]: “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that *carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations*.”

“Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming” – Stott, Timmerman, Thunel, Science 2007 [Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming | Science]: “Here we establish the chronology of high and low latitude climate change at the last glacial termination by 14C dating benthic and planktonic foraminiferal stable isotope and Mg/Ca records from a marine core collected in the western tropical Pacific. *Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2oC between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.* The cause of this deglacial deep water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor *can its early onset between 19-17 ka B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing*.”

“Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” – Caillon, Severinghaus, Jouzel, Barnola, Kang, Lipenkov, Science 14, 2003 [Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III | Science]: “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the *CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years*”

“Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene” – Siegenthaler et al, Science 25, 2005 [Stable Carbon CycleClimate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene | Science]: “The lags of CO2 with respect to the Antarctic temperature over glacial terminations V to VII are 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively”

“Carbon Dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core”, Idso, Atmospheric Environment, 2003 [ScienceDirect.com | Science, health and medical journals, full text articles and books.]: “variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration have not played a significant role in the waxing and waning of past ice ages, and that the Vostok data, therefore, *do not provide support for the magnitude of CO2 greenhouse warming predicted by current theory*.”


----------



## Obiwan (Jan 20, 2016)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


Or a brain transplant...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

Obiwan said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



That video is hilarious!


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme



Scientists used ice created hundreds and thousands of years ago to determine that all the lead in the food table was because of humans. Had you been around in the 60's and 70's you would have dismissed these findings and would have continued to be okay with lead in the food table.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme
> ...



Ice cores are not reliable. Stop trying to sell this GLOBULL warming to people that know better. They have been caught fudging data, making predictions that don't happen, etc etc. It's a sham


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Had you been around then you would have thought lead poisoning was a giant left wing conspiracy, and you would probably have thought the science was not in on asbestos, cigarette smoking and DDT either.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



Ahhhh dry up, you don't know me so cease pretending you do, noob


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I don't know you but I am reasonably comfortable with guessing you would be against most forms of new science if that science was saying something the human race is doing is bad for humans and/or the world, especially if it would require a change. I bet a lot of people such as yourself were totally against the idea that lead could be harmful, especially since it would cost so much to remove lead from every day use.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



Guessing being the keyword, run along now and after you get your feet wet maybe we'll talk. Bye now


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme
> ...


How does that prove that CO2 increased before the temperature increased?


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Speaking about getting feet wet






What would the world look like if all the ice MELTED?


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



The ice didn't melt, it's like Al Snore's bullshit NYC would be underwater by now. Idiots


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



I'm reasonably comfortable guessing that you're a gullible tool who believes whatever the party tells you to believe.

The evidence that lead is harmful is irrefutable.  On the other hand, the evidence that man is causing the planet to warm is utterly dubious.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



That would require Antarctica to melt.  Not even algore is stupid enough to believe that.


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Except the lead industry had their own "scientists" who attempted to refute what the real scientists were saying. The lead industry muddied the waters for years, swaying public opinion with phoney science, exactly what the energy companies are doing today with their phoney scientists who are attempting to distort public opinion. It is in the energy companies financial interest to do so.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

Climate change denialists  are no different than birthers and truthers.  An entire mythology has been created around their conspiracies.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



The ice that was already in the water?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...




Really?  Can you quote one of these scientists saying lead wasn't dangerous?


----------



## Obiwan (Jan 20, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I'm sure he can't, but he sure seems to agree with the Idiot-in-Chief that the biggest threat facing us is Globull Warming...

Maybe he can tell us how many Americans "Globull Warming" has killed, since we know Muslim terrorists killed over 3,000 on 9/11, and they haven't stopped planning more attacks...

Iraqi refugee wanted to bomb Texas malls, federal agent says


----------



## RUNVS (Jan 20, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I can actually

_"There is no evidence that [leaded gasoline] has introduced a danger in the field of public health…lead is an inevitable element in the surface of the earth, in its vegetation, in its animal life, and that there is no way in which man has ever been able to escape the absorption of lead while living in this planet." - _Robert A. Kehoe, May, 1966

Kehoe was the "scientist" being paid by energy companies that made big profits from lead.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...




Lmao.....

You would think at least they would copy the old prehistoric map and a shallow inland sea would be out west.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 20, 2016)

RUNVS said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



What he says is probably correct.  There's already plenty of lead in our environment.  The small amount added by leaded gasoline probably wouldn't have made a measurable difference. 

Lead in paint and other products, on the other hand, obviously caused illness.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

Obiwan said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...




Not specific to the U.S.  Global warming kills more people and is more expensive than terrorism.


World Health Organization
Climate change and health

Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.
Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond.
Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy-use choices can result in improved health, particularly through reduced air pollution.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

OP- Yup, no problem for the dupes. Heck, those 2 jackasses in E. Anglia prove it's a hoax. Amazing.

The Earth's Climate in the Past | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RUNVS said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



Why would they do that?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RUNVS said:
> ...



Uhmmmmn because his picture stated what it would look like if all the Ice melted.... Perhaps???


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 20, 2016)

bear513 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



And?  Why wouldn't we want to look at our land masses as they are today?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

Obiwan said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


Yup, you geniuses got me there lol...and all the climatologists forgot their glasses...they of course didn't base the graph on any stats either lol...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Jan 20, 2016)

Climate scientist = entails guessing a lot, then making up excuses when you're proven wrong.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

you are- you're


----------



## Rustic (Jan 20, 2016)

Spelling and grammar nazi = control freak


----------



## Dreadnaught1968 (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> you are- you're


Funny that you, of all people, would point this out.  Considering some of the gibberish that you tend to post...  "Pub dupe, pub dupe, pub dupe..."  Polly want a cracker?


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?


We;re all going to die, lets party like it's 1999.  LOL
The lefts panic, and hyperbole over this nonsense is hiarious.
We had record crop productions here in Idaho. Hardly fits in with this so called global warming.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.


Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


If what you say is true, we'd be starving to death by now
You guys fudge the date anywhoo by building asphalt parking lots next to the meters..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> you are- you're



Franco - Dip shit


----------



## Wildman (Jan 20, 2016)

bear513 said:


> *...100 years old....*



*another thing lefturds fail to understand is that in reality, time starts from the very moment you realize you remember... *


----------



## Wildman (Jan 20, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Any idea what the temps were for...oh say 1800? 1750? 500 AD? 500 BC? The time records have been kept is a mere hiccup in the grand scheme



*AND! how about a million, abillion, or when the Earth was a molten swirilling mass oss of iron and rock, i'll bet it was pretty damn hot then, lets average it out OK? 

then we have this..., scientists are never wrong acording libertards!*

*GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'*

*SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.*

*O U C H!!!! *


----------



## Wildman (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> *Helloooo?*



hi!
could you spare me the  and get to the point, i did not read past the first two paragraphs to say, "FUCK IT!", AND, i have only read the first 7 posts to find out all i am going to see is more 

sooooo! what was the actual rise in glowbull temp. do you even know????

just askin...


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 20, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?



This topic was moved to the environment forum once today, you regressives never learn.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 20, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I assume you don't believe in the prophets of the Bible, yet you believe this nonsense what they predict in 2050
I suppose this is the same computer model that said we'd be under water by now.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 20, 2016)

tyroneweaver said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...


Nobody ever said that, dupe. Idaho crop yield couldn't be more irrelevant either.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

tyroneweaver said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...



The prophets of the bible?  Completely irrelevant.  I don't remember taking serious any computer model that said we'd be under water by now.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

tyroneweaver said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

tyroneweaver said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
> ...



Why wouldn't they?  At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf

According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis

I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change.  But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Rustic said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...



 x 2 using a meme to respond to a smilie.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Pseudoscience


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Rustic said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...



That's your opinion to prove.

Study authors:

Julian Ramirez-Villegas
University of Leeds, UK and International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT
climate change, agriculture, biodiversity, conservation

Philip Thornton
Senior Scientist / Systems Analyst
International LIvestock Research Institute

Go ahead, prove they are frauds.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



It's nutters like you whos concern it is, don't bother the rest of us  with your pseudoscience.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Rustic said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...




Dipshit, this thread was started with the science behind it demonstrating that 2015 was the hottest year on record. You come here and post not a single fact but tell others not to "bother the rest of us".  If you don't like the topic then don't post in it.  So, try common sense, it works so well.


----------



## Rustic (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## g5000 (Jan 21, 2016)

Rustic said:


> It's nutters like you whos concern it is, don't bother the rest of us  with your pseudoscience.



In other words, you have nothing to debunk the experts and choose to live in willful stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Of course you boys have never fudged the data, ever...correct?


----------



## Rustic (Jan 21, 2016)

g5000 said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It's nutters like you whos concern it is, don't bother the rest of us  with your pseudoscience.
> ...


Keep The pseudoscience to yourself...
The so called "experts" are calling themselves that.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 21, 2016)

"Amid internal calls for climate action, a study finds that Republicans are the only climate-denying conservative party in the world."

The Republican Party stands alone in climate denial | Dana Nuccitelli


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades.  India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago.  Starvation has been drastically reduced.  It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.

Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture.  So are higher CO2 levels.  I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.

Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

There are other factors lol...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> There are other factors lol...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



Such as?  

Where is the evidence that global warming is harming agricultural production?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > There are other factors lol...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> ...


India's is due to new kind of corn. Evidence is everywhere but RW "news". OP is fact.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

Report: Global warming hurting crop production, pushing prices higher


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

Just google it fer chrissake...


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



So crop increases year after year is evidence that global warming is harming agricultural production?

Are you really this stupid?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Report: Global warming hurting crop production, pushing prices higher



from your link:

_"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."_​So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words).  Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...



Somebody didn't read my link.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Your link is bullshit.  You obviously can't read a graph that shows world crop production increases year after year after year.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Report: Global warming hurting crop production, pushing prices higher
> ...



Why is it bogus?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



This was already explained to you.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2016)

Rozman said:


> The Summer of 2015 was one of the nicest Summers the NYC area had in some time.
> Mild temps and low humidity through out most of the Summer.....Nice!


and that made the entire planet dangerous.  adding 1.6 degrees F to our temperatures is like a frkn hydrogen bomb going off!!!!!!

Who'd have thunk that.  Holy crap, I could swear the earth had warmed before at l.6F.  I would think so anyway since Chicago isn't under ice anymore.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




There is no empirical data to support the claims.  It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility.  First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible.   Second, they are only looking at selected countries.  When you look at total crop production, what do you see?  You see steady increases year-by-year.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



What part of my graph didn't you understand?  Where is the evidence of reduced crop production in those graphs?


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Report: Global warming hurting crop production, pushing prices higher


100 bushel wheat, 25 ton sugarbeets, 350-400 sack potatoes. 30 sack beans. 
Have you seen all the fat asses  when ya travel around. Ya, there's a real food problem. Like to much


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production.  You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I fully understand your charts.  Can you tell me what the source of your charts thinks about climate change?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*You're really missing the point
*
The point is, crop production is dropping. Really. Because of AGW. Really.
Please ignore all the increases in production. Really.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

tyroneweaver said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Report: Global warming hurting crop production, pushing prices higher
> ...


Shytte processed foods- cheap, unhealthy AND make you fat...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nobody said overall crop production is dropping. Where climate change is having the biggest impact crops are producing less than they would without the problem.  The prediction is that this problem is going to continue to grow.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Is there any large reputable non political agency or organizations not linked to fossil fuels who think climate change isn't happening and not related to human activity?  I don't think there is.  It's either conspiracy nuts, the oil industry or right wing think tanks.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Due to new species of crops duh. Enjoy your record snowstorms on the E coast and the hurricanes where they haven't been before

Thanks for the bs talking points, SEE OP, dupe Pubtroll.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


See links, Pubtroll- the only kind. Google it duh.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Production increased 10%, for instance, but without "climate change", it would have grown 12%?
It's a good thing they don't actually need proof to make claims like this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


*
Due to new species of crops duh.*

GMO crops are negating the impact of AGW. Hurray for human innovation.

*Enjoy your record snowstorms on the E coast and the hurricanes where they haven't been before
*
Not to mention all the massive hurricanes that hit the US since Katrina. Durr.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



10% where?  Let's talk about that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*10% where? Let's talk about that.
*
You see where I said, "for instance"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Cool chart. 60 bushels per acre in 1960, 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Without the damage from "climate change", we'd all be dead, drowned under an ocean of corn, eh?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I absolutely see where you're saying nothing.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 21, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?



And if their not, the the AGW church will adjust the past to make it so...

Scientology is FAR more scientific than the AGW cult is...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> ...



Can you name a single reputable organization not linked to the oil industry, conspiracy theorists or right wing politics that agrees with you?  Please, list them all.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy.  It's an absolute bullshit claim.  Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what they think.  Opinions aren't a valid substitute for facts.  The one fact that is beyond dispute is that crop production has increased every year for the last 60 years.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




ROFL!  You've already found a way to ignore anyone who disagrees with your cult.  "linked to the oil industry" how, by putting gas in their cars?  By the cult definition, anyone who disputes the AGW religion is a "conspiracy theorist."


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Scientists out weigh your opinion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Is there any large reputable non political agency or organizations not linked to fossil fuels who think climate change isn't happening and not related to human activity?  I don't think there is.  It's either conspiracy nuts, the oil industry or right wing think tanks.



The _appeal to authority_ is the favorite logical fallacy of the AGW cult.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



No they don't.  The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact.  You haven't produced any.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It doesn't matter what they think? You're argument seems to be that nothing is predictable. Again, I'll trust educated people in their field and not your personal opinions.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I get it, to you nothing done after this moment is predictable, me on the other hand I'll talk the word of people who know what they are talking about and not use some chart that doesn't even reference if or what climate change has done to our crop production.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yes, some things are predictable.  For instance, no matter what the weather does, I predict the AGW cult will blame it on global warming.  However, the one thing that isn't predictable is the weather.  So far the AGW cult has demonstrated a singular inability to predict what the weather will be like even one week from today, let alone 30 years from today.  Yet, they expect to tax us for trillions of dollars to protect us from their Chicken Little scenarios.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The people you trust to tell you what to believe haven't demonstrated any qualifications in the field they claim to be experts at.  Many of them have committed outright fraud and belong in prison.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Cool, just like the study you linked.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I posted the two names that wrote the article, go after them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...







Darn it, yields only went from 60 bushels per acre in 1960 to 150 bushels per acre in 2010.
Obviously this "climate change" is going to cause us all to starve. Durr.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I would hope we are a little better at farming now than we were 56 years ago.  We have no choice, we have to be, more people and climate change (as reported in my link) is going to have a severe impact.  Actually that chart is from the epa and the article it's a part of makes the case that climate change is a problem.

You can read about it here:
Climate Impacts on Agriculture and Food Supply | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Why should I waste my time?  When they can show some actual proof of their claims, perhaps I will bother.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Because you accused them of being criminals, maybe you should take the time to find out who they are first.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



If it's from the EPA, that's even more reason to assume it's bullshit.  The EPA lies all the time and pays organizations like the American Lung Association to produce propaganda for it.  A warmer climate is good for agriculture.  That's what the historical record shows.  AGW claims about agricultural production run counter to what 5000 years of experience have indicated.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...




Michael Mann and Kenith Trenberth are criminals.   I don't know anything about the clowns who wrote your "study."


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Great, tell your buddy that's where he got his chart from.  Can you back up anything you've said?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



^willful ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's apparent the authors are blaming "climate change" for "extreme weather events,"  which are supposedly going to reduce crop production.   Of course, we all know that no such connection has been demonstrated, so the whole thing is a colossal fraud.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Can you name a single reputable organization not linked to the oil industry, conspiracy theorists or right wing politics that agrees with you?  Please, list them all.



Do you deny that your church has falsified past temperature records to support the claims you make now?

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Your cult is a fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I was wondering why you deleted the chart that showed our tremendous gains in productivity.
I mean besides the fact that it showed the silliness of the doomy article you linked.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The EPA's chart supposedly shows how "climate change" reduces crop production.  What it actually shows is a massive increase in crop production.  The evidence doesn't support the conclusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Ummm, I went back and got the chart you deleted. Hack.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Not it has, I provided a link to it.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yeah, I started a post, decided to reply to someone else's post instead and my original post was still in there that contained the chart.  After I posted I realized what I did and removed it, what difference does it make?  It's still from the epa.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your chart proves that crop production has more than doubled in the last 60 years.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Scientists out weigh your opinion.



You follow priests. Scumbags like Mann don't know what actual science is.

I'll give you a hint, the moment "consensus" is uttered, there is no basis in science.

"The leading authorities in the field have reached consensus that the sun revolves around the earth, and the those who claim otherwise are deniers."

We've seen you before, many times. You religious fanatics are the impediments to science.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yep, already explained.  Not sure what your point is.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists out weigh your opinion.
> ...



Feel free to discredit the source I provided.

You could also help find a reputable organization that is not funded by oil, is not right wing or full of conspiracy nut cases who do not believe climate change is real and caused by human intervention.  Who are they?  Where are they?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*After I posted I realized what I did and removed it,
*
Yeah, I noticed you removed the chart that made your study look silly.
*
what difference does it make?
*
It shows you're dishonest.

*It's still from the epa.*

I know, the EPA admits that yields have soared, even with "climate change".


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Feel free to discredit the source I provided.
> 
> You could also help find a reputable organization that is not funded by oil, is not right wing or full of conspiracy nut cases who do not believe climate change is real and caused by human intervention.  Who are they?  Where are they?



You find a source not funded by government grants to self-perpetuate the fraud first, cult boi.

Here's the thing, I don't debate religious fanatics. I found long ago that your type is unmoved by facts and evidence. You are founded in faith, not reality.

Any rational person knows that Michael Mann is a fraud, but you will defend him, he is a priest of your faith. You care not of reality, only your fucked up religion.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, the chart from the epa demonstrates climate change has an impact on our crops according to the epa.  Doesn't show any dishonesty on my part.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yup, climate has always had an impact on crops. For as long as humans have planted crops.

How bad can it be with a 150% increase in yield between 1960 and 2010, eh?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You find a source not funded by government grants to self-perpetuate the fraud first, cult boi.



The Insurance industry
Ford Motors
Google
Coca Cola
General Motors

To name a few.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Apparently we are going to find out.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.




They don't accept science period. 
Evolution
Old earth
The need to fund science research

None of this matters. Pretty soon they'll be telling us how we need to accept Jesus and demanding that we stop using science.

Sick people. Taliban like.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yup, with increases like that, we're doomed. It's obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
> ...



That's a awfully broad brush you're using, comrade.
I'm right.
I accept science, evolution, 4+ billion year old Earth as well as science research.

Let's talk about banning vaccines and GMOs, oh wait, that'd be the leftwing Taliban. LOL!


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



How does a 150% increase in crop production demonstrate the climate change reduces crop production?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nobody is making that prediction. and I mean NO ONE.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



There are people on the right and left who want to ban vaccines.  As far as GMOs go, I think people are more interested in labels than banning.  I for one don't have a problem with GMOs and vaccines should be mandated by the government when appropriate.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You'd have to read the epa article, it discusses it in depth, link already provided.

Still waiting on a trusted source who disputes climate change from you silly fuckers and you can't provide one.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...













So, do you really believe that crap study?  Just figuring the low estimate of 1% per decade says that we are now producing three percent less than we otherwise would be.  When i look at the food production rates i see no slow down I see more food than ever.  In fact there is so much food out there that we can afford to waste 1.3 BILLION tons of food every year.  That's lost, or allowed to rot, or simply thrown down the drain to keep prices up.

There is ZERO real evidence to support that assertion.


Food Waste: The Facts


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...










Still waiting on a scientific source from you that claims man is responsible for anything that is actually based on empirical data and has no computer derived science fiction as it's primary source.

Good luck with that.  And BTW, in Science that's how it's done.  YOU make the claim, YOU support the claim.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

westwall said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > tyroneweaver said:
> ...



You're using an organization whose goal is to fight hunger to make the point that there is plenty of food in the world.  The rest of your post doesn't address anything.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

westwall said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Your EPA chart proves there is plenty of food in the world.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The graph by itself?  No it doesn't.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Computer models are all subject to the GIGO syndrome (Garbage In, Garbage Out).  A computer model can no more be trusted as any book. What comes out of either depends on the knowledge and integrity of the author.  So far the authors of climate computer models have demonstrated neither knowledge nor integrity.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yes it does.  It proves there is more food per person now than there was 60 years ago.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.


You mean the exaggerated and highly adjusted upwards crap you think is evidence? Anyone can get a crayon and make up shit..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
> ...



I'll ask you the same question the rest of the dipshits can't answer.  Name a respectable organization that is not full of conspiracy nuts, right wing hacks or has ties to the oil industry that does not believe or better yet has evidence that humans are not the cause of climate change.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP, only party in the world that denies GW. And a lot of other stuff...a disgrace. And ty for wrecking the world...multiple times...
> ...



What a load of horse shit...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 *there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*

*Even your beloved IPCC acknowledges NATURAL VARIATION. The empirical evidence shows that CO2 isn't doing squat..*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> I'll ask you the same question the rest of the dipshits can't answer. * Name a respectable organization that is not full of conspiracy nuts, right wing hacks or has ties to the oil industry that does not believe or better yet has evidence that humans are not the cause of climate change.*



IN other words, One YOU THINK IS OK... which means the only nut case here, is you. You fail to think for yourself or look at empirical evidence.. YOU dismiss others points of view becasue YOU have your blinders on and believe every lie your told about the missing heat, which must be hiding, because your failed models say so... You never question why your models have no predictive powers and why they fail... Could it be becasue your WRONG? Or that your hypothesis is bunk?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll ask you the same question the rest of the dipshits can't answer. * Name a respectable organization that is not full of conspiracy nuts, right wing hacks or has ties to the oil industry that does not believe or better yet has evidence that humans are not the cause of climate change.*
> ...



You have the question. You can't find an answer.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



LOL.. You FAILED!!!

2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Doesn't appear that way.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Why do alarmists feel it necessary to lie about warming when its been cooling now since 2004?


HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



What a fool you are..  Do you think NOAA or NASA are reputable? This is the torture they do to data that doesn't comply with their "expectations of warming"


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Who is reputable?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You have made yourself the arbiter of who is and is not credible.. So you tell me...

You probably think John Cook and Dana Nuttercellie of Skeptical Science is.. Both are deceptionists and their science crap.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Sure, I'll take NASA, NOAA, almost every government, universities and corporations.  What do you have?


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...












No, the computer models are less than worthless they are inherently biased.  No matter what number you punch in you always end up with a catastrophe.  That's not how moels are supposed to work, nor is it how the world works.  They are fiction, and ridiculously bad fiction at that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I have empirical evidence..  Which I just so happened to post above showing your crap all lies..

You have fictional models that fail.. Your government god is lying to you and you cant see it..  Fool!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

westwall said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Honestly, you're not qualified.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Not going to answer the original question? If who ever you are using as a source isn't qualified to explain the information you are posting then your opinion is less than convincing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Well there you go... Running in circles with sharp object in hand..

I am a certified meteorologist.  I hold a Masters in Atmospheric Physics..

You are an ignorant fool.. Your opinion is crap, based on lies and failed models... And that I can say with 100% certainty..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You're an anonymous poster on a hyper-partisan discussion forum.  There is absolutely no reason to believe you.  And, even if you were, you are way out numbered.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?

I can't get enough of this.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



He hasn't provided a source.  And, quite frankly, yes.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Well.. why do you need to lie about  warming?  







This is the difference between the RAW unaltered data and your highly adjusted crap, from which you base all of your claims..

By the way, your outnumbered by about 70% of the population, which thinks this is all a lie and a scam.. The empirical evidence bears this out.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



This must be a Crick clone drone... Thinks he is all right and that no one else is qualified to tell him he is full of shit. Its doing exactly what I expect from a drone... Ignore the empirical evidence presented and the logic which shows his cult anti-science religion a farce.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Sorry, if you can't even cite a valid source, what do you want me to do?

Just give me a trusted source that isn't part of some wingnut group, not full of conspiracy nuts and not paid by the oil industry.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You're not qualified to tell anyone they are full of shit.  Where did you go to school? Do you have anything published?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

Guess what... were at the top of the

 solar cycle and ending a 160 year warming period. If we follow this out to its logical conclusions were in for a good bout  of cooling now..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Guess what... were at the top of theView attachment 60645 solar cycle and ending a 160 year warming period. If we follow this out to its logical conclusions were in for a good bout  of cooling now..



Can't even vet your sources which are probably unqualified denialists. You literally can't name a single organization that is reputable let alone dozens.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Again you make yourself the arbiter of what is trusted.. I've posted the RAW data, RSS data, and HCN UNALTERED DATA to show you.  I used trusted data that has not been corrupted.  All of which is easily verified.

You use a lot of things that oil produces to include your food, electricity, your computer, transportation, medical devices and medicines...  

Your a fucking hypocrite!  A useful idiot.. Nothing more..

You provide nothing of substance or truth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 21, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Guess what... were at the top of theView attachment 60645 solar cycle and ending a 160 year warming period. If we follow this out to its logical conclusions were in for a good bout  of cooling now..
> ...



You have proven your a drone that has no interest in truth or science..  You refuse to look at the empirical evidence and are content to let someone else tell you lies and believe them..

The only one unqualified to make any judgements is you! Your demeaning bull shit is just that, bull shit... go to your crib and wait for someone to change your diaper.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Why should I trust you?  You don't even provide show us your sources.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



He's not required to answer those questions.  You are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...








I am, and you attack the individual rather than address the issue.  Typical.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


LOL. Many, many times LOL. What a silly little liar Silly Billy is. Get that GED yet, Silly Billy? I doubt it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2016)

194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.



Poor little Old Crock.... He has no facts, No empirical evidence, just a shit loaf of failed models which cant predict anything.. Then you make claims that you are some how smarter than the evidence presented, claim to be an authority, all while pontificating from a position of weakness and laughable stuff you and your AGW cult claim as science..  Is your diaper full of shit too, in need of changing?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You know, You, Crick and now this new sock puppet all act the same...  I see you haven't passed kindergarten..You really should have your handlers change your shitty diaper.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.


194 nations agreed the USA should pay for fake science


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Answer my empirical evidence post.  Show me where CO2 can be attributed to any of the warming.. And how you ascertained this. Please post your math, methods, and data with which you made these conclusions...  I'll wait..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Happy Crick


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...



The Old Crock retard doesn't think we count any more.. Simply because he cant refute the empirical evidence showing them liars.. All they have is adhom, personal attacks, and ignoring the real empirical data by making up shit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2016)

No, Silly Billy, liars like you don't count, never have. You claim degrees that you cannot possibly have, considering the level of ignorance that you have repeatedly demonstrated on this board.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.



They can all agree that the moon is made of cheese.  That doesn't make it so.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Silly Billy, liars like you don't count, never have. You claim degrees that you cannot possibly have, considering the level of ignorance that you have repeatedly demonstrated on this board.



Another lie you cant hope to prove..  All because you cant see how a trained scientist can have a position that is not the same as yours and the left wing fools teaching in colleges.

What has been repeatedly demonstrated on this board, is your ignorance of facts.  You choose to believe lies and deceptions simply becasue you dont follow the scientific method and rules which expose them as lies and failed hypotheses..

Sadly this is what is passing for college education these days... Strict adherence to agenda driven left wing socialist crap.  When college grads cant tell you the three basic branches of the US government, think Judge Judy is a supreme court justice, or the centuries old scientific method, it truly is scary..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Have yet to see a valid climate denial organization.  And yeah, Billy Bob, you're the one claiming to be a meteorologist, might as well claim to be Donald Trump, without any sort of evidence it means nothing, so not really sure why you would make a claim like that in the first place.  

But, question is still open, as a meteorologist, what sources do you use to claim climate change isn't happening?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...



Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.



*194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address.
*
That is awesome!
In 10 years, how many PPM will their agreement keep out of the atmosphere?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Link to what, Crick?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Have yet to see a valid climate denial organization.  And yeah, Billy Bob, you're the one claiming to be a meteorologist, might as well claim to be Donald Trump, without any sort of evidence it means nothing, so not really sure why you would make a claim like that in the first place.
> 
> But, question is still open, as a meteorologist, what sources do you use to claim climate change isn't happening?



I never said that the climate is not changing. Its been changing for over 4.2 billion years and were not going to stop it from changing. To think we can is ludicrous.

What I did say is, that MAN induced change on a global scale is not happening. We do have limited impact in micro climates (small geographical regions) due to land use but the earths as a whole is not being forced one way or the other by man and CO2 output.

There is no empirical evidence to support that man is changing climates on a global scale. CO2 is not driving anything, as I posted above, by empirical evidence.  There is no mid-troposphere hot spot.This according to the IPCC and the US EPA is a must for the hypothesis to be true.

The graphs are notated as to their origin and data used to create them. I dont give a dam about your belief that they are reliable or not. NOAA and NASA have adjusted the surface records so badly they are useless for scientific  research. Only RAW data sets and the US-CRN raw data are even remotely reliable and why I use them. Satellite data is right on the money with their quantifying balloon data sets to verify their veracity.

Again, show me using empirical evidence (models are not proof, as it is fictionally derived from flawed inputs GIGO and always fails the empirical review) how CO2 is affecting the current temperature rise of ZERO for the last 18 years and 8 months and before that the equal rises as laid out by the IPCC in AR3-AR4 which I have posted up thread.

I'm sure you will dodge this and claim I have not posted a link.. I dont need a link to give you information and point you in the direction of the data. Now prove your assumptions with some facts and real science.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> They don't accept science period.
> Evolution
> Old earth
> The need to fund science research
> ...



It's you and your cult who reject science.  You belong to a Jonestown like cult. 

The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and the climate has changed constantly over that entire period. 

The physical evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, including fossils and stratification.

Your cult however is refuted by physical evidence, virtually every time - so you go back and falsify past records.

Your religion is a fraud.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


how many inches of snow will fall in DC today?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Have yet to see a valid climate denial organization.  And yeah, Billy Bob, you're the one claiming to be a meteorologist, might as well claim to be Donald Trump, without any sort of evidence it means nothing, so not really sure why you would make a claim like that in the first place.
> ...




Good post, and right on point.

But these are religious fanatics you are dealing with; they cannot be reasoned with and reject fact or evidence.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....



Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit. 

Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?

That ain't science, that's fraud.

You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.

I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe. 

Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds. 

You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



He can't even provide you with a viable source.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?



So what?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
> ...



Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change?  You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry?  You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task.  Now it's your turn.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



A lot


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Your integrity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


lol... like you are one?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Never said I was. But you did make that baseless claim about yourself.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



And again your the arbiter of who and what is credible.. Don't make me laugh.. One more circular argument you desire to control by making yourself king...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Why are you ducking and dodging the data and evidence I posted?   Are you that mentally and science deficient?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I don't know where you're getting your evidence from or who is explaining it to you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Talk about baseless claims.. Everything you've posted has been unsupported by any sort of fact...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Really?  Like what?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I am going to leave you to running circles in your own little head.. You like running in circles and being a pointless, faceless, useful idiot, drone.  Your a legend in your own mind (if you actually have one).

My science comes from learning and applying the scientific method. Something you're incapable of..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You must be Crick.. He too has problems reading graphs and discerning information clearly visible.

You have no intention to learn, no intention to look for yourself, so you are a drone fool by your own actions.  It didn't take long, to show you a talking points  poster with no grasp on the reality or what the issue is really about.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



So, I take it you can't find a source that you rely on that isn't full of wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or funded by the oil industry.  That's your problem.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Why do I care about graphs from people we can't vet?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...





HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Refusal to go find the information even when the locations are clearly visible... You cant fix stupid..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



And your explanation of the charts?  Maybe you could start by finding a recent peer reviewed study that backs up your claim.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> He can't even provide you with a viable source.



Dude, you think the East Angola CRU is a "viable source," so your credibility on the subject is lacking.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > He can't even provide you with a viable source.
> ...



East Angola CRU?  Never heard of them. But, please tell me what you know.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change?  You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry?  You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task.  Now it's your turn.



Your challenge is utterly irrelevant. You are a religious fanatic, no amount of fact will sway you. You have your faith.

Say sparky, now that Manhattan is underwater, as predicted by your pope and prophet Algore the prevaricator, where did all the people go?

{June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.}

At least they have really mild winters to contend with,,

{“Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006}

Oh well, we are all starving to death anyway, as your church predicted.

{ Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”}

We would invite the refugees to California, but that glowbal warming induced drought that your priests predicted makes water scarce.

That IS what your church prophesied, right?

{November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”}

Besides, we're still mourning the loss of the glaciers in the Himalayas. 

{July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”}

And all the dead bodies in Spain have fouled the oceans (that have risen 500 feet!)

{Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”}

Further there are no more Pacific Islands to take vacations on.

{ March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”}

Doesn't matter, since plague is ravaging the land...

{January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”}

You see cult boe, you fools are morons. Your religion is designed to rope in the stupid and make them think they are wise.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change?  You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry?  You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task.  Now it's your turn.
> ...



Funny, I don't remember using any of those sources. 

Can you tell me more about East Angola CRU?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> East Angola CRU?  Never heard of them. But, please tell me what you know.



Oh, I'll just bet you haven't. You job is to have the funny wafer put on your tongue, not to think.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Funny, I don't remember using any of those sources.
> 
> Can you tell me more about East Angola CRU?



Your church is a fraud, you are a fool.

Oh sorry, East Anglia - didn't watch the spell check. Petty little turd.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You must be Crick.. He too has problems reading graphs and discerning information clearly visible.
> 
> You have no intention to learn, no intention to look for yourself, so you are a drone fool by your own actions.  It didn't take long, to show you a talking points  poster with no grasp on the reality or what the issue is really about.
> 
> View attachment 60697



He is a religious fanatic, he has no interest in facts.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > East Angola CRU?  Never heard of them. But, please tell me what you know.
> ...



You're an expert, you can't even get the name right.  Anyway, thanks for the link listing multiple investigations that exonerated them and upheld the opinion that climate change is real.  Good job!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You must be Crick.. He too has problems reading graphs and discerning information clearly visible.
> ...



You just provided facts that "climategate" was a bunch of bullshit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> You just provided facts that "climategate" was a bunch of bullshit.



Proving yet again that you are not rational nor swayed by reality.

You are a religious fanatic who molds reality to fit your faith.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > You just provided facts that "climategate" was a bunch of bullshit.
> ...



Your wiki link showed multiple investigations that demonstrated climategate changes nothing about climate change. Please continue though, with enemies like you who needs friends?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...



Here let me help with that answer...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Your wiki link showed multiple investigations that demonstrated climategate changes nothing about climate change. Please continue though, with enemies like you who needs friends?



So the diocese investigated the priests in question and determined no abuse?

Well, that settles it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Actually, Climategate exposed the inner circle and workings of the cult leadership. It showed them making up data, gate keeping the journals so no dissenting  point of view could be seen, intentional deceptions and manipulations of the data, etc.. and fools like you want it to go away..

What are you 12 years old?  No grasp on reality and believe everything your handlers tell you?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Your wiki link showed multiple investigations that demonstrated climategate changes nothing about climate change. Please continue though, with enemies like you who needs friends?
> ...



Its like Penn State investigating Michale Mann and Mr. Sanduskie. They still claim neither one of them did anything wrong..


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


then why are you here?  you ask a question, you get an answer and then you claim foul and make claim it's due to it being a message board. Well, duh, sort of limits a discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.


wrong, 194 individuals out of 7 billion, not good odds


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...


no, 194 people out of 7 billion say that.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> No, Silly Billy, liars like you don't count, never have. You claim degrees that you cannot possibly have, considering the level of ignorance that you have repeatedly demonstrated on this board.


*liars like you don't count,*
and now you expect that you bring something of value to the forum?  Are you really now going to tell us that?

poo-phoo someone and then act like you have all the knowledge?  oh my fkng gd.  You can't be saying that. Now your entire experience on here is nothing but pure bullshit because of this one post you just tossed out.  congrats. useless lib.  At least I can say I have no experience and trust those qualified to provide my talking points.  Much like Billy has with his graphs and sources. 

Keep up the good work Billy, you make me proud.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Your idea of a message board is to believe everything you read?  Please step away.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...



Are you claiming that only 194 people out of 7 billion believe in climate change?  Please step away.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...




Says the morons who trust the oil industry to fund climate research.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


where did I say that?  I said you want someone to respect your ass, you should first extend the respect.  your little whiny rant about Billy was silly.  and uncalled for.  No one said you had to believe anything.  But, if you wish to have your posts respected, then respect others.  Is that too difficult for you? If so, find another hobby.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


how many people represented those countries?  was it the entire country or reps?  hmmmmmm.  anyone can say what anyone wants, the fact is there are 7 billion people in the world and 194 of them went to the summit.  that is also all who voted.  so, where's my error?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


what's you problem with oil industry, I still can't figure out how they come into play for climate science?  Can you explain?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Uncalled for?  He claimed he's a meteorologist, I don't believe him. Simple as that.  Respect, I;m sure you're full of it.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Fine, I'll ask you the same question nobody wants to answer.  Find a group that advocates that there is no such thing as human caused global warning that is not run by a right wing think tank, conspiracy nuts or the oil industry.

Will you be the one to have an answer?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


why do you doubt him? then you're calling him a liar, and I find that uncalled for.  I simply stated, one more time, if you want respect, you extend respect.  I respect old socks and his geology effort, why not, good for him.  It doesn't make him any more qualified in my eyes than me, but hey why should I doubt him? What's it to you if he is or isn't a meteorologist?  Still a message board full of stupid on a daily basis.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


and son, all over this forum is my question which has never been answered who agrees with AGW who isn't funded by a grant or government money.  crickets bubba, crickets.  And BTW Judith Curry on your question.  Go look her up.  One class act is she.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He's using his claim as a meteorologist as if he knows something.  I don't see much respect going back and forth and I'm not asking for any, you seem to be under the impression I care.  I just want a a source who does not believe in climate change that is not full of wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry, I don't need to play patty cake, so take your one sided moralizing elsewhere.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


you're hung up on the oil companies and yet you have no ties to throw out as logic.  I gave you Judith Curry, what say you?

BTW, how many oil industry reps attended the summit in Paris?  Who was an opposing voice there?  Is there one?  you want to claim oil industry bias for some reason and yet can't explain the fact that only governments are involved with scientist paid by them.  Hmmmm disingenuous my man, very disingenuous


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's already been answered in this thread.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


is there anyone on here that is?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



She believes in man made climate change though to a lesser extant.  She has not convinced any entity she is a member of and she by herself is not an organization.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nope, we only have our sources.  Which is why I'm asking about any valid groups out there that believe clmate change is not happening.

Love the questions, but this isn't going anywhere.  It's simple, if  you want to argue that climate change isn't happening in the face of overwhelming consensus then you should at the very least have a good source and not depend on your unverifiable credentials.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


you mean this?



HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > You find a source not funded by government grants to self-perpetuate the fraud first, cult boi.
> ...



I have no idea what you're referring to with this post.

I know that GMC and Ford have received government money.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Tell me about Ford receiving money.

And  you want to claim that GM believes in global warming because it was bailed out?  That's quite a stretch.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


who cares, she is a respected scientist and she disproves all of what you're proposing in here, especially Michael Mann.  You're hung up on organizations and I say whoopty do.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


tell me the climate scientist from Ford and GM?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I don't believe they have any.  I didn't ask the same from your side either.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does she alone disprove anything? She also doesn't disbelieve in made made climate change either.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not?  Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


she alone, ha funny stuff, it's obvious you haven't done any research.  get back to me when you have at least looked into the other sides team.  Seems you're but a wanderer, and trolling for something.  But legitimate is far from what you are.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


nor I and it wasn't my question.  It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So, I guess you picked the wrong scientist.

Of course there are climate scientists  who genuinely believe climate change is not happening.  However they are enormously outnumbered and they haven't convinced anyone.  So, to fill the ranks the wingnuts pick people who are not climate scientists to help fill the ranks and then use dubious wingnut sources to help support their argument. 

^EDIT:  Whoa, that's some bad grammar. 

Sorry, you've failed.  But, I'll give you credit, you at least tried to try.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I didn't say it was your question, you brought up government funding all on your own and then let me know you're not concerned about it.  Ok, I'm just trying to roll with ya'. I think you're getting yourself confused.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


I got the correct one, here it's spelled J u d i t h C u r r y.  She actually has a web site Climate Etc.  she has quite a following, so much so she's been invited for her input into congressional reviews. The APS also asked her for her input, but decided the non science folks within its doors were smarter than an actual scientist.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


exactly, do you have a name of a scientist not funded by government money and agrees with AGW?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Sure, Koch funded Richard Mueller.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


yes he did, but the second part of the equation was to believe in AGW. Oh and it was Richard Muller.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He does believe in climate change.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Of course...you are part of the far left.

Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And where did you get that little number ?

When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....

The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...





Sun Devil 92 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



*99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...*

www.mnn.com/.../*99*-*of-climatologists*-agree-*global*-*warming*-is-manmade
*99%* *of climatologists* agree *global* *warming* is ... the scientific consensus behind *globalwarming* is. *99%* of publishing *climatologists* ... *Global* *Warming* , Science ...
*Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
*Global* *warming* in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to *99* ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...
*Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus*

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: *Global* Climate Change and *Global* *Warming*. ... Humanity is the major influence on the *global* climate change observed over the past 50 years.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

But but but Rush proved it's a hoax...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



* For professional climatologists who publish peer-reviewed pagers, 72 of 75 agree with the statement.  As you can judge for yourself, that is about as clear a consensus as can be reached among scientists who are incredibly independent and cautious about agreeing to something so general.* 

Wow! 72/75, that's almost every scientist in the world!!!

Was Franco stupid before his Mom dropped him on his head?
Maybe we should ask 75 people?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Where'd you get that? Link? Ever heard of polling zzzzzzzzzzz?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



You really need to lay off the SKS Kookaid... Believing John Cook on ANYTHING is unwise.. All three of your links cite him and his work as the basis for their findings.. This is a prime example of biased crap science influencing further research..

Tell me, if your handed a turd do you throw it out and ask for real food or do you gobble it up? Misrepresenting the positions of other scientists is the game these fools play and that is not ethical.

Legates et. al. exposed this sham for what it is.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Tell me, if your handed a turd do you throw it out and ask for real food or do you gobble it up? Misrepresenting the positions of other scientists is the game these fools play and that is not ethical.



Ah, we have captured the essence of your personal scientific expertise on climate change.  Why not?  Haven't seen anything else from you in your "professional" opinion that advances the debate more than that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



I followed your top link. Then I searched for the source of the number from your top link.
Did you think the 97% number the warmers have been touting was based on a large sample? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Here you go sparky.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf

75/77, very convincing. Durr.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Only organizations that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of the term.  Why you think organizations that are all sucking on the government teat are "reputable," is difficult to fathom.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change.  And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



As I just stated, your definition of "reputable" requires them to support the AGW abracadabra.  Your logic is circular.  It's also an appeal to authority.  Two fallacies in a single sentence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It likes to run in circles with sharp objects.  His logical fallacy train is going 100 mph and he doesn't care that the corner coming up says 35mph...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, if your handed a turd do you throw it out and ask for real food or do you gobble it up? Misrepresenting the positions of other scientists is the game these fools play and that is not ethical.
> ...



Ah yes... The disregarding of inconvenient empirical evidence and facts, simply becasue you have no answer for the scientific facts that show your cult a lie. There is no discussion here. You have decided that you wont listen to reason or facts.

Legates et. al. lays your whole 97-99% consensus premise waste, a lie, a fabrication...  You have nothing...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Notice how you didn't really say anything?


----------



## Roudy (Jan 22, 2016)

And now the truth:

PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected. - Home


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You still haven't answered my question.  Actually, you've ran as far as you could from it.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...











And neither did you.  See how that works.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

Roudy said:


> And now the truth:
> 
> PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming
> 
> ...



Duhhh, it's cooling _BECAUSE_ Global Climate Warming Change, DENIER!!!!!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

westwall said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Not really. When I claim I haven't found a reputable source to dispute climate change and someone replies with "You still think (sic) your so smart...blah...blah...blah"  then yeah, they didn't say much.

But, you're a mod, you know this, right?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 22, 2016)

Roudy said:


> And now the truth:
> PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming



That's a single kook in Russia who has been predicting cooling for many years. Instead, it just keeps warming more strongly. Even if the sun went as cool as the Maunder minimum, that would only delay the warming a few years. The effects of our greenhouse gases vastly overwhelm any conceivable solar change.

I think this thread has run its course, as it's ending just like every other thread in the Environment folder. That is, the same tiny handful of bitter fringe cultists begins weeping openly about how the entire world is engaged in a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot against them. And in return, the world just ignores them. After all, nobody pays any attention to flat earthers, so why pay attention to deniers?

I can't say I'm sorry for deniers, as they've actively chosen to follow their deviant lifestyle. For their sake, I hope the weird gratification they get from interacting with their fellow cultists makes up for the constant humiliation they receive from the rest of the world.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



All you have done is run in circles..



> *Abstract*
> 
> Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.



Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You Deny empirical evidence... Which I supplied, becasue you dont think its credible (imagine that, he thinks NOAA and NASA are not credible)... You fail to reason at all..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Which once again goes back to who is the source of your information?  What is it tied to?  wingnuts, retards or the oil industry? 

And yeah, I do think NOAA and NASA are more qualified than you or your pretend experts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > And now the truth:
> ...


----------



## Roudy (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > And now the truth:
> ...


I love the Global Warming theory, it's never wrong:  It cools - it's because of Global Warming, record snow - it's because of Global Warming, ice pack thickening - it's because of Global Warming, sun going through a cooling period of low activity which might lead to a mini ice age soon - its because of Global Warming. .


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Wow.. Deflection like an atheist going into a church...  You have no qualifications to make any judgments so your circular logical fallacy is funny as hell to watch.. I see you dont have a clue about anything..


----------



## Roudy (Jan 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > And now the truth:
> ...


Problem is you're too biased and not willing to objectively look at the facts that contradict the so called "Global Warming" theory.  The left is in charge of the media and as such are promoting this false narrative just like they are doing with everything else. 

Is a mini ICE AGE coming? Scientists warn the sun will 'sleep' in 2020


*Is a mini ICE AGE coming? Scientists warn the sun will 'sleep' in 2020*

By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.  

A silent sun: In 2011 this image was captured showing an almost clear sun - which experts say could happen for almost a decade from 2030.
*THE SOLAR CYCLE*

Conventional wisdom holds that solar activity swings back and forth like a simple pendulum.
At one end of the cycle, there is a quiet time with few sunspots and flares.
At the other end, solar max brings high sunspot numbers and frequent solar storms.
It's a regular rhythm that repeats every 11 years.
Reality is more complicated.
Astronomers have been counting sunspots for centuries, and they have seen that the solar cycle is not perfectly regular.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I think you need to look up the definition of the word 'deflection'.  

Just like you, I'm not a scientist  so I rely on people who know what the fuck they are talking about.  Who do you look to for climate change denialism?  You still haven't answer that question.  Not that I blame. you.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



What?  You want people to spend money on your source?  That's not cool.  You literally supplied 100% of the free content you were linking to.  Jesus, what a derp.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Paul Homewood: Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas.

Excerpt:
_
"So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.


From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.


Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated. It is understandable that a station might be a month, or even two, late in reporting, but it is not conceivable that readings from last year are late. (The other two months, Jan/Feb are marked “a”, indicating missing days).


But, the mystery thickens. Each state produces a monthly and annual State Climatological Report, which among other things includes a list of monthly mean temperatures by station. If we look at the 2013 annual report for Texas, we can see these monthly temperatures for Luling.


Where an “M” appears after the temperature, this indicates some days are missing, i.e Jan, Feb, Oct and Nov. (Detailed daily data shows just one missing day’s minimum temperature for each of these months).


Yet, according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?


But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.

In other words, *the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013.*

Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, *the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming*.


Note as well, that the largest adjustments are for the estimated months of March – December. This is something that Steve Goddard has been emphasising.


It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct."_




NOW this is why the US HCN is garbage. it is rampant with unjustified adjustments.  This is why we look at only unadjusted raw data. The raw unadjusted data is in perfect agreement with satellites and show little to no warming...  So whom do I trust?  Guess moron...

A detailed essay by Dr Judith Curry is Here..


----------



## Roudy (Jan 22, 2016)

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
*Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts*

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.





What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
*Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.*
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
*Sunspots Losing Strength*
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
*Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish*
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
*Quiet Sun Exciting for Science*
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."




© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Neat, a blog


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> 
> news.nationalgeographic.com
> *Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts*
> ...



Your link says global warming is a problem.  

You guys are just pranking, right?  People can't be this fucking stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Neat, a blog


A blog that is run by a Phd and has upwards of 22 other Phd's who contribute and discuss...  And its way over your little head..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...



On the sun...  Global warming is a problem.... your a fucking idiot..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Neat, a blog
> ...



I have no idea who this guy is or if he is qualified to talk about climate change.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



This article says nothing about global warming not being a problem.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

National Geographic's view on climate change:

Climate Change Is Here - National Geographic Magazine

Hint, "it's happening".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> 
> news.nationalgeographic.com
> *Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts*
> ...




I love it.. NG tells us about the sun going quiet and cold. Then puts in its obligatory rant about CAGW, which doesn't exist. Ms Jaggard is a known alarmist and she insists on her crap even when she is reporting on a potential LIA or Younger-Dryas event.  Talk about propagandists.. Do they know how stupid they look when they do this shit?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Paul Homewood: Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas.
> 
> Excerpt:
> _
> ...



Updated..

Dr Curry has found that 10% of all US HCN stations are improperly estimated and changed.  Another 15-22% are zombie stations that have been abandoned and no longer report, yet are still infilled by estimation.. 25-32% of the USHCN is ESTIMATED and INCORRECT... by +2.35 deg C


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...



You read like Perez Hilton.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


That was seen as a fad and a joke immediately. Never saw it anywhere but TIME...


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)




----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

OP- STILL can't argue with it, dumbass dupes. Shove the 2 jackasses at E. Anglia and at TIME 39 years ago. Brainwashed functional MORONS...


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, scientists in general. 99% is climatologists. Stop splitting hairs. Only GOP liars and dupes say different in the entire world.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



What a left wit moron... You think the John Cook and his lies/deceptions about other scientists is OK to do?






Just like Mann.. throw out the data that is inconvenient, keep just 77 and state that only three dissented..

Ok moron, why did you throw out the other11,867 who disagreed.  And if we include those like we would include the other 13 trees that Mann threw out, neither one is true.. and BOTH ARE LIARS.. Your short on ethical conduct..


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Could you do everyone a favor and link your sources?  Thank you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



I know, 97%. 75/77.
Very impressive.
Durr.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

A little back story from the source of the obnoxious graphic from the guy with the Whining avatar.

In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[8] In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts said that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.[8] Richard A. Muller, founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."[58]
Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.[59] On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".[60] _The New York Times_ published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.[61][62] Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. Steve McIntyre, who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent satellite temperature measurements were closer to the NOAA figures.[63]

Apparently the numbnut wasn't as impartial as he claimed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> A little back story from the source of the obnoxious graphic from the guy with the Whining avatar.
> 
> In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[8] In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts said that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed.[8] Richard A. Muller, founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts' concern about the condition of weather stations; "we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately."[58]
> Around 22 July 2012, Watts heard that the BEST project was about to release further material, and decided to release a paper he and Evan Jones had been working on for about a year.[59] On 27 July he blogged that WUWT was suspended until noon on 29 July: "major announcement coming".[60] _The New York Times_ published a summary of further draft results from BEST, including an announcement from Muller that their study now showed that humans "are almost entirely the cause" of the warming. Shortly afterwards, Watts announced his own team's draft paper which said that previously reported temperature rises had been "spuriously doubled", and made the serious accusation that NOAA had inflated the rate by erroneous adjustments to the data.[61][62] Climate scientists and other bloggers quickly found flaws in the paper. Steve McIntyre, who Watts had named as a co-author, stressed that his involvement had been "very last minute and limited". He agreed with criticisms including the point that Watts had failed to correct for time of observation bias, and noted that independent satellite temperature measurements were closer to the NOAA figures.[63]
> ...


NO... There were substantial adjustments made post exposure of the problem.  Many of which have never been corrected to date. The problems still exist and they are still massive despite the whitewash by BEST..  BEST only addressed anomaly artifact after normalization.   The raw data should never be normalized.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > A little back story from the source of the obnoxious graphic from the guy with the Whining avatar.
> ...



Anybody credible back up your claim?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 22, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



99% of publishing climetologists.   

Moron.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...


National Geographic?  I wouldn't call that a blog.  

Perhaps you need to read the article again, it cites NASA as its primary source, and nowhere does it mention "global warming":

The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Or delusional liberal with reading comprehension problems.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


The article also says nothing about unicorns not being real either. LOL.

However, it does very clearly say that the Sun will be going through an extended period of inactivity which can even lead to a mini ice age.  

Low sun activity = lower temperatures on earth and Solar System in general.

Get it?  I bet not.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> National Geographic's view on climate change:
> 
> Climate Change Is Here - National Geographic Magazine
> 
> Hint, "it's happening".


Yup, a leftist dominated magazine hides the truth about the Sun cooling in its back pages. Funny stuff.  No other way to interpret this, but that the earth will be entering into a severe cooling period:

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages."


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

So is the Sun going to go through a cooling period or not?  What are the "scientists" saying about THAT?  Because if it is, then the "Global Warming" theory is kaput!

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages."


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

We have seen several articles recently about global warming countering the next mini-ice age.  I think the GHGs will win.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

I'm laughing.........you know what they say.........."reality is 95% perception"!!!

DRUDGE Report right now.............


BLIZZARD WARNING FOR DC; BURBS UP TO 30"...
PREDICTION MAP... RADAR...
WEATHER CHANNEL UPDATE...
ACCUWEATHER LIVE...
Canceled flights pile up...
Traffic Accidents Galore...
Gas Shortages... 
Snow levels 'absolutely staggering'...
 Full Moon Could Make More Destructive...


Only the AGW k00ks think anybody from Virginia to Maine is thinking about global warming today!! How many hundreds of thousands of people will be out tomorrow morning laughing about Al Gore as they shovel?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

When the blizzards stop, maybe somebody will pay attention to what the extremists are saying!!

On Long Island right now, we are getting buried!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Durr, yourself, dumbfuck. Those are 77 publishing scientists in the subject. Scientists with degrees specifically in that subject. And the two that dissent, Singer and Lindzen, both testified in front of Congress that cigarettes were harmless. For a goodly fee. And the same front companies that paid them for the testimony on tobacco pays them for their testimony on global warming. Except Singer is now completely senile. Lindzen, still raking in the dough for whoring his credentials.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

First the East Coast gets October in December. Now they are getting a snow storm in January. Are the low temperatures for that storm setting records? Is the snowfall for that storm setting records? Did the warm temperatures in December set records? And when the December and January temperatures are averaged, will that average be warmer or cooler than the norm?

Seem you denialiest have set yourselves up for derision once again.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

The TSI from the sun is actually a bit low right now, and has been for several years. And 2015 just blew right through the record for the warmest year on record. I don't expect to see any cooling from a slightly lower TSI.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...




Nobody called it a blog  Believe it or not,  National Geographic has other articles that fully recognize global warming is happening. You should look into it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



What the moron doesn't get, the sun just might be going cold for about 90,000 years..



 
IF you measure the average width in time of the previous four glacial periods, were in deep trouble and right on time for the end of our current interglaical.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The TSI from the sun is actually a bit low right now, and has been for several years. And 2015 just blew right through the record for the warmest year on record. I don't expect to see any cooling from a slightly lower TSI.



Due solely to ADJUSTMENTS.. not anything to do with AGW.. Empirical evidence shows it is not, but since you cant prove that it is, I'll go with what we can prove..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> When the blizzards stop, maybe somebody will pay attention to what the extremists are saying!!
> 
> On Long Island right now, we are getting buried!!!



Yep... You sure are..  What I find hilarious is the fact this was normal snow fall during the 1700's, an average winter storm.. How quickly we as a species forget.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Speaking of dumb fucks, Your telling me that only your 77 shills matter and the other 11,867 are just too stupid to be included... Fucking idiot moron!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Looks like that chart is saying there is a strong relationship to temperature and co2 levels.  What's that red line practically shooting off the chart saying?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> We have seen several articles recently about global warming countering the next mini-ice age.  I think the GHGs will win.



Excellent! The only thing worse than retreating glaciers are advancing glaciers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



*Those are 77 publishing scientists in the subject.*

You are mistaken.

*And the same front companies that paid them for the testimony on tobacco pays them for their testimony on global warming.
*
Who got paid for their testimony on Alar? That still makes me laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



It's saying, we should release more, because ice ages really suck.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

Just to kinda make a perfect illustration about how much information like this is mattering in the real world and outside the nether-regions of the intanets.............

In football terms, of course, given this glorious football weekend >>>



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/football-field-gridiron-sports-poster-print.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Actually, it's saying no such thing.  If you look at the chart we are in very, very new territory.  Ice ages won't be a problem, nor would they have been for thousands of years.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 23, 2016)

*How NOAA used fuzzy math to make 2015 the ‘hottest year on record’*

Blasting News ^ | Jan 23, 2016 | Mark R. Whittington
Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) announced that 2015 had the hottest global average temperature ever measured, shattering the previous record held in 2014. The news was widely reported in the media, including the New York Times, which declared that global warming, which had paused since 1998, is back and with a vengeance. The clear implication was that the sooner we stop using fossil fuels and putting all that carbon dioxide in the air, the better


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

Vigilante said:


> *How NOAA used fuzzy math to make 2015 the ‘hottest year on record’*
> 
> Blasting News ^ | Jan 23, 2016 | Mark R. Whittington
> Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) announced that 2015 had the hottest global average temperature ever measured, shattering the previous record held in 2014. The news was widely reported in the media, including the New York Times, which declared that global warming, which had paused since 1998, is back and with a vengeance. The clear implication was that the sooner we stop using fossil fuels and putting all that carbon dioxide in the air, the better




yep.....fuzzy math is ghey. They know it too.............. Look up the word "deception" in Wikipedia and you see a pic of a progressive!! Just total fraud fuckery all the time with these people.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...




You make a good point, that I have also made in the past. While natural CO2 levels are tied to temperature with CO2 rising after temperature increase, there much less reason to believe that the same relationship holds true today because we are the ones artificially raising CO2.

It is unexplored territory.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


CO2 lags by 200 years... it drives nothing moron


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Find a source to prove that.  In the mean time, we're off the charts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



IF the end point was properly averaged there would be no spike at all. Spatial resolution changes, like Mann does on the end of records to insinuate some man induced crap, is pure fantasy when place in proper context.  Our current swings have been seen before without man in high resolution proxies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


*
Ice ages won't be a problem, nor would they have been for thousands of years.*

Cool! You have a link to the "Next Ice Age Countdown Clock"?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



FYI, the chart you provided, that group of people, they believe in manmade climate change due to increased level of co2 and other green house gases.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...





> But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that _carbon lagged behind temperature_. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years _before carbon starts to move_.



Widely held by the scientific community...

Source


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...




I think you are insane if you believe that mankind's use of fossil fuels hasn't affected the concentration of CO2 in the air.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

From your source:

The complicated nature of past climate has lead some people to suggest that changing levels of greenhouse gases have only a small effect on temperature, especially when compared with other causes of temperature change. To test whether this is so, it is important to know whether a rapid increase in greenhouse gases, such as is now occurring, can actually cause significant climate change. Two events in the past suggest that this is, indeed, the case.
*KT Boundary (65 million years ago)*
The KT Boundary is the name given to the a thin geological layer that marks the impact of a gigantic meteorite – the same meteorite that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the short term, this meteorite caused great clouds of dust that obscured the sun. However, it also released huge amounts of CO2 by vaporising carbonate-rich rocks. This lead to a massive increase in the greenhouse effect, as described in this BBC News article and, for more detail, the scientific paper (Beerling _et al_, 2002).
*Late Palaeocene Thermal Maximum (LPTM, 55 million years ago)*
Scientists have long known that there was a short, but dramatic period of warming at the end of the Palaeocene era. This is now believed to have resulted from several massive releases of methane from the sea floor, probably as a result of continental drift, but possibly as a result of volcanic activity. For more information, see Earth 's ancient heat wave gives a taste of things to come*, *this NASA story and the paper by Bains _et al_, _Science_ 1999. The changes in sea surface temperatures fit well with predictions from climate models, according to research published in 2003. Although there are several similarities to today's warming, one major difference is the timescale: the release of methane took place over a period of several thousand years. There was no mass extinction, probably because plants had sufficient time to 'migrate' northwards to more hospitable climates.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



There is most certainly an effect... its how much and what it actually does in our atmosphere that I question, for good reason.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




But don't forget that 1/3 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last two decades, a time of little to no temperature increase.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> I'm laughing.........you know what they say.........."reality is 95% perception"!!!
> 
> DRUDGE Report right now.............
> 
> ...



It's all part of global warming!  I told you, the global warming theory always wins.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


So wait, do you agree with the findings of this article that the Sun will go through a cooling period that will possibly bring about a mini ice age that could last 70 to a 100 years?  If so then the global warming theory must be totally discounted. The earth cannot get warm while the sun cools down dramatically. The Sun doesn't have political affiliations!  

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > I'm laughing.........you know what they say.........."reality is 95% perception"!!!
> ...




Really?

s0n.....it wins maybe on the internet. Nowhere else.

Show me where global warming theory is mattering in the real world.

Links please.................


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2016)

Somehow.........and its fascinating when you think about it.........the global warming alarmists never got the memo that in life, everything comes down to money/politics. Which is exactly why solar power is still laughable after 20 years and wind, still a joke as well. And in 30 years, solar and wind will still be well less than 10% for meeting our electricity needs!!!

Like I always say...........nobody cares about the science.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Do I believe in what?

I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...




I have been hearing that for 40 years and they have been saying that before my grand father was born now that I read up on it.


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

The increased forcing from increased GHGs is greater than the loss of forcing from going into a solar minimum.  The world is still going to get warmer.


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2016)

bear513 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...




Yup. Anyone got a link to forty years worth of Paul Erlich's predictions? Hahahaha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> The increased forcing from increased GHGs is greater than the loss of forcing from going into a solar minimum.  The world is still going to get warmer.



Excellent news. Warmer, longer growing seasons are better than shorter colder ones.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Well, yeah, we'll be 15 years older. If CO2 is really an issue then, maybe the Greens will get on board with nuclear energy, instead of still wasting money on Wind.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



I'm fine with nuclear and wind for that matter.  Solar is awesome, we can create much of our own energy.  And, yes, the left has wasted time fighting nuclear, while it's not the safest form of energy, anything is better than fossil fuels.

It's 2016, grow up already.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


*
I'm fine with nuclear*

Cool, tell all your green friends to get their heads out of their asses.
*
and wind for that matter*

If only it made sense, economically, and was reliable.

*It's 2016, grow up already.*

I agree, when the left grows up and backs nuclear, they can stop whining about CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.



Yeah, nothing says green energy more than tons and tons of toxic batteries to make that unreliable "green energy" useful.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
> ...




I'd fire the batteries into the sun or find a method to recycle them that doesn't cause the damage to the environment. 

Called innovation and r&d!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck. In the meantime, you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels, they are your problem, preaching to a liberal who is OK with nuclear energy is wasting your time.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
> ...



Solar, wind, thermal and nuclear, those are options.  You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect but we already know what got us into this mess to begin with.  Matthew is right, r&d, we'll get better at this.  But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Yeah, because you're a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Listen, you can fault the left all you want about nuclear energy and somehow that's the reason we have global warming, I really don't give a fuck.
*
No, nuclear isn't the reason we have warming.
And anti-nuclear whining from the left isn't gonna fix our warming. Glad we agree.
*
you have some jagoffs in this thread who want to continue to use fossil fuels,
*
Yeah, because people who realize the value of fossil fuels and don't fall for leftist whining are jagoffs. LOL!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




I wonder if a huuuuuuuugggggeee rail gun would work?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.  

"The value of fossil fuels" as though we didn't discover the harm they are doing.  Regardless of the industrial revolution, we are where we are and fossil fuels do not bridge us to our future.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



*You can waste your time shitting on alternative energy until it's 100% perfect
*
Use it all you want. You can even lie and say it's cleaner.
*
But, the debate is over, the conservatives in this country are the only real obstruction.*

I'm glad the Germans shut down all their nukes, so they can burn more lignite.
Ya gotta love it when liberal idiocies collide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.* 

Without the left, imagine how much less CO2 we'd have emitted since the late 70s.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is cleaner.  Solar is cleaner, wind is cleaner, even nuclear is cleaner, we just have to figure out what to do with the waste.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's your point to demonstrate. But to defend fossil fuels while condemning liberals for creating co2, sounds convoluted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Solar and wind, as long as you ignore the toxic chemicals, lead and dead birds.
But you have the love the lignite, I mean the Germans, for fuck sake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*That's your point to demonstrate
*
How many huge nuke plants did they shut down early or prevent from being completed or stopped before they even started?
That's a much larger addition to global CO2 than anything I can think of. And it was the libs. Hilarious!!!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Birds aren't going extinct from wind and the toxic byproduct of solar cells is less than that of fossil fuels.  Read about it here:
Stanford Magazine - Article


----------



## Crick (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Without the left we wouldn't be talking global warming at all.*
> 
> Without the left, imagine how much less CO2 we'd have emitted since the late 70s.



Without the left, we wouldn't have:

40 hour work weeks
Votes for women
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Integrated schools
Public schools
Child labor laws
The right to unionize
Health care benefits
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Environmental Protection Agency
National forests
National parks
Wilderness areas
The interstate highway system
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
The GI Bill
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The Internet
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
National Weather Service (NWS)
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Federal Reserve
Hoover Dam
The Bill of Rights
The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
The Smithsonian Institution
The World Health Organization
Peace Corps
Etc, etc, etc


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Yet 15 of the hottest 16 years occurred since 2000.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

bear513 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


At 72, my life is very differant than it was when I was growing up. The mountains I grew up in routinely get snow later, less of it, and it goes off sooner. Since they finished the North Cascades Highway in '72, I have made trips on it about every five years. And the glaciers there are retreating very visibly between trips. The glaciers on Rainer and Hood are doing the same.
As are the glaciers in the Rockies. In fact, Glacier National Park will probably have no glaciers by 2030. The flora and fauna of these areas are changing in response to these changes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, I'd build another 200gw of nuclear to make up the backbone of our energy infrastructure to replace most coal. Set wind, solar and wave ontop of it supported by grid batteries.
> ...


Now that was fucking stupid. Do we discard our lead acid auto batteries in landfill? No, we recycle them. And what the hell makes you think that we will not recycle the grid scale batteries at the end of their lifespan.


----------



## 9aces (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Good.  Warmer is better.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Well, we are certainly going to find out.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

9aces said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Does wonders for the oceans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You're right, there is no pollution involved in lead mining and smelting.
Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Less offensive to the environment than continuing to burn fossil fuels.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Mining for lithium is a far cleaner operation than lead mining. But I fail to see what point you are making, lead is not even being proposed for the grid scale batteries. Perhaps you should do a little research before flapping yap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sure.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Really? We have already had a reduction in the TSI, and the last two years were the warmest on record. Looks to me like the projected reduction might slow the warming a little, but will hardly cancel it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? We have already had a reduction in the TSI, and the last two years were the warmest on record. Looks to me like the projected reduction might slow the warming a little, but will hardly cancel it.



Maybe the oceans released some of that heat they've been hiding?
We could reduce our CO2 emissions to zero, drop our CO2 back to 280 ppm and the ocean could fuck us all up by cooling a bit, making our atmosphere even warmer. Wouldn't that be hilarious if we crippled our economies, did everything the greenies want and the ocean goes and melts our ice caps right out from under us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

Do you really think that we are seeing the effects of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present? What we are seeing is the effects of the GHGs from three to five decades ago. So yes, it is possible that we may lower the emissions, only to find that we crossed the tipping point years ago. But if we continue to do as we have done, we will find that tipping point for sure.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Keep dreaming.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Dreaming what?  Do you agree with this?

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Roudy said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



You're a deep thinker, aren't you?  Hint:  It's not saying what you think it is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2016)

And at the same time, we are rapidly increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere. The ability of the atmosphere to retain heat will probably be enhanced enough that the lowered TSI will have little effect. And the LIA did not last even a century, whereas the effects of the GHGs will last for centuries.


----------



## 9aces (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And at the same time, we are rapidly increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere. The ability of the atmosphere to retain heat will probably be enhanced enough that the lowered TSI will have little effect. And the LIA did not last even a century, whereas the effects of the GHGs will last for centuries.



You know it's funny.  You're spouting doom, gloom and the end of mankind.....and for what?

Unless you want to become a global dictator and kill every other government and a pretty fair portion of the population...there's not one damn thing any of your posturing can accomplish....and even if you somehow managed all that, you still wouldn't be able to affect anything more than the merest fraction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Do you really think that we are seeing the effects of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present? What we are seeing is the effects of the GHGs from three to five decades ago. So yes, it is possible that we may lower the emissions, only to find that we crossed the tipping point years ago. But if we continue to do as we have done, we will find that tipping point for sure.



*Do you really think that we are seeing the effects of the GHGs in the atmosphere at present?
*
Based on our newly voracious oceans, it could be hundreds or thousands of years before we see it.

*But if we continue to do as we have done, we will find that tipping point for sure.*


Tipping point? Then we become Venus?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



So tell us what it really says.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



It's pretty clear "The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity."

Did that help?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



That's not different than what Roudy said. Did you have a point?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's shouldn't be any different, it's a direct quote.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



So you didn't have a point.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Other than it obviously not disproving climate change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


_Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.
_
Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.
_
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
_
Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not the level of Co2 we have now.  We are going to continue to warm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Not the level of Co2 we have now. *

I'm talking about now.
*
We are going to continue to warm.*

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.


----------



## Dovahkiin (Jan 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 24, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...




Translation~ you are right but I have no retort and will continue to pull opinions out of my ass and "Believe" have "Faith " in the government .


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2016)

And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord? 

In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord?
> 
> In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.





Indeed.......but democracy speaks to majorities....and for almost 10 years now, congress hasn't shown a bit of interest in doing anything about "global warming". THAT is the people speaking.......the essence of democracy. In 2014, candidates who ran on climate change got their clocks cleaned. Democracy speaking in volumes.

Why is that?

Simple

Because the government response to global warming is to tax the shit out of its people while we have far more pressing matters in terms of where government monies go. Tens of billions for failed solar companies. Easy come easy go for progressives. Appropriations are getting to be a Jonestown in this country........which is of no concern to progressives. Fuck the future generations......spend tens of trillions based upon computer models that are wrong all the time. Shit.........the computer models were so far off for this blizzard as to be laughable. AND THAT WAS 24 HOURS OUT!!!

Progressives never care about what stuff costs...........if it sounds good, spend, spend, spend. They have no clue about what 20 trillion+ in debt means for the future. They spend like drunken sailors..........most never had to balance a damn checkbook in their life or live on a budget.

Government needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to develop innovative energy forms instead of pushing this 18th century concept of energy ( renewables ). It they cant stand on their own in the marketplace, see ya!!! Same for oil.........no subsidies. People think ethanol is some new thing.........been around almost 200 years. If it cant make it in the marketplace, screw it. Its called common sense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Wow... the farce in this one is strong...

I guess you missed the part where earth entered periods of glaciation millions of times with levels of CO2 at 7,000ppm or higher?






When we use a chart with the spatial resolution to see thousands of years you will see the cyclical nature of the earth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Your opinion has no relevance when considered with facts.. as are most alarmists..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



*Your opinion has no relevance*

You're right, which is why the US Senate voted 95-0 in favor of the Kyoto protocol in 1997.

Oh, wait, it was 95-0, against.

*world governments who will work to combat the problem.
*
Yes, poor countries will accept bribes from rich countries.
Rich countries will pretend the bribes accomplish something useful.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord?
> 
> In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.



*In a democracy, we elect people to represent us.
*
95-0. Hurray democracy!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2016)

And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar. And, in another generation, coal will be a memory. So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty. So all we got out of that failure to see the future was bad press, when we succeeded in doing what was needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar. And, in another generation, coal will be a memory. So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty. So all we got out of that failure to see the future was bad press, when we succeeded in doing what was needed.



*And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar.
*
And Congress voted against natural gas in the 70s.

*And, in another generation, coal will be a memory.
*
Unless Congress votes for it, again.

*So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty.
*
Hurray fracking!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2016)

Yes, hurray for natural gas. A good bridge to a completely non-polluting grid. And in two generations, it will be gone. Solar, wind, geothermal, and other clean forms of generation will completely take there place. Solar is already cheaper than coal and natural gas on the utility level. As the grid scale batteries come on line, you will have a far more robust grid, at less cost. 

All of this is feasible with the present technology. And one can see that the present technology is advancing very rapidly.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 24, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



He's trying to figure out a way to change what it actually means. LOL


----------



## Roudy (Jan 24, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Wow!  Ya don't say! And what pray tell does the article say this low solar activity will do to temps on earth?


----------



## Roudy (Jan 24, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Actually it did say something about the effects on the climate, read again:

"The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
*Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages"*


----------



## Roudy (Jan 24, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Blah blah blah.  "The earth is flat."

Scientific consensus in the mid to late 70's was that "we"re going to run out of oil in one to two decades" and "the earth is heading for an ice age".  Didn't Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet say that the consensus is that we'd all be under 10 feet of water by now?

"Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”


----------



## Roudy (Jan 24, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


 Well, here's some direct quotes by experts in the past, I wonder how their predictions panned out.  Let's not let the facts get in our way now.....

"Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2016)

The next time you want to make fun of someone's predictions, find one that uses a date.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


I believe in climate change so?  What the fk does that mean?  The climate is always changing.  That seems to be a sticking point for you eh?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


and 100% of those funded by government money say that man makes the world warmer.  So what is your point, the climateologists need to make a living and the government won't fund them to tell them man isn't a cause.  Do you understand that?  Oh wait, I forgot, you don't.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


now that is at least admitting your bias.  Of course you couldn't.  Dude that is too funny.  did you make that up all by yourself?  Or did you take the lead from Bri?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


*Notice how you didn't really say anything?*

Funny I was thinking the same thing of you.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Funny!  I believe in climate change too!  In fact the earth's climate has been changing for two billion years.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Too bad there's absolutely no evidence of that lol. Except Rush and Sean's (etc etc) big mouths....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


prove me wrong.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 26, 2016)

Breaking News! The earth's climate is changing!  

News at 11.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your RW fantasy doesn't exist in the real world, dupe. Ridiculous RW conspiracy theory, AGAIN.


----------



## IanC (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




The IPCC's mandate is to find man-made impact on climate. Funding is freely available towards that cause. Funding not related to, or especially opposed to man-made causes is much harder to find. That is why skeptical researchers look to non governmental funding, and if they find it they are criticized. Catch 22.


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Non governmental funding somehow being all from BIG OIL or RW sources- the ONLY ones IN THE WORLD arguing this...And ALL the scientists in the world keeping your conspiracy a secret- what a joke.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


conspiracy or truth?  Truth! It is you who has the conspiracy, you think governments fund for objectivity in climate research and yet you can not prove it.  That is the truth.  It is not conspiracy.  You should look up the definition of the word.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


yep when facts are laid out there, just ignore them.  You can actually go on line and read what the objective is for the IPCC reporting.  Just as Ian presented it.  And you still write your nonsense.  That just makes you stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2016)

Franco, it is hilarious you choose to ignore facts, I completely agree with you


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> 
> Helloooo?


Why would you choose that data set? Do you lack logical reasoning skills?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 26, 2016)

How fucking cold must it truly be if they're only get up to 58, 4F below 1997 AFTER adding in the imaginary "excess heat" eaten by the deep oceans?


----------



## Roudy (Jan 26, 2016)

Your LW fantasy doesn't exist in the real world, dupe. Ridiculous LW conspiracy theory, AGAIN.

There, that looks much better now.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2016)

Don't make me look.  What is "LW"?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 26, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > 2015 Was Earth's Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Says
> ...




Maybe because the noaa funds most of the meteorological infrastructure that makes such observations possible in this country?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 26, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How fucking cold must it truly be if they're only get up to 58, 4F below 1997 AFTER adding in the imaginary "excess heat" eaten by the deep oceans?



Where on earth do you get this from?


----------



## Leweman (Jan 26, 2016)

ever?  No need to go full retard on us.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


 You are an anti-science bullshitter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Funny:

You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now?  IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..

By the way, AL Gore's  clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow..  Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat...  You guys like failure..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> The next time you want to make fun of someone's predictions, find one that uses a date.



Midnight tonight.. AL GORE FAIL-ATHON hits its apex...







Source


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> The IPCC's mandate is to find man-made impact on climate. Funding is freely available towards that cause. Funding not related to, or especially opposed to man-made causes is much harder to find. That is why skeptical researchers look to non governmental funding, and if they find it they are criticized. Catch 22.




Here is the text of the resolution creating the IPCC:

     Convinced that climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be
confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital
interests of all mankind,

     1.   Recognizes that climate change is a common concern of mankind, since
climate is an essential condition which sustains life on earth;

     2.   Determines that necessary and timely action should be taken to deal
with climate change within a global framework;

     3.   Reaffirms its resolution 42/184 of 11 December 1987, in which,
inter alia, it agreed with the Governing Council of the United Nations
Environment Programme that the Programme should attach importance to the
problem of global climate change and that the Executive Director of the United
Nations Environment Programme should ensure that the Programme co-operates
closely with the World Meteorological Organization and the International
Council of Scientific Unions and maintains an active, influential role in the
World Climate Programme;

     4.   Considers that activities in support of the World Climate Programme,
approved by the Congress and Executive Council of the World Meteorological
Organization and elaborated in the system-wide medium-term environment
programme for the period 1990-1995, which was approved by the Governing
Council of the United Nations Environment Programme,be accorded high
priority by the relevant organs and programmes of the United Nations system;

     5.   Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally
co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential
environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic
response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated
by the Panel;

     6.   Urges Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations and scientific institutions to treat climate change as a
priority issue, *to undertake and promote specific, co-operative
action-oriented programmes and research so as to increase understanding on all
sources and causes of climate change, including its regional aspects and
specific time-frames as well as the cause and effect relationship of human
activities and climate*, and to contribute, as appropriate, with human and
financial resources to efforts to protect the global climate;

     7.   Calls upon all relevant organizations and programmes of the United
Nations system to support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change;

     8.   Encourages the convening of conferences on climate change,
particularly on global warming, at the national, regional and global levels in
order to make the international community better aware of the importance of
dealing effectively and in a timely manner with all aspects of climate change
resulting from certain human activities;

     9.   Calls upon Governments and intergovernmental organizations to
collaborate in making every effort to prevent detrimental effects on climate
and activities which affect the ecological balance, and also calls upon
non-governmental organizations, industry and other productive sectors to play
their due role;

     10.  Requests the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological
Organization and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately
to initiate action leading, as soon as possible, to a comprehensive review and
recommendations with respect to:

     (a)  The state of knowledge of the science of climate and climatic
change;

     (b)  Programmes and studies on the social and economic impact of climate
change, including global warming;

     (c)  Possible response strategies to delay, limit or mitigate the impact
of adverse climate change;

     (d)  The identification and possible strengthening of relevant existing
international legal instruments having a bearing on climate;

     (e)  Elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention
on climate;

     11.  Also requests the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution
to the attention of all Governments, as well as intergovernmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the
Economic and Social Council and well-established scientific institutions with
expertise in matters concerning climate;

     12.  Further requests the Secretary-General to report to the General
Assembly at its forty-fourth session on the implementation of the present
resolution;

     13.  Decides to include this question in the provisional agenda of its
forty-fourth session, without prejudice to the application of the principle of biennialization.

****************************************************************************

The reference to human influence on climate is far more subdued and part of a much larger set of directions than your description would lead us to believe.

As to where research money might be going to, I would very much like to know on what factual information you base your conclusions and whether or not you have any logical rationale behind the idea that (let's speak bluntly) denier research should be as well funded as mainstream science.  Whether or not you and yours agree, Ian, to the rest of the world, AGW is firmly established and research proposals attempting to find some way to refute it are very likely to be considered a waste of time and money.

Aren't they.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Funny:
> 
> You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now?  IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..
> 
> By the way, AL Gore's  clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow..  Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat...  You guys like failure..



You know, I was reading your post and the whole time I thought you were Crusader Frank.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now?  IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..



I've answered it for you many times. I can show the links if you'd like. But being that you're a pathological liar, you pretend you've never been given an answer.

The answer is ... the sun was significantly dimmer. You're just so damn ignorant of the basic science, and so proud of that ignorance.



> By the way, AL Gore's  clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow..  Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat...  You guys like failure..



Being Al Gore didn't say or imply the world will end, why are you lying and claiming he said that? That is, are you lying because you're an 'effin retard, or are you lying because your cult told you to lie, and you're too chickenshit to disobey?

Why are all almost deniers such pissguzzling wusses? Were you deniers castrated before joining the cult, or was that part of the initiation ceremony?


----------



## Roudy (Jan 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Don't make me look.  What is "LW"?


Left Wing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now?  IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..
> ...



What an Idiot...

Snageltooth cant take that Al Gore Lies have all failed to become reality.. And now that his predictions are failing in prime time light, he has his panties in a knot...


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 26, 2016)

Link? lol


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 26, 2016)

Ted Danson? Check coral around the world. Going or gone...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 27, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...




Why? you're the one that doesn't want this country to maintain the temperature record and calls it all a fraud. Who are you trying to kid?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Anti-science activists like yourself should do some research. And no, "research" does not mean looking for crap on the internet that supports your preconceived global warming bullshit.

Don't drink the kool-aid, dumbass.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Don't make me look.  What is "LW"?
> ...



Ah... the political paranoia.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You still haven't answered the question as to why when we had 7,000ppm CO2, the earth still cycled, glaciation, warm ups, and back to ice, why didn't we burn up like you think its going to do now?  IF your Left wing premise were true, we should have been dead already..





mamooth said:


> I've answered it for you many times. I can show the links if you'd like. But being that you're a pathological liar, you pretend you've never been given an answer.
> 
> The answer is ... the sun was significantly dimmer. You're just so damn ignorant of the basic science, and so proud of that ignorance.





Billy_Bob said:


> By the way, AL Gore's  clock to dooms day hits bottom at midnight tomorrow..  Funny how were still seeing snow and all those things he said would be gone along with massive runaway heat...  You guys like failure..





mamooth said:


> Being Al Gore didn't say or imply the world will end, why are you lying and claiming he said that? That is, are you lying because you're an 'effin retard, or are you lying because your cult told you to lie, and you're too chickenshit to disobey?
> 
> Why are all almost deniers such pissguzzling wusses? Were you deniers castrated before joining the cult, or was that part of the initiation ceremony?





Billy_Bob said:


> What an Idiot...
> 
> Snageltooth cant take that Al Gore Lies have all failed to become reality.. And now that his predictions are failing in prime time light, he has his panties in a knot...



O contraire mon petit pot de pisse,  I'd say he's got you right on the money.  Hard to believe a degree'd atmospheric physicist could entertain such ignorant misconceptions, but there you go.[/QUOTE]


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2016)

Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?



Nothing?  That's what I thought.  So your claim of what I supposedly believe is just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.  Can you explain why, if that claim is true that the temperature has not increased since 2000 even though mankind has poured fully 30% of all the CO2 we ever created into the atmosphere since 2000?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?
> ...



Then there's the NOAA telling us that 1997 was actually 62, which is 4F WARMER than this 2015, the "WARMERERERST EVAH!!!!" at a paltry 58


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?



How about you first explain to us what that has to do with anything?  That's because it looks like just another desperate deflection on your part, one you're throwing out because you're getting humiliated again.

And Frank, stop trying to pull off your baseline-swapping fraud. Everyone already knows you're an open fraud, so there's no need to keep confirming it.

Like so many threads here, this thread is now just the same perpetually-butthurt cult fruitloops impotently shaking their tiny fists at the sky. Fruitloops, do you have any plans for the future beyond shaking your fists at the sky? While doing so might make you feel better, you should have noticed that your years of shaking your fists at the sky have only cemented your reputations as cult fruitloops, and therefore a new tactic might be in order.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


I'm sorry, but I didn't understand what you were going for here?  Did you mean you wan the country to maintain temperature recordsssssssss or did you want the US to hold the record forever?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


hey Frank, doesn't that validate the 18 year pause?

And Billys assertion of it getting cooler?  Interesting.  Well I mean as long as 58 isn't > 62


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?
> ...



So NOAA got the temperature wrong -- in 1997??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Can you imagine how cold it really must be if even after adding the magical excess heat eaten by the oceans they're STILL 4F below 1997?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I don't know Frank, maybe they can go back and make that report more accurate today.  And what they meant was 52 not 62.  someone made an error. YOu know like using the magnifying glass to see the 1/10th degree on this thermometer.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

BTW, I've been looking and looking and I still can't see it.  They must use some very magic magnifying glasses.  I know I don't have any!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Anyone cal tell that's the exact same thermometer they used to get the deep Pacific ocean readings of 34.986994933900F back in 1890


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> BTW, I've been looking and looking and I still can't see it.  They must use some very magic magnifying glasses.  I know I don't have any!



See, if you have 2 readings, 58 and 62, that each have a margin of error of 2, we can say that the temperature back in 1880 was 45F


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 27, 2016)

OP STILL true, after all your baffled by bs BS, dupes. Duh.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> OP STILL true, after all your baffled by bs BS, dupes. Duh.


dude you believe whatever you want to believe, it is the really cool thing about the US.  Most adults however, like to have discussions speaking about truths using facts and evidence.  So you want to believe in the OP go for it, just don't say to us that it's correct.  It's just correct to 'you' so please in the future use your opinion 'you' for your responses.  You know like 'In My Opinion' Cause opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > OP STILL true, after all your baffled by bs BS, dupes. Duh.
> ...



FranCo is a 58> 62 kind of guy


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2016)

Frank, jc, please get a virtual room, as nobody wants to watch you two going at it so enthusiastically out in public. I'd suggest using skook's thread, the one that was set aside specifically to keep such perv action out of sight.

So, while Frank and jc do their thing, let's look at some science. The grownups keep track of the EEI, earth's energy imbalance.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n2/full/nclimate2876.html

We keep track of that in two ways, which are in good agreement. The Argo floats measure heat going into the oceans, and various space based platforms monitor energy going into and out of the atmosphere.

NASA CERES — Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Information and Data

NASA has all such data on line. If you run it, you find more energy goes in than comes out, and about 90% of the difference goes into the oceans. Events like the El Nino change the distribution between ocean and land, resulting in higher land temps. Of course, we've had El Ninos before, and they didn't result in temps this hot, so plainly there's a steady warming bias too. That is, global warming.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, jc, please get a virtual room, as nobody wants to watch you two going at it so enthusiastically out in public. I'd suggest using skook's thread, the one that was set aside specifically to keep such perv action out of sight.
> 
> So, while Frank and jc do their thing, let's look at some science. The grownups keep track of the EEI, earth's energy imbalance.
> 
> ...


And yet old tooth you can't explain why 58>62.  Are you saying that was made up?

Dude/dudette, the links were posted up.  So were they made up or not?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, jc, please get a virtual room, as nobody wants to watch you two going at it so enthusiastically out in public. I'd suggest using skook's thread, the one that was set aside specifically to keep such perv action out of sight.
> 
> So, while Frank and jc do their thing, let's look at some science. The grownups keep track of the EEI, earth's energy imbalance.
> 
> ...



Can't find your "...and that's how we know that 58>62" explanation to account for the 4F differential between 1997 and 2015 in the above


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Frank, jc, please get a virtual room, as nobody wants to watch you two going at it so enthusiastically out in public. I'd suggest using skook's thread, the one that was set aside specifically to keep such perv action out of sight.
> 
> So, while Frank and jc do their thing, let's look at some science. The grownups keep track of the EEI, earth's energy imbalance.
> 
> ...



Earth has an "energy imbalance"?  What ever happened to thermodynamics?


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > OP STILL true, after all your baffled by bs BS, dupes. Duh.
> ...


Of course it's correct, conspiracy nutjob.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


in your opinion!!!! here write it with me....In my opinion............


----------



## francoHFW (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your brainwashed "opinion" is pure crappe. Temperature stats from NOAA etc are NOT opinion, dupe. What you believe is pure RW BS DUH.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

francoHFW said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...


I know, the NOAA said that in 1997 the average temp was 62.xx and in 2015 was 58.  so how the hell 58>62 is beyond my math skills.  In my arithmetic learning, lower numbers were less.   Yours?  hmmmmm... but you go with your opinion.  I see you still couldn't write it.  again, 'in my opinion'  it really isn't that hard to write.

And to add, you should state 'in your opinion, 58>62'  go for it cause you believing it was hotter means you accept that result.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 27, 2016)

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62.  It cracks me up and I roll on the floor.  And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Hansen admitted to getting it wrong in 1998. But then after getting caught NASA re-adjusted their 1998 temps lower to make their 1999 temps look hotter by comparison. 

You are obviously very ignorant regarding the subject.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Earth has an "energy imbalance"?  What ever happened to thermodynamics?



More energy comes in to the earth than leaves the earth.

That's an energy imbalance.

Exactly why do you believe thermodynamics rules that out? Please explain your reasoning in detail for everyone.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2016)

> Hansen admitted to getting it wrong in 1998. But then after getting caught NASA re-adjusted their 1998 temps lower to make their 1999 temps look hotter by comparison



Your cult seems to have created its own very peculiar reality. There's no way to respond to such bizarre fantasies except to point out that they're bizarre fantasies.



> You are obviously very ignorant regarding the subject.



You're not ignored by the world because of a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot.

You're ignored because you're babbling nonsense.

In case nobody has ever broken that unpleasant news to you, I just did. It always seems to fall on me now to stage these interventions.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62.  It cracks me up and I roll on the floor.  And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.



You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62.  It cracks me up and I roll on the floor.  And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.
> ...



*The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.
*
They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Earth has an "energy imbalance"?  What ever happened to thermodynamics?
> ...



That's a new thing, right


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62.  It cracks me up and I roll on the floor.  And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.
> ...



So NOAA can't measure temperature to the nearest 4F at 58F, is that what you're saying? They have a 7% MOE


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



See in 1997 NOAA read the temperatures, then they added 4F


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

Does anyone still doubt that people get paid to post AGW talking points here no matter how fucking stupid they may be?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 27, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Earth has an "energy imbalance"?  What ever happened to thermodynamics?
> ...



More energy comes in, is that new?

I thought the oceans ate 93% of this "Excess heat"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



I wonder how much they added to the ocean?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Whatever they needed to make their numbers work


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...









And another Cult member chimes in

Warming global
global warming

Settled science
science settled


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That's what it's called "man-made global warming" it only exists after the data is fudged


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yeah, you're a scientist allright. There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The better question is why wouldn't CO2 be attributed to any warming?
Set us right professor.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.
> ...



NATIONS, idiot.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



There's no argument; the dilatory efforts of oil and coal producers, purveyors and the propagandists, those who put profit before people, and the air they breath, the water they drink, the soil they cultivate, and our great oceans, is obvious to the world.

The New Right (Anarcho-Capitlaists) ruck choose to believe those who have a conflict of interest, and to accuse the Scientists who accept grant money to study the issues of having a conflict of interests.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> 
> news.nationalgeographic.com
> *Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts*
> ...




Totally retarded thinking by the poster. Please professor, draw us the link between sunspots and how the sun warms the Earth. Then explain how and why a decrease in sunspots negate the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Enlighten us professor. How and why does a decrease of sunspot activity effect how the sun warms the Earth and it's impact on greenhouse gasses.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> I love it.. NG tells us about the sun going quiet and cold.



Where does it say it's going "cold", professor? Whay does that mean to the greenhouse effect?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



How many trillions should we spend to ensure climate never changes?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Can you please explain why NOAA decided to alter the temperature of 1997 which at 62F puts it a solid 4F above the 2015 "record"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...



^ outs himself as a sock


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



a stinky one at that


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



about 1500 bucks maybe 2 grand if you go all out and a good heating/cooling system 

year around 72 degrees 

--LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Can we get one big enough for the entire planet?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




no need too 

just go inside 

works wonderfully out here


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



No. 

Can you?

One data point for one year nearly two decades ago seems to me to be an example of cherry picking.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



But to his credit, he's blatantly obvious about who he is and not really trying to hide


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



One data point? The world average temperature for the year 1997, and it's eliminated like an out of favor Stalin sidekick


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's no an answer, and it also reflects your ignorance on meaning of a data point.


----------



## Roudy (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:
> ...



You can't be this stupid.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick you poor idiot....can you tell me when, and under what circumstances the curvature of space time due to gravity is so trifling that it can be discounted as non existent?
> ...





SSDD said:


> just another instance of you talking out your ass...like when you claim that there is actual empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.




Let's start with the basics, shall we.



Now please explain why a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would not have a similar effect.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



 Too difficult for you to answer? It was your link. I would hope you understand it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Cool demo dude.
So will $30 trillion for windmills stop the climate from changing?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The cost of doing nothing is already adding up.
How much have we already spent in larger, stronger and untimely weather events in the past few years?  How much will it cost to move entire coastal populations inland? 

This is already happening. The future will be worse.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



How so?


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I never said it would.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



*The cost of doing nothing is already adding up.
*
Doing nothing? Obama's been wasting billion on green subsidies ever since the "stimulus".

*How much have we already spent in larger, stronger and untimely weather events in the past few years?
*
Trillions on all the massive hurricanes since Katrina. Oh, wait. Never mind.
*
How much will it cost to move entire coastal populations inland?
*
Just as much as it will cost after wasting trillions on wind and solar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



Heretic!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Another lowbrow "Lets see if we can find morons who won't notice we're passing off increases in pressure for CO2 effects" experiment


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



So once we eliminate the years that had warmer temperatures, 2015 is a record setter.

You're OK with changing data that does not fit this stupid AGW theory of yours


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



WTF?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


individuals. how many people were there who voted?  nations or people?  Paris would have been a little crowded if the entire globe were there don't ya think?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 29, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


ahhh, it seems your feelings are hurt that I don't believe as you do.  It's really simple, you want me to believe, you show me how 58 is greater than 62 first off, and then post up where 1.6 f is dangerous.  go for it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 29, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


yeah he can. he has no idea about hot and the years of hot.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2016)

Hutch Starskey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The theory of AGW isn't science.  It's religion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



DENIER!!!!


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 29, 2016)

Political partisanship...it'll kill us all. 

Can't wait to see what 2016, 2020, 2025 and 2030 bring. Should be fun, for your sake I hope you all don't have kids.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 29, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion.  You're a religious conservative, right?  Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Son, we wasted trillions on windmills. Sorry, we can't afford your college.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 29, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...



I'm not a Christian.  I'm a die-hard atheist.  So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?"  Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian.  Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 29, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Whatever, sock girl.  Love the faux concern "for the Chillun!!!!!!"


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 29, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.



> You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian.  Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.



I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.


----------



## HappyJoy (Jan 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I don't think I feel any concern for you personally.

The only thing you got right about that is that I am a consumer of socks.  That is what you meant, right?


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...












What's funny is you claim the religious types are the "deniers" but the Catholic Church's official position is that AGW is real and a threat.  But what is truly funny is the AGW cult themselves are a religion in everything but name.  You have your high priests who "translate" the word of God (remember according to you silly people if you're not a climatologist you can't understand what they are saying.  Which ignores the fact that PhD climatologists can't teach graduate level hard science courses but geologists can teach every climatology class there is) you have your Church on Earth (the IPCC), you have your scriptures (the various IPCC reports) and you wish to persecute the non believers, you call us deniers but the effect is the same.

Face it dude, you are a religious fucking fruitcake.


----------



## IanC (Jan 30, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Hutch Starskey said:
> ...




I am a classical liberal, an atheist, and have voted left or extreme left in every election so far. I actually treat science as a substitute for religion and my vote for Pope would be Feynman, dead or alive. I am disgusted with climate science. they have turned into a cult with a distorted version of science that only 'sounds' like science, but on closer inspection looks like high school politics.

no one with even rudimentary understanding of science and the scientific method would consider climate science 'settled'. that other fields are willing to ignore the travesty happening with the cult leaders like Michael Mann is appalling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 30, 2016)

westwall said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Old fool, most of the people giving lectures at the fall meetings of the AGU do teach hard science at the graduate level. And I have yet to see one of them denying that the climate is getting warmer, changing in ways that are detrimental to us, and that we are the primary cause of that change. I have posted many videos of the lectures from those meetings here, with the learned men stating exactly that. Now, can you post something from the AGU that states otherwise? 

Both the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America, have statements that AGW is real and an increasing problem. That is the consensus among geologists in the US.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2016)

mamooth said:


> How about you first explain to us what that has to do with anything?  That's because it looks like just another desperate deflection on your part, one you're throwing out because you're getting humiliated again.[/quote[
> 
> If you weren't such an idiot, old woman, you would know...but since you are, I will explain...in crick's signature, he states that I believe that the second law of thermodynamics routinely violates special relativity...  Special relativity only applies when the curvature of space time due to gravity is so small that it can be discounted as non existent...
> 
> It made no sense that he would make such an idiot claim in the first place....it is completely unsurprising that you would fail to see why it was an idiot claim or understand why I asked him the question.....clearly crick doesn't have a clue by making such a moronic claim....clearly you don't have a clue because you had to ask.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 30, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



My theory?  My theory is absent, I don't have one and have never posted anything to suggest I have.  I simply don't believe pollutants are benign.

And, you don't have a theory, you are an absolute believer that hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists in a number of disciplines, are conspiring to attribute human activity to climate change, so as to receive grant money to study its effects.

Only a fool ignores the recent weather patterns and cherry picks data to support their _iconoclastic_ theory, and only a fool believes and echoes the propaganda guised in academic parlance, claiming the burning of carbon based products is without a cost to our planet.

Only a fool believes oil and coal are the future and given to us by God for our indiscriminate use; and only a fool argues that green and renewal sources of energy are a foolish endeavor and a wasteful expenditure.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Unlike you, I actually read the AGW Cult papers and have been for 15 years now. In all that time, I've never seen one single repeatable lab experiment linking minuscule changes in an atmospheric trace element to changes in temperature; hence my skepticism.

We can trap anti-protons, we can replicate conditions a nano-second after the Big Bang, so why can't we control for varying CO2 levels from 280 to 400PPM? Maybe, just maybe, the AGWCult tried it, found those changes has absolutely no effect on temperature and declared the science settled


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Climate change is not a hard science


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 30, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Of course not.  The disciplines of climate change are "hard science:

*Earth Sciences*
*Biological Sciences*
*Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis*
Unlike the soft science of economic theories, which many on the far right right claim are immutable, such as Reaganomics.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Climatology is a soft science as well.  Bet you didn't know that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...








Yes graduate level CLIMATOLOGY classes.  Trenberth would be lost in a graduate level geology class.  Hell, he we would be completely out of his depth in an optical crystallography class which is THIRD year geology.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 30, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



When did Climatology become a social science?  Ah ha, you must have attended Columbia Continuation with PoliticalChic, that explains all those idiot-grams.


----------



## westwall (Jan 30, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...












Climatology became a social science the millisecond it considered "consensus" to be its prime directive.  Consensus is as far from EXACT as you can get.  What's the Speed of Light?  That is an EXACT number.  Care to point out anything that climatology has given us that is EXACT.

Climatology is a "subjective" science.  That's what makes it a soft science silly boy.  A "hard" science deals in EXACT facts and predictions.  Climatology on the other hand is all about vague "could be's" and "suggests", and we can't ever forget "may".....these are the words of a soft science and even more famously the words of charlatans.

I suggest you look up the difference between EXACT sciences and INEXACT sciences.  Tell us what you learn.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 30, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Math? So you should know that 62>58, or is that the advanced class?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 30, 2016)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Yo, yo, yo, what is it you're going to do? I'm sorry, but your internet rant seems like, well a rant. What exactly do you think you're going to do to me since I don't believe in your religion? Please, enlighten me.

BTW you fk, I have eight grandchildren! What is it you got?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Again, what is the threat? What does 1.6f do to my weather that is different than my past 35 years in Chicago? I still hear crickets!!!!


----------



## basquebromance (Jan 30, 2016)




----------

