# Global warming in action....right before our eyes



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.

Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
*"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*

*At least 26 dead as historic floods sweep West Virginia*
USA TODAY
Doug Stanglin and Doyle Rice,
June 25, 2016
(excerpts)
*The bodies of three more victims of West Virginia's historic flooding were found overnight Saturday, according to county authorities, raising the death toll to 26 from torrential rains and high water that has destroyed more than 100 homes, washed out scores of roads and bridges and knocked out power to tens of thousands of people. On Saturday, President Obama declared a major disaster for West Virginia and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the counties of Greenbrier, Kanawha and Nicholas.

...At least 23 others, including an 8-year-old boy who was wading in a foot of water, were killed in the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday, according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said. The heavy rains and rising water swamped towns, inundated a two-century old resort and trapped 500 people in a shopping center when a bridge was washed out. The storm also knocked out power to 66,000 West Virginians, and forced the shut off of gas in the town of White Sulphur Springs, Tomblin said.

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin told reporters Friday that damage is widespread and devastating. Saying search and rescue missions are still a top priority, Tomblin issued a state of emergency for 44 counties and deployed 150 members of the National Guard to help emergency responders. The Governer said 60 roads were closed, many of them destroyed, bridges were knocked out, and homes were burned down and washed off foundations. Tens of thousands of people were without power, and several roads were impassable, the Associated Press reported. One dramatic video posted on the WVMetro news website showed a burning house floating down Howard's Creek in White Sulphur Springs.






FLOOD EMERGENCY: Clendenin,WV can only be accessed by helicopter. *


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.

Can you pick a story and stick with it?

We never had floods before gullible warming


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.


You start lying with your first two words, CrazyFruitcake, followed by your usual ignorant twaddle.

*Heavy Flooding and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?*
Union of Concerned Scientists
*Climate change increases the probability of some types of weather. Recent heavy rains and flooding in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains are consistent with a warming planet, and such events are expected to become more common over time.

As average temperatures in regions across the country have gone up, more rain has fallen during the heaviest downpours. Very heavy precipitation events, defined as the heaviest one percent, now drop 67 percent more precipitation in the Northeast, 31 percent more in the Midwest and 15 percent more in the Great Plains, including the Dakotas, than they did 50 years ago.

This happens because warmer air holds more moisture. This fact is apparent when you see water vapor hanging in the air after turning off a hot shower. When warm air holding moisture meets cooler air, the moisture condenses into tiny droplets that float in the air. If the drops get bigger and become heavy enough, they fall as precipitation. 

If the emissions that cause global warming continue unabated, scientists expect the amount of rainfall during the heaviest precipitation events across country to increase more than 40 percent by the end of the century. Even if we dramatically curbed emissions, these downpours will still increase, but by only a little more than 20 percent. Regardless of what action we take to cut emissions, municipalities that are vulnerable to heavy precipitation events should plan for more flooding. Any efforts to reduce emissions would make it easier for them to adapt. 

Climate science contrarians often argue that it is impossible for global warming to cause both heavy precipitation and drought. They are either misinformed or purposefully confusing the issue. Drought is a measure of annual precipitation, not the intensity of precipitation events. 

As a consequence of global warming, annual precipitation levels have increased in many parts of the country and decreased in others. Between 1958 and 2007, for example, the Southeast and Southwest experienced more drought even while overall precipitation across the country increased an average of five percent. These precipitation changes, along with temperature shifts, threaten agriculture and have contributed to the northerly movement of plant hardiness zones. 

It is worth noting that last months blizzard in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast also is consistent with global warming. That heavy precipitation event just happened to occur in winter rather than spring, bringing snow rather than rain. Global warming will likely make the winter season shorter and colder weather less common, but winter will not disappear altogether. 

Global warming also is causing measurable season creep worldwide. Spring weather is arriving earlier and fall weather is arriving later than ever before. If temperatures were a bit colder in the Northeast or Midwest, those regions would have been contending with a massive snowfall instead of heavy rains.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 27, 2016)

Fucking cultists, cold is caused by warming, floods are caused by warming, drought by warming. Declining ocean levels by warming, increasing ocean levels by warming.

And of course, the heartbreak of psoriasis is caused by global warming.

Shit, if only the AGW clowns were as rational as the Scientologists or Jehovas Witnesses.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

Is it me or does the Insane Global warming Cult just blame every top weather story on the Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster, the CO2 molecule.

Fires, global warming 
Floods,  global warming 

It's just ridiculous


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fucking cultists, cold is caused by warming, floods are caused by warming, drought by warming. Declining ocean levels by warming, increasing ocean levels by warming. And of course, the heartbreak of psoriasis is caused by global warming.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Is it me or does the Insane Global warming Cult just blame every top weather story on the Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster, the CO2 molecule. Fires, global warming Floods,  global warming It's just ridiculous. Shit, if only the AGW clowns were as rational as the Scientologists or Jehovas Witnesses.....



And the retard chorus spews more deranged nonsense in the face of the evidence that they are deluded, confused, anti-science, crackpot cultists.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Read stuff posted up by the alarmist k00ks and one would think that floods are some kind of  new phenomenon in the US......or anywhere for that matter. Read in link below about the Heppner Flood in Oregon in 1903.



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kraemer.gif.html']
	
[/URL]


[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kraemer.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Kraemer.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Kraemer.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Kraemer.gif[/IMG][/URL]']





[/URL]']sIcK-ass floods have been happening since the dawn of time............but not to the k00ks.]But just like the schoolage that has been done by climate skeptics in here with respect to drought, floods have been around forever and will  be around long after we are in our boxes. The AGW bozo's want you to get all fucked up about this shit but as they have  been exposed on the drought fraud, so they are exposed here with floods.........

Floods in the United States: 1901–2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThese frauds never want you exploring the history of any of this shit..........because then their shit gets decimated!![/URL][/URL]


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking cultists, cold is caused by warming, floods are caused by warming, drought by warming. Declining ocean levels by warming, increasing ocean levels by warming. And of course, the heartbreak of psoriasis is caused by global warming.
> ...


_Pretty sure they're just anti-myth. Even if Global Warming wasn't a myth, it would be a myth that humans cause it._


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...



Geo-engineering via the use of aerosol nano-particulate metals used in conjunction with ionospheric heaters with the weird weather anomalies is the cause. They have been able to manipulate weather fronts in earnest for at least the last 25 years but they have been working on managing the weather since the late 40's. If we had an over abundance of c02, trees would not be dying at an alarming rate, we would have more rain not less. California is being intentionally droughted out so Monsanto can come in and buy up the farmland on the cheap. The aluminum corruption of the soil is killing organic farmers as one of the particulates being sprayed is aluminum. Guess what? Monsanto has hybrid seeds that are drought and aluminum resistant! What are the odds??? Hmmmm? Soil and water samples do not lie because they show an extremely unhealthy level of aluminum, barium and strontium. Until you figure in the aerosol spraying that began in earnest in every NATO country since 1997? I don't wnt to hear diddly squat about the alleged "Co2 problem. It is simply being used as a front to manipulate the dumbed down masses into believing that it's THEIR carbon footprint causing this. You might say that I am expert when it comes to this particular issue and especially when it comes to ionospheric heaters and the chemtrailing.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> 
> Can you pick a story and stick with it?
> 
> We never had floods before gullible warming


I thought it causes ice-ages.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods



Listen,

Global warming causes extremes within the short term weather pattern. One area of our planet could during a period of time have stronger ridges of high pressure = more extreme droughts under them, while other areas will have the extreme rain. Learn the subject as you don't seem to understand it very well at all. There's a reason one area has droughts but another can be have record rainfall, and both can happen at the same time on our planet based on the meteorological setup.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have  increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> *Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air*......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...





skookerasbil said:


> Read stuff posted up by the alarmist k00ks and one would think that floods are some kind of  new phenomenon in the US......or anywhere for that matter.


*"Although the denier cultists [like kookpuke] will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air."*

*Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming*
Climatic Change - Volume 132, Issue 4, pp 501-515
Jascha Lehmann, Dim Coumou, Katja Frieler
October 2015

*Abstract
In the last decade record-breaking rainfall events have occurred in many places around the world causing severe impacts to human society and the environment including agricultural losses and floodings. There is now medium confidence that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to changes in heavy precipitation events at the global scale. Here, we present the first analysis of record-breaking daily rainfall events using observational data. We show that over the last three decades the number of record-breaking events has significantly increased in the global mean. Globally, this increase has led to 12 % more record-breaking rainfall events over 1981–2010 compared to those expected in stationary time series. The number of record-breaking rainfall events peaked in 2010 with an estimated 26 % chance that a new rainfall record is due to long-term climate change. This increase in record-breaking rainfall is explained by a statistical model which accounts for the warming of air and associated increasing water holding capacity only. Our results suggest that whilst the number of rainfall record-breaking events can be related to natural multi-decadal variability over the period from 1901 to 1980, observed record-breaking rainfall events significantly increased afterwards consistent with rising temperatures.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 27, 2016)

Listen,

Global warming causes extremes within the short term weather pattern.....because Crick said so


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fucking cultists, cold is caused by warming, floods are caused by warming, drought by warming. Declining ocean levels by warming, increasing ocean levels by warming. And of course, the heartbreak of psoriasis is caused by global warming.





CrusaderFrank said:


> Is it me or does the Insane Global warming Cult just blame every top weather story on the Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster, the CO2 molecule. Fires, global warming Floods,  global warming It's just ridiculous. Shit, if only the AGW clowns were as rational as the Scientologists or Jehovas Witnesses.....





RollingThunder said:


> And the retard chorus spews more deranged nonsense in the face of the evidence that they are deluded, confused, anti-science, crackpot cultists.


_


Pumpkin Row said:



			Pretty sure they're just anti-myth. Even if Global Warming wasn't a myth, it would be a myth that humans cause it.
		
Click to expand...

_
Pretty sure you are another deranged denier cult dingbat, PumkinHead.

Human caused global warming is quite real, as virtually the entire world scientific affirms.....your delusion that you know anything at all about this matter is the "_myth_", little retard.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Listen,
> 
> Global warming causes extremes within the short term weather pattern.....because Crick said so



and what more proof is needed then that !


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Human caused global warming is quite real, as virtually the entire world scientific affirms.....your delusion that you know anything at all about this matter is the "_myth_", little retard.


_Weird how they confirm something they get grants for._


RollingThunder said:


> Pretty sure you are another deranged denier cult dingbat, PumkinHead.



_That's such a cute nickname<3_


----------



## Zander (Jun 27, 2016)

It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
It's getting colder!! Globull Warming!
It's flooding!!!! Globull Warming!
It's a drought!! Globull Warming!
It's raining! Globull Warming!
It's snowing !! Globull Warming!
I have poop in my pants!! Globull Warming!
Doubt Globull Warming?? You're a racist!!! 

Meanwhile whenever I drive my truck the big V-8 engine is running and burning shitloads of "carbon" fuels. When I fly my Cessna 182 (just for fun!) I burn shitloads of "carbon" fuel so I can buy a hamburger that I could make at home.  The best part? you enviro-nazi's can't do a fucking thing about it!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.





RollingThunder said:


> You start lying with your first two words, CrazyFruitcake, followed by your usual ignorant twaddle.
> 
> *Heavy Flooding and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?*
> Union of Concerned Scientists
> ...





Dale Smith said:


> Geo-engineering via the use of aerosol nano-particulate metals used in conjunction with ionospheric heaters with the weird weather anomalies is the cause. They have been able to manipulate weather fronts in earnest for at least the last 25 years but they have been working on managing the weather since the late 40's. If we had an over abundance of c02, trees would not be dying at an alarming rate, we would have more rain not less. California is being intentionally droughted out so Monsanto can come in and buy up the farmland on the cheap. The aluminum corruption of the soil is killing organic farmers as one of the particulates being sprayed is aluminum. Guess what? Monsanto has hybrid seeds that are drought and aluminum resistant! What are the odds??? Hmmmm? Soil and water samples do not lie because they show an extremely unhealthy level of aluminum, barium and strontium. Until you figure in the aerosol spraying that began in earnest in every NATO country since 1997? I don't wnt to hear diddly squat about the alleged "Co2 problem. It is simply being used as a front to manipulate the dumbed down masses into believing that it's THEIR carbon footprint causing this. You might say that I am expert when it comes to this particular issue and especially when it comes to ionospheric heaters and the chemtrailing.



And one of the mainstays of the AGW/CC denier cult, *a loony, anti-science, crackpot conspiracy theory wacko* pops up with more deranged bullshit and nonsense.....seems like maybe an 'Alex Jones' type nutjob this time.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...




I know more than you....infinitely more and especially when it comes to this topic. Like I stated earlier, water and soil samples do not lie. Debate me like a man or STFU, punkinpuss.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 27, 2016)

I hate to break it to you but historic floods happen all over the world every year. 
    A lot of it has to do with development not providing sufficient drainage.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 27, 2016)

Dumb republicans need to learn something about the jet stream and the effects of a changing climate. Anti-science party!!! Should be wiped out every last one of these kooks come election time.


----------



## chikenwing (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...


Right out of the blocks, you get the science wrong, warm/hot air cannot hold more water vapor,than cold air. It's the other way around.
This is basic earth science, getting this wrong,invalidate the rest of your rant


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...


_Apparently if we don't buy into a myth like all the gullible Liberals, we're suddenly anti-science._


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Dumb republicans need to learn something about the jet stream and the effects of a changing climate. Anti-science party!!! Should be wiped out every last one of these kooks come election time.




Funny, but when I produce evidence of unsafe levels of aluminum, srontium and barium in the water and soli? They say nothing...isn't that "science"????? You know, taking water and soil samples to an independent lab and getting it tested???? Isn't that science? Or how about videos like this that are being recoreded all over NATO countries showing the spraying of nano-particulate metals....isn't that "science"????? Seems to me that you are very subjective as to what "science" is unless it pushes your narrative and can negate it...tough shit but the facts are what they are.


----------



## westwall (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...






Sooooo, I guess the great flood of 1862 that turned the entire Central Valley of California into a lake didn't happen.  

The level of hyperbole, and sheer outright bullshit you spew is amazing to behold.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Jun 27, 2016)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> ...



     Yeah....the last Houston flood liberals took this same route with Gullible Warming.(cant remember who posted that term but i'm stealing it)
     It was great showing pics of flooding in Houston from the first days of it's founding.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...




Yup, I always wondered why in the dictionary your picture was beside the word gullible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...


*
As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer
*
How much warmer?
How do you know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods
> ...



*Global warming causes extremes within the short term weather pattern.*

What is the perfect global temperature for minimal swings in short term weather patterns?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I live a stones throw from NYC........look up in the sky on any clear day and its like an etch-a-sketch board with the jets leaving these mega-vapor trails about 30 miles long..........hang up in the atmosphere for an hour!! When I was a kid.....a vapor trail lasted a few minutes max..........

duh


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...





s0n.......conservatives know more about science than the progressive dims........... 

Yale Study Finds Tea Partiers Know More About Science Than Liberals | Conservative Byte




And like I said.........makey uppey stuff on current flooding is ghey   

*California Flood – 1909[edit]*
The storm extended from Fort Ross on the coast to the Feather River basin. LaPorte, in the Feather River basin, had 1,458 mm (57.4 in) of rain in 20 days, an event with a return period of 12,000 years. The flood episodes of 1907 and 1909 in California resulted in an overhaul of planned statewide flood control designs





Floods in the United States: 1901–2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Go this this link ^^ and check out some of the mega-floods in the early 1900's!!!



You see folks.........making out like major flooding is some kind of modern phenomenon is typical fraudulent bs made up by global warming alarmists..........just like the drought bs.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Who's not winning??


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Zander said:


> It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
> It's getting colder!! Globull Warming!
> It's flooding!!!! Globull Warming!
> It's a drought!! Globull Warming!
> ...





LMAO............And they are losing huge...................


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html]
	
[/URL]


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]






[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/bowling.gif.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Especially causes extreme short term weather patterns when you are spraying nano-particulate metals into the upper atmosphere and zapping them with ionispheric heaters and that is a fact. Consider yourself "schooled".


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

By the way.............people will notice that the global warming alarmists ALWAYS post up current crap..........never anything in context able to answer the ? "As compared to what?"

Place their shit under a historical microscope ( see above links ), and its crash and burn time!!!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

Zander said:


> It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
> It's getting colder!! Globull Warming!
> It's flooding!!!! Globull Warming!
> It's a drought!! Globull Warming!
> ...




Back in 2004, leftards were saying that hurricanes would keep getting more powerful and hitting us like Katrina....when it didn't? They blamed the lack of hurricanes (and I kid you not) on "global warming"....there's nothing it can't do or be blamed for......seriously...the jokes practically write themselves....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...





Dale.........outstanding post.........but you will notice, not a single global warming alarmist k00k acknowledges this stuff..........completely ignored.

Because even considering it annihilates the established narrative.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
> ...




Dale........we make a living making laughingstocks of these cheesedicks in here.........we laugh each our collective balls off each day while their heads explode with anger and misery. Its a  hoot..........stop in more often.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale and Skook both think chemtrails are real. That's a fine example of denier intelligence. Deniers, do the rest of you agree? What's that? You won't criticize one of your fellow cultists unless they pass the totally-crazy barrier, and chemtrails isn't crazy enough?

Those are the real issues, how most deniers fail so badly at science, and embrace loopy conspiracy theories instead. And since they weren't reasoned into their religious beliefs, they can't be reasoned out of them. There's no point in reasoning with them as if they were rational adults, because they're not rational adults.

Now, the increase moisture content of the troposphere has been measured. Not that deniers will care, as evidence is only something dirty liberals care about.

Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
---
Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate.
---


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb republicans need to learn something about the jet stream and the effects of a changing climate. Anti-science party!!! Should be wiped out every last one of these kooks come election time.
> ...



That water vapor, it's all for you. Derp!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


*
Especially causes extreme short term weather patterns when you are spraying nano-particulate metals
*
Do they use special tanks, or is it added to the fuel?
*
and zapping them with ionispheric heaters*

I bought one of those at Costco.
*
Consider yourself "schooled"
*
You're "funny".


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.





RollingThunder said:


> You start lying with your first two words, CrazyFruitcake, followed by your usual ignorant twaddle.
> 
> *Heavy Flooding and Global Warming: Is There a Connection?*
> Union of Concerned Scientists
> ...





Dale Smith said:


> Geo-engineering via the use of aerosol nano-particulate metals used in conjunction with ionospheric heaters with the weird weather anomalies is the cause. They have been able to manipulate weather fronts in earnest for at least the last 25 years but they have been working on managing the weather since the late 40's. If we had an over abundance of c02, trees would not be dying at an alarming rate, we would have more rain not less. California is being intentionally droughted out so Monsanto can come in and buy up the farmland on the cheap. The aluminum corruption of the soil is killing organic farmers as one of the particulates being sprayed is aluminum. Guess what? Monsanto has hybrid seeds that are drought and aluminum resistant! What are the odds??? Hmmmm? Soil and water samples do not lie because they show an extremely unhealthy level of aluminum, barium and strontium. Until you figure in the aerosol spraying that began in earnest in every NATO country since 1997? I don't wnt to hear diddly squat about the alleged "Co2 problem. It is simply being used as a front to manipulate the dumbed down masses into believing that it's THEIR carbon footprint causing this. You might say that I am expert when it comes to this particular issue and especially when it comes to ionospheric heaters and the chemtrailing.





RollingThunder said:


> And one of the mainstays of the AGW/CC denier cult, *a loony, anti-science, crackpot conspiracy theory wacko* pops up with more deranged bullshit and nonsense.....seems like maybe an 'Alex Jones' type nutjob this time.





Dale Smith said:


> I know more than you....infinitely more and especially when it comes to this topic.


Flat-Earther idiots like you always say that, DumbSchmuck....even though, in reality, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, you poor paranoid conspiracy theory wacko.....your insane insistence that you "_know infinitely more_" than everybody else is entirely based on your severe affliction by the *Dunning-Kruger Effect*.....and belied by every bit of ignorant crackpot bullshit filling your every post.

*The reality of CO2 driven global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes represents the strong conclusion of the world's climate scientists and is affirmed by virtually the entire rest of world scientific community.* 

The sources for your crazy crapola are undoubtedly crackpot conspiracy websites, like ol' *Alex Jones* and his PrisonPlanet/InfoWars baloney. You seem to be a very gullible retard.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jun 27, 2016)

There is no doubt that the globe is warming.

It is unlikely that we will ever know why however.

It is extremely unlikely that the species comparable in scale to ants but called humans who inhabit it together with millions of other species can influence the climate one way or the other however.

Carbon tax is just more taxation.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 27, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So soil and water sample results by independent labs are just "crackpot"????  Listen up, you stupid fuck....I have been on this issue for the last 4 years and I have more knowledge and information than you could even digest and I know how far back this goes. You can't debate me on this on the best day you ever had. You are an infant........


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


And your proof of that is what, kiddo? Perhaps you should learn not the parrot the dumbest adults in the room.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> There is no doubt that the globe is warming.
> 
> It is unlikely that we will ever know why however.
> 
> ...


Another vacuum skull. Tyndall gave us the why in 1858, Arrhenius gave us the numbers for that why in 1896. And fools like you continue to give us ignorant blather.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And no sane person wants to hear diddly about your crackpot conspiracy stories.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Zander said:


> It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
> It's getting colder!! Globull Warming!
> It's flooding!!!! Globull Warming!
> It's a drought!! Globull Warming!
> ...


You have poop between your ears, asshole. Virtually every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University have policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That you retarded "Conservatives" absolutely do not believe in reality does not change that reality one bit.

One of the earliest predictions concerning what global warming would cause is wider and wilder swings in weather with an overall warming, and that is exactly what we are seeing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


But people like you sure as hell do. I do believe that I will listen to the real scientists, people with a reputation for integrity and credibility.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


_The fact that ice sheets are the thickest they've ever been, and satellite data shows no abnormal global increase in heat for 17 years... also that to get the results they have been recently, they've had to edit the data to show heat... though, as far as the editing goes, whether you believe the scientists about having to edit it for 'science reasons' or if they're just tampering because they aren't getting what they want is totally up to you. _





_The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. That is more than half the entire 423-month satellite record. The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began, it literally couldn't have been our fault. The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century, which is well within natural variability and has nothing to do with us. The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England, which was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century. Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century, and the fastest warming rate, lasting ten years or more, since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006, it was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century. In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century. The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted. In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction. Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual. The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950. The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950. Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of five major datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 3 months._

_It's not happening, period._

_You're welcome._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> ...


*River ice responses to a warming Arctic—recent evidence from Russian rivers
A I Shiklomanov1,2 and R B Lammers1

Published 31 March 2014 • 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd 
*

*Abstract*
This paper looks at the response of river ice to recent warming in the Arctic at six major downstream gauges on large Russian rivers flowing to the Arctic Ocean. For the Severnaya Dvina, Ob, Yenisey, Lena, Yana and Kolyma we determine how river ice has changed in recent years and we try to understand the underlying causes of those changes. Long-term variability and trends in beginning and ending dates of ice events, duration of ice conditions, and maximum ice thickness were analyzed over 1955–2012. Significant changes in timing of ice events and a decrease in ice thickness were found for the five Siberian rivers. Duration of ice conditions decreased from 7 days for the Severnaya Dvina, Lena and Yenisey to almost 20 days for the Ob at Salekhard. The change in timing of ice events is consistent with changes in regional air temperature, which has significantly increased at each of these river gauges, except Lena-Kusur. The primary cause of the considerable increase in maximum ice thickness was not identified. Variation of mean winter air temperature and river discharge do not correlate well with maximum ice thickness and it is assumed the influence of specific local conditions can play a more important role in ice formation at these locations. Understanding this interrelationship across the Eurasian pan-Arctic using more comprehensive data archives for river ice and discharge is therefore needed.

River ice responses to a warming Arctic—recent evidence from Russian rivers - IOPscience

*Fair enough, let's have a look at the warming of the Arctic rivers.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> ...




NASA Earth Science News Team











Beaufort Sea surface temperatures where Canada's Mackenzie River discharges into the Arctic Ocean, measured by NASA's MODIS instrument. The top image is from June 14, 2012. In the bottom image (July 5, 2012), warm river waters had broken through a shoreline sea ice barrier to enhance sea ice melt. *Image Credit: NASA*
The heat from warm river waters draining into the Arctic Ocean is contributing to the melting of Arctic sea ice each summer, a new NASA study finds.


A research team led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used satellite data to measure the surface temperature of the waters discharging from a Canadian river into the icy Beaufort Sea during the summer of 2012. They observed a sudden influx of warm river waters into the sea that rapidly warmed the surface layers of the ocean, enhancing the melting of sea ice. A paper describing the study is now published online in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.






NASA MODIS movie from June 14, 2012, shows a blue band of sea ice stuck to the Mackenzie River shoreline. The map fades, revealing the seafloor depth below. The band of stuck sea ice closely follows the highlighted 25-meter-depth contour line. The seafloor topography helps delay river discharge. Image Credit: NASA/International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic OceanSee animation
This Arctic process contrasts starkly with those that occur in Antarctica, a frozen continent without any large rivers. The sea ice cover in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has been relatively stable, while Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past decade.


“River discharge is a key factor contributing to the high sensitivity of Arctic sea ice to climate change,” said Nghiem. “We found that rivers are effective conveyers of heat across immense watersheds in the Northern Hemisphere. These watersheds undergo continental warming in summertime, unleashing an enormous amount of energy into the Arctic Ocean, and enhancing sea ice melt. You don’t have this in Antarctica.”

The team said the impacts of these warm river waters are increasing due to three factors. First, the overall volume of water discharged from rivers into the Arctic Ocean has increased. Second, rivers are getting warmer as their watersheds (drainage basins) heat up. And third, Arctic sea ice cover is becoming thinner and more fragmented, making it more vulnerable to rapid melt. In addition, as river heating contributes to earlier and greater loss of the Arctic’s reflective sea ice cover in summer, the amount of solar heat absorbed into the ocean increases, causing even more sea ice to melt.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Warm rivers play role in Arctic sea ice melt

*Do you want more?*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...





chikenwing said:


> Right out of the blocks, you get the science wrong, warm/hot air cannot hold more water vapor,than cold air. It's the other way around.
> This is basic earth science, getting this wrong,invalidate the rest of your rant



Oh my, another retard, deluded by the Dunning-Kruger Effect into imagining that he knows something when he actually doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

No, little chickenshit, you are wrong. Completely wrong! Warmer air does indeed hold more water vapour than colder air....basic physics. You are an imbecile.

Learn something real about *saturated water vapour pressure and temperature*.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Dumb republicans need to learn something about the jet stream and the effects of a changing climate. Anti-science party!!! Should be wiped out every last one of these kooks come election time.





Dale Smith said:


> Funny, but when I produce evidence....



So far, you have never "_produced_" anything even remotely resembling actual "_evidence_" for your demented conspiracy theories, DumbSchmuck.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


RSS, eh. OK, RSS it is. And I'll even post a link so that you can check.

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems






*So we can see that the water vapor is increasing.






That is pretty definate warming.






Definate cooling in the stratosphere, exactly as predicted.

Now there has always been a gap between the satellite measured troposphere temperatures, and that measured at surface systems. *


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


_I did just open my post with the fact that they're modifying the received temperatures, and that whether or not you trust them is up to you. They gave a reason for it, don't recall what it was. I also pointed out several other things you have yet to address. Also, you show that the north pole is warming, but according to NASA, the ice there is at its thickest since the 1970s. If it actually were warming, they'd be thinning._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > It's getting warmer!! Globull Warming!
> ...


Dumb fuck, the Atlantic is not the only ocean in the world. In fact, when you consider all the oceans in the world, the hurricanes have been getting more powerful and destructive.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


Kiddo, have you taken any college level science courses yet? High school level? And why do you post such obvious bullshit? 
The ice is not only thinning, it is radically reducing in volume.






PIOMAS April 2016


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







_According to NASA, they're actually getting thicker. Receded, like, a tiny bit... then went back to where it was before._


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> 
> Can you pick a story and stick with it?
> 
> We never had floods before gullible warming


You consistently show your ignorance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


Now that is total sea ice area. And it shows a definate downward trend. Learn to read graphs, failure to be able to read a simple graph won't fly in any science course.










Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


_I read the article and didn't bother check the graph before linking it, it turned out the link was to show the predictions instead of the actual collected data. My bad. The second page pointed out that there aren't any available graphs for the current ice level._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


OK, you are young, and still learning,. But in any of the science courses that I have taken in college, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology, such an error would earn an F and considerable disdain from the instructor. 

Look, I see you repeating, blindly, a lot of bullshit from the right wing nut jobs. Here is some real information from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world. It outlines the history of the investigation of GHGs, and what we are seeing at present.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I don't see anything breaking out the natural warming versus the human caused warming.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

The theory of Global Warming included heat "rising," because "rising" means going "up" to the Arctic.  It must mean that....

because Antarctic Sea Ice is growing...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The theory of Global Warming included heat "rising," because "rising" means going "up" to the Arctic.  It must mean that....
> 
> because Antarctic Sea Ice is growing...



*The theory of Global Warming included heat "rising," because "rising" means going "up" to the Arctic.*

That's not what "heat rising" means.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

*Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

James Hansen1,2,*, 
Larissa Nazarenko1,2, 
Reto Ruedy3, 
Makiko Sato1,2, 
Josh Willis4, 
Anthony Del Genio1,5,
Dorothy Koch1,2, 
Andrew Lacis1,5, 
Ken Lo3, 
Surabi Menon6, 
Tica Novakov6, 
Judith Perlwitz1,2, 
Gary Russell1, 
Gavin A. Schmidt1,2, 
Nicholas Tausnev3
*

*Abstract*
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

*There you go.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

*An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations

Graeme L. Stephens,
Juilin Li,
Martin Wild,
Carol Anne Clayson,
Norman Loeb,
Seiji Kato,
Tristan L'Ecuyer,
Paul W. Stackhouse Jr,
Matthew Lebsock
& Timothy Andrews

Affiliations
Corresponding author
Nature Geoscience

5,

691–696

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1580
Received

08 November 2011 
Accepted

13 August 2012 
Published online

23 September 2012
*

*Abstract*

Abstract• 
References• 
Author information• 
Supplementary information
Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth's climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

*Pretty definate numbers here.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The theory of Global Warming included heat "rising," because "rising" means going "up" to the Arctic.  It must mean that....
> 
> because Antarctic Sea Ice is growing...


Anarctic sea ice slightly below normal at present.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

A follow-up to the OP.

*Cleanup Begins After Nearly 1 in 1,000 Year Flood Event Kills 23, Leaves Thousands Homeless in West Virginia*
The Weather Channel - weather.com
By Eric Chaney and Sean Breslin
Jun 28 2016 
(excerpts)
*More heavy rainfall arrived in soggy West Virginia on Monday, bringing additional precipitation and flooding to a region that's dealing with tragedy and a prolonged cleanup. The widespread flooding killed 23, left thousands homeless and prompted Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to declare a federal disaster. According to the National Weather Service, "extremely rare amounts of rainfall" swamped entire areas of the state, washing out roadways, flooding and destroying structures and cutting off power to thousands. "Return period data suggest this would be nearly a 1 in a thousand year event," the NWS said in a statement. 

Thousands of homes and businesses were damaged or destroyed when up to 9 inches of rain fell in a short span, causing perhaps the worst flooding West Virginia has seen. President Barack Obama signed a major disaster declaration Saturday, allowing federal money to be used to help individuals with emergency medical support, housing and a number of other immediate needs. Some relief workers who have provided aid during other natural disasters say this event is as bad as anything they've ever seen. "It parallels Katrina," Cindy Chamberlain, who oversees a donation center in Rainelle, told the Associated Press. "It is that bad."

(MORE: At Least 235 People Have Been Killed By Flooding in the U.S. in Nearly 18 Months)*

We can expect to see a lot more extreme weather events similar to this throughout the Summer and Fall.....just in time for the election, when the American people are going to KNOW that the Repukingcon global warming/climate change deniers are insane stooges for the fossil fuel industry (who are still making huge profits selling the stuff that is causing the warming and these destructive events).

The Republicon Party Is in its death throes. The T'Rump is just a symptom of their insanity and corruption.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> And the retard chorus spews more deranged nonsense in the face of the evidence that they are deluded, confused, anti-science, crackpot cultists.



Again, if you cultists were as rational and grounded in reality as the Heavens Gate or Jonestown cults, we might be able to communicate with you. Alas, you have utterly no grasp on reality and spend your days in Gaia filled fairy tales.

Note the drooling retard who posted the OP. This insane cultist post that his goddess is working "right before our eyes." But does the snivling little moron offer this amazing proof that his religion IZ TWO the real faith?

Fuck no, we just get the same tired bullshit that his church chants incessantly. Not a shred of evidence, just the usual, self-serving rationalizations of weather patterns.

You are no different that the fool with the "End is NEAR" sign who wanders around shrieking at light posts to REPENT.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> 
> Can you pick a story and stick with it?
> 
> We never had floods before gullible warming




The poor loons can't tell the difference between Weather and real Climate Change.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...





westwall said:


> Sooooo, I guess the great flood of 1862 that turned the entire Central Valley of California into a lake didn't happen.


As I said in the OP....*Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air...*

And the walleyedretard pops up with another moronic 'straw-man' argument. I guess ol' walleyed is a retarded troll!









westwall said:


> The level of hyperbole, and sheer outright bullshit you spew is amazing to behold.


And there you go again, walleyed, talking to yourself like a moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2016)

boedicca said:


> [
> 
> The poor loons can't tell the difference between Weather and real Climate Change.



The poor loons can't come to grips with the fact that across 4.7 billion years, the ONLY constant to the climate of this planet has been change.

These insane cultists are truly convinced that they have tapped into a higher power that will allow them to control the climate, if only they can force others to obey the dictates of their religion and forgo knowledge in favor of primitive servitude. Their tepid goddess tells them that if we live in the forests as unthinking beasts, if we turn from our carbon sins of knowledge and technology, then Gaia will forgive us and stop the warming trend that has gone on for the last 400 years.

They are simply insane, less rational than the Jonestown cultists.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 28, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Throughout the existence of humanity, charlatans and power-mongers have used the Thunder Gods or some other Imaginary Threat to foster fear among The People...with the agenda of controlling and extracting tribute from them.  AGW is just a 21st Century Thunder God.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I thought global warming causes fires and droughts.
> ...




Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?


.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> _I did just open my post with the fact that they're modifying the received temperatures, and that whether or not you trust them is up to you._


Yes, by making the past look warmer, and thus making the current warming look smaller. That simple fact destroys the basis of the denier cult's primary conspiracy theory, so they simply lie big and often by pretending the exact opposite of reality is true.

You're getting talking points from WUWT. Understand that WUWT is a pack of kooks, fraudsters, authoritarian thugs and paid shills, always raving about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. Whether you trust them is up to you. Just ask yourself this. What's more likely?

A. A vast secret global conspiracy composed of millions of people exists, and only a tiny handful of far right-wing political extremists understands the RealTruth.

B. Deniers have it wrong.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods





Matthew said:


> Listen,
> 
> Global warming causes extremes within the short term weather pattern. One area of our planet could during a period of time have stronger ridges of high pressure = more extreme droughts under them, while other areas will have the extreme rain. Learn the subject as you don't seem to understand it very well at all. There's a reason one area has droughts but another can be have record rainfall, and both can happen at the same time on our planet based on the meteorological setup.





Dale Smith said:


> Especially causes extreme short term weather patterns when you are spraying nano-particulate metals into the upper atmosphere and zapping them with ionispheric heaters and that is a fact. Consider yourself "schooled".



More of the DumbSchmuck's crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit.

Consider yourself "retarded"!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?



Your denier cult motto is "Don't let facts get in the way of being a good rightwingnut reality-denying nutjob".


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?
> ...




What does that have to do with the fact we have had forrest fires, drought and all the rest in the past? Queen chicken little of the AGW cult......

.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > _I did just open my post with the fact that they're modifying the received temperatures, and that whether or not you trust them is up to you._
> ...


_Oh, I thought you were describing the government in your post, for a second there. Since they're fraudsters, authoritarian thugs, and paid shills. It's more likely that it's a global conspiracy because every government can benefit from this, since the gullible people will demand something be done about it, allowing government power to expand, and the scientists make money off of this through grants._


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2016)

AGWCult is nothing more than fudged data and grabbing the top weather story and labeling it "Global Climate Warming Change" or whatever they call to today

They can't even have a consistent name for their fake "science"


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> A follow-up to the OP.
> 
> *Cleanup Begins After Nearly 1 in 1,000 Year Flood Event Kills 23, Leaves Thousands Homeless in West Virginia*
> The Weather Channel - weather.com
> ...




Same old song and dance.



*According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, and the climate was much more stable.*

The animated gif below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture. There has been no change.




https://www.sandiegohistory.org/timeline/images/80-2860.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/090207-LaJollaCove.jpg


America’s largest and deadliest forest fire occurred this weekend in 1871, after weeks of intense heat, drought and wind.








15 Oct 1904 – Historic Forest Fires.


Chicago burned this weekend in 1871.






http://query.nytimes.com/






http://news.google.com/
Massive fires occurred in Minnesota in 1871






http://query.nytimes.com/
Florida was hit by two hurricanes within two weeks in August, 1871 – including a major hurricane. It has now been eight years since Florida was hit by any hurricane, and since the US was hit by a major hurricane.
In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Oh, I thought you were describing the government in your post, for a second there. Since they're fraudsters, authoritarian thugs, and paid shills. It's more likely that it's a global conspiracy because every government can benefit from this, since the gullible people will demand something be done about it, allowing government power to expand, and the scientists make money off of this through grants._



Since you're so proudly embracing a bizarre conspiracy theory which is contradicted by all the evidence, there's no point in treating you like a rational human being. Like the other hardcore denier conspiracy cultists, you're in the same category as flat earthers, chemtrail believers, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers and JFK assassination conspiracy theorists.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> The animated gif below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture. There has been no change.



This is the kind of stupid we're up against. Some deniers are so 'effin dumb, they don't understand that pictures comparing two different unknown tide stages are totally meaningless.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Back in 2004, leftards were saying that hurricanes would keep getting more powerful...



And, in the real world (not Denierstan) they have, DumbSchmuck. Too bad you are so severely retarded and such a crazy crackpot.

*Storms are Getting Stronger*
NASA Earth Observatory
*(Government Publication - Free To Reproduce - No Copyright Restrictions)
What exactly does it mean for storms to get “stronger”? Does it mean faster winds? A larger wind field? Lower pressure at the center? More rain and snowfall? Higher storm surges?

“You have to remember that storms aren’t one-dimensional,” says Del Genio. “There are many types of storms, and sorting out how aspects of each type respond to warming is where the science really gets interesting.”





As Sandy was moving up the U.S. East Coast, unusually warm ocean temperatures allowed the storm to stay strong after it left tropical waters. (Map by Robert Simmon, using data from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.)

Rising sea levels exacerbated Sandy’s storm surge, for example, a direct link between global warming and storm damage. And abnormally high sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic probably intensified the storm. But pinning all of Sandy’s fury—its hybrid nature, the scale of its winds, its unusual track—on global warming is premature, says Shepherd, the current president of the American Meteorological Society.

Weather forecasters use terms like snowstorms, derechos, hailstorms, rainstorms, blizzards, low-pressure systems, lightning storms, hurricanes, typhoons, nor‘easters, and twisters. Research meteorologists and climatologists have a simpler way of dividing up the world’s storms: thunderstorms, tropical cyclones, and extra-tropical cyclones. All are atmospheric disturbances that redistribute heat and produce some combination of clouds, precipitation, and wind.





Tropical cyclones, extra-tropical cyclones, and thunderstorms are the three fundamental types of storms studied by the climate change community. (Image ©2013 EUMETSAT.)

Thunderstorms are the smallest type, and they are often part of the larger storm systems (tropical and extra-tropical cyclones). All storms require moisture, energy, and certain wind conditions to develop, but the combination of ingredients varies depending on the type of storm and local meteorological conditions.

For example, thunderstorms form when a trigger—a cold front, converging near-surface winds, or rugged topography—destabilizes a mass of warm, humid air and causes it to rise. The air expands and cools as it ascends, increasing the humidity until the water vapor condenses into liquid droplets or ice crystals in precipitation-making clouds. The process of converting water vapor into liquid water or ice releases latent heat into the atmosphere. (If this doesn’t make sense, remember that the reverse—turning liquid water into water vapor by boiling it—requires heat).

Storms feed off of latent heat, which is why scientists think global warming is strengthening storms. Extra heat in the atmosphere or ocean nourishes storms; the more heat energy that goes in, the more vigorously a weather system can churn.





Thunderstorms derive their energy from the heat released by the condensation of water vapor. This “latent heat” energy drives thunderstorm clouds high into the atmosphere. Thunderstorms dissipate when the cold downdraft created by falling rain drops stifles rising warm air. (Image adapted from NOAA National Weather Service Life Cycle of a Thunderstorm.)

Already, there is evidence that the winds of some storms may be changing. A study based on more than two decades of satellite altimeter data (measuring sea surface height) showed that hurricanes intensify significantly faster now than they did 25 years ago. Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Another satellite-based study found that global wind speeds had increased by an average of 5 percent over the past two decades.

There is also evidence that extra water vapor in the atmosphere is making storms wetter. During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948. One analysis found that extreme downpours are happening 30 percent more often. Another study found that the largest storms now produce 10 percent more precipitation.





Increases in global temperature have raised atmospheric humidity. (Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center.)

William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960.

But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.)*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?





RollingThunder said:


> Your denier cult motto is "Don't let facts get in the way of being a good rightwingnut reality-denying nutjob".





bear513 said:


> What does that have to do with the fact we have had forrest fires, drought and all the rest in the past?



What does "_the fact that we have had forrest fires, drought and all the rest in the past_" have to do with the scientific fact that global warming is increasing the numbers and intensity of such events, dumbshit?

*Climate change is making floods, fires and droughts more frequent and severe.*
***
*More frequent and severe weather*
*NRDC*
(excerpts)
*Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. "Extreme weather events are costing more and more," says Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of billion-dollar weather disasters is expected to rise." According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2015 there were 10 weather and climate disaster events in the United States—including severe storms, floods, drought, and wildfires—that each caused at least $1 billion in losses. For context, each year from 1980 to 2015 averaged $5.2 billion in disasters (adjusted for inflation). If you zero in on the years between 2011 and 2015, you see an annual average cost of $10.8 billion.

The increasing number of droughts, intense storms, and floods we're seeing as our warming atmosphere holds—and then dumps—more moisture poses risks to public health and safety, too. Prolonged dry spells mean more than just scorched lawns. Drought conditions jeopardize access to clean drinking water, fuel out-of-control wildfires, and result in dust storms, extreme heat events, and flash flooding in the States. Elsewhere around the world, lack of water is a leading cause of death and serious disease. At the opposite end of the spectrum, heavier rains cause streams, rivers, and lakes to overflow, which damages life and property, contaminates drinking water, creates hazardous-material spills, and promotes mold infestation and unhealthy air. A warmer, wetter world is also a boon for food-borne and waterborne illnesses and disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

"Storms are getting stronger" over the "record warm oceans..."

This below is 8 months old...

LMFAO!!!

NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months

 As of today, it has been a record 118 months since the last major hurricane struck the continental United States, according to records kept by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, which list all hurricanes to strike the U.S. mainland going back to 1851


So, in conclusion, storms are getting stronger, except they aren't, because the oceans are warming, except they aren't, which is why we are having *A NEW ALL TIME RECORD LOW STAT ON 'CANES RIGHT NOW...*


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

And LaDexter again shows the kind of stupid we're up against, being he's a guy who thinks the continental USA is the whole planet.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> There is no doubt that the globe is warming. It is unlikely that we will ever know why however.



Idiotic anti-science ignorance spewed by someone too stupid to realize how ignorant they are.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And LaDexter again shows the kind of stupid we're up against, being he's a guy who thinks the continental USA is the whole planet.




We have satellite records since the 1970s, a historic low in Atlantic 'canes.

We have 180 years of data from land, apples to apples, and we are at AN ALL TIME LOW on that series...

Like other forms of CHERRY PICKING by the FRAUD, only the data showing growing 'canes matters, and the rest is just subjected to "corrections" (FUDGING).

The data has spoken - we are at a 180 year LOW in Atlantic 'canes, when our Tippy Toppiest "top climate scientists" are telling us the oceans and the atmosphere are "warming."  Bullshit.  Like the Marshall islands, the Tippys lie, fudge, and cherry pick, and hope you don't notice..


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

Again, dumbass, whole world.

Even for you, you're being remarkably stupid and dishonest.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Idiotic anti-science ignorance spewed by someone too stupid to realize how ignorant they are.




Parroting is idiotic.  Failing to answer questions is COWARDLY. You are 100% proof of both...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Again, dumbass, whole world.
> 
> Even for you, you're being remarkably stupid and dishonest.




Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other, and what does CO2 have to do with that??


LOL!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> And the retard chorus spews more deranged nonsense in the face of the evidence that they are deluded, confused, anti-science, crackpot cultists.





Uncensored2008 said:


> Again, if you cultists were as rational and grounded in reality as the Heavens Gate or Jonestown cults, we might be able to communicate with you. Alas, you have utterly no grasp on reality and spend your days in Gaia filled fairy tales. Note the drooling retard who posted the OP. This insane cultist post that his goddess is working "right before our eyes." But does the snivling little moron offer this amazing proof that his religion IZ TWO the real faith? Fuck no, we just get the same tired bullshit that his church chants incessantly. Not a shred of evidence, just the usual, self-serving rationalizations of weather patterns. You are no different that the fool with the "End is NEAR" sign who wanders around shrieking at light posts to REPENT.



Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > _Oh, I thought you were describing the government in your post, for a second there. Since they're fraudsters, authoritarian thugs, and paid shills. It's more likely that it's a global conspiracy because every government can benefit from this, since the gullible people will demand something be done about it, allowing government power to expand, and the scientists make money off of this through grants._
> ...


_Personally, out of what you listed, I only really believe the JFK assassination theory. Then again, I don't think someone who's in denial of Hillary being under criminal investigation has any ground to call others "bizarre conspiracy theorists". You sound like someone who just instantly believes everything the government has to say, which just makes you gullible._


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> _Personally, out of what you listed, I only really believe the JFK assassination theory._



So that's a second goofy conspiracy theories you've confirmed believing in.

_



			Then again, I don't think someone who's in denial of Hillary being under criminal investigation
		
Click to expand...

_And a third.

It's as Lewandowsky reported in his paper. Those who fall for one conspiracy theory, like global warming denial, tend to fall for a bunch of them.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> [
> 
> Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.



So, I'm an Infidel then?

Say, when DOES Hale-Bopp pass by again? Do you have your black tennies?


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > _Personally, out of what you listed, I only really believe the JFK assassination theory._
> ...


_And those fully content with being willfully ignorant of anything the government doesn't want them to know have a negative perception of "conspiracy theories". The name itself is all it takes for government lapdogs to laugh and pretend they have nothing going for them, and likely not even look into them. It's okay, the government loves employing thoughtless sheep, so you do have a sort of future, just not as a thinking American._


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


_We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~_

_It's funny because most other religions don't have a God that can be bought._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Again, dumbass, whole world.
> ...



Why?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> _We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~_
> 
> _It's funny because most other religions don't have a God that can be bought._



Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.

A clear clue is that the moment a dissenter is declared a "heretic," you know that you are not dealing with science.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why?




I thought your CHOSEN rear had all the answers.  I have a full topic on this subject below.  Perhaps you should read it and learn how full of @@@@ your rabbi is on this issue...


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > _We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~_
> ...


_Oh, I agree. That's why I used quotes around the word. There just tends to be less and less actual science required for these sheep to follow it fanatically. At this point, they follow every word, whether there's evidence or not._


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.
> 
> AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.



And the anti-science denier cult troll, UnHinged, once again idiotically imagines that he knows more about science than ALL of the actual scientists. Clearly a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (and severe retardation).

In the real world....

*Scientific opinion on climate change*
Wikipedia
*The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:
*

*Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]*
*Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]*
*Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]*
*The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]*
*The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]*
*Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.



_


Pumpkin Row said:



			We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~
		
Click to expand...

_Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "_don't_ _believe_" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...


_I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government._


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?
> ...




Here is what is causing your "Global Warming"......courtesy of the military industrial complex.


Is Climate Engineering Real? Square Cloud Formations Are Undeniable Proof


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.
> ...



More religious nonsene.

Your "proof" is that there is "consensus" among the priests who's fortunes depend on the perpetuation of their fraud. 

The SECOND one points to "consensus" as the basis of a hypothesis, one is not dealing in science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Read post #107 again, little retard, and then get back to me with something sane....if you even can....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



I know you're a moron and stuff, but I'm not Jewish.

Just because 99% of the people beating your ass on USMB are smarter than you doesn't mean they're all Jewish.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...




What propaganda shit for brains??????


Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



This propaganda?????



BP Energy Outlook 2030: The World's Energy Future…:


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Again where is the propaganda? Is it this 1972 shell pro environment commercial?



1972 Shell Oil and Gasoline commercial featuring …:


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



This 1979 Texaco commercial?



Gasohol Television Commercial 1979 Texaco:


----------



## Dale Smith (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Still waiting on you to explain to me how there can be a benchmark for the temperature since they have been spraying the upper atmosphere with nano-particulutes of heavy metals. Unless you figure it that variable, all the other bullshit "U.N" funded junk science, no one really knows what the temperature is. This is "man made" alright but one damn thing is for sure is that it's not for the reasons you think or the cause thereof.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...



*Still waiting on you to explain to me how there can be a benchmark for the temperature since they have been spraying the upper atmosphere with nano-particulutes of heavy metals.*

You've got a rich fantasy life.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Wow.  What a Convincing Retort.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 28, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> _I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it._



If you could demonstrate where the scientists have gone wrong, you wouldn't come across as such a mindless cultist. All you do is repeat your mantras as if they were sacred scripture, because that's what religious cultists do.

_



			I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.
		
Click to expand...

_Your paranoid nature and your inability to reason is not our problem. It is obviuosly the reason why you were so easily suckered by your cult masters

Sadly for you, things never turn out well for cultists, especially once the cult starts dying, as yours is. To avoid suffering the fate of the Jonestown cultists, you deniers need to start quietly slipping away into the jungle now, before some fellow cultists with guns escort you to the koolaid vat.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > _I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it._
> ...


_I already described it earlier, and everyone ignored it instead of addressing it and trying to prove me wrong. You can look for it yourself, it's near the start of the thread._

_It's funny, because calling people 'deniers' is what a cult would do, yet you're making that accusation to everyone that doesn't become government lapdogs. _


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage*

*Now that was written in 1981. And had significant mistakes. For most of these effects were expected toward the end of the 21st Century. In 2007, the Northwest Passage opened up for the first time in written history. We are already seeing the start of the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. And, indeed, the West has seen significant and unusual drought, as has central Asia.

But all of our dumb shits think none of this means anything. And it has nothing at all to do with becoming government lapdogs. With that kind of logic, I can see your future as another person in a red state on welfare costing us in the blue states more tax money to keep you alive.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

HOLY SMOKING COW --- *A 0.5degC change in my lifetime CAUSED 8 to 10 inches of rain?? *

Well POO -- I'd hate to see what 1 whole fucking degree would do..  I'm scared. Those lakes and rivers must be really really mad there in "west virginy"..  I might have to rethink my idiotic and annoying skepticism..







*It's a beautiful thing to watch "raw faith" in action --- ain't it? *


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hansen et al. 1981*
> Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
> 
> The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage*
> ...




Hansen can suck my left nut....

A broken clock is more right then he is.


.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2016)

Meanwhile -- a mini-front just moved thru Nashville and split right around Hillbilly Hollywood. From MY eyes -- it ain't quite warm enough yet. Rain all over the place -- except on my luxury country estate. 

Some damn medicine man must have stopped the rain on my parade.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I still want to know where all this propaganda is by the fossil fuel industry?


I search and. I search and I search, 


Zero...

Zip....

Zilch.....


Amoco (Commercial, 1978):


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Well now, when losing an arguement on logic and evidence, resort to outright stupidity. Works for Trump, after all.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, when losing an arguement on logic and evidence, resort to outright stupidity. Works for Trump, after all.




And here we have the propaganda by the AGW cult....

It got so bad, George Carlin made a skit about them.


George Carlin remix - Save the Trees:


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> As a result of human caused global warming, the atmospheric and the oceans (and lakes, rivers and streams) are warmer.....warmer air can hold more water vapor......warmer oceans and other bodies of water tend to evaporate more water faster.....and now, water vapor levels have increased so much, rain and snowstorms can drop much larger quantities of water than before the air warmed and water vapor levels increased.
> 
> Although the denier cultists will undoubtedly chant that there have always been heavy rain and floods and massive blizzards, the plain fact is that all of those are becoming more intense and destructive because of the greater amount of water held in the air......which results in this example of global warming driven climate disruptions in action:
> *"...the torrential flooding after as much as 8-10 inches of rain fell in six to eight hours in parts of the state on Thursday", according to the National Weather Service. This amount of rain in such a short time is likely a "one-in-a-thousand-year event," the weather service said.*
> ...


What is the average global rainfall? You infer that the globe is getting wetter, yet there was a thread on global water supplies being down?

BTW, what body of water produced that flood?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods


Or, why don't the flood producing CO2 put out the fires?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Why haven't the global warming fires dried up the floods
> ...



*Or, why don't the flood producing CO2 put out the fires?*

Because the CO2 magically escapes the atmosphere?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hansen et al. 1981*
> Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
> 
> The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s.* Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage*
> ...



Don't forget about these:

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

The big list of failed climate predictions


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 29, 2016)

Love the "no snow in winter," because NYC, DC, and Philly all have set ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS for snow since O took office...


----------



## mamooth (Jun 29, 2016)

LaDexter, snow is not temperature. It's precipitation. Which global warming theory says would increase.

So, you were amazingly stupid twice there. Efficient of you, and Frank too, to pack your stupidity and fraud into more concentrated bundles.

Now, let's do what deniers hate most, which is keep talking about actual science.

Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming
*Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming*
Lehmann et al (2015)
---
Here, we present the first analysis of record-breaking daily rainfall events using observational data. We show that over the last three decades the number of record-breaking events has significantly increased in the global mean.






Record-breaking rainfall events are increasing. That's directly measured evidence showing how the "It's all just random!" people are totally wrong and completely ignorant of the science.

Since that crowd is notably statistics-deficient, I'll help them out. If climate was just fluctuating randomly around a steady baseline, the number of record-breaking events of any type would be decreasing in a sort of exponential decay, being that setting a new record makes setting yet another new record beyond it that much harder. That's true unless the baseline is changing. And the baseline is changing, increasing both for temperature and rainfall, hence why the number of new records there is increasing instead of decreasing.

So, once more, the climate scientists are proven 100% correct. Frank and LaDexter, this is where you run off to eat some more cult shit, and then come back to tell us how yummy it was, and then scream at us because we're not eating shit with you. Please proceed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 29, 2016)

Mamooth Crick, please explain how CO2 can make ice melt at 12F

Go!


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2016)

Float it in 40F water.

Where do you think the ice is going  Frank?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 29, 2016)

mamooth said:


> LaDexter, snow is not temperature. It's precipitation. Which global warming theory says would increase.



This is science discussion s0n........."theories" don't apply.

And ps......why do you think that in the past 10 years, the public has tuned out global warming? Ummm........its because of stoopid-ass statements that more snow means more warming. Its all about perception s0n..........that's the reality.......and that perception is the alarmists k00ks say shit that is patently absurd!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter, snow is not temperature. It's precipitation. Which global warming theory says would increase.
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter, snow is not temperature. It's precipitation. Which global warming theory says would increase.
> ...


That was measured precipitation. Not theory. Of course, one might ask the major Re-insurance companies, like Swess Re, and Munich Re if they have evidence of increased claims because of the increase in major precipitation events.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



More buildings, more expensive buildings, must be AGW.........LOL!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.



_


Pumpkin Row said:



			We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'
		
Click to expand...

_


RollingThunder said:


> Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "_don't_ _believe_" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.





bear513 said:


> What propaganda shit for brains?????? Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....



I guess it is hard to see the obvious when your head is shoved as far up your ass as you keep yours, bareassretard.

*Meet The Climate Denial Machine*
*MediaMatters
JILL FITZSIMMONS
November 28, 2012*
(excerpts)
*Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is "a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening." The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy" over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat. When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a falsebalance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.

Here, Media Matters looks at how conservative media outlets give industry-funded "experts" a platform, creating a polarized misunderstanding of climate science.

* Heartland Institute And James Taylor
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
* Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
* Heritage Foundation
* Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
* American Enterprise Institute
* Marc Morano
* Anthony Watts
* Steve Milloy
* Joe Bastardi
* Matt Ridley
* Larry Bell*


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...


_If I got grants for it, I'd be part of that consensus, too._


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.



_


Pumpkin Row said:



			We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'
		
Click to expand...

_


RollingThunder said:


> Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "_don't_ _believe_" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.





bear513 said:


> What propaganda shit for brains?????? Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....





RollingThunder said:


> I guess it is hard to see the obvious when your head is shoved as far up your ass as you keep yours, bareassretard.
> 
> *Meet The Climate Denial Machine*
> *MediaMatters
> ...


_


Pumpkin Row said:



			If I got grants for it, I'd be part of that consensus, too.
		
Click to expand...

_
Based purely of stupidity and a total ignorance about science and how it works, there is denier cult dingbat myth #1 - *"Pretty much all of the world's scientists are in a huge conspiracy to fool us rightwingnut retards about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes."*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...




Your crayon and glitter post fails the basic smell test when media matters writes this ---

 Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy" over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat.

No reason to read farther than that whopper..  None at all...  How do you stand the stench of the stuff you wade around in??


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Your crayon and glitter post fails the basic smell test....


Your clueless bullshit fails the basic sanity test, fecalhead.






flacaltenn said:


> when media matters writes this ---
> 
> Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the "controversy" over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat.
> 
> No reason to read farther than that whopper..  None at all...  How do you stand the stench of the stuff you wade around in??



Your ignorance about everything, shit4brains, is not my problem. Your moronic inability to comprehend simple English or follow links to collaborating source materials is likewise, *not my problem*.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

Your Media Matters quote is from November of 2012.

I have no idea what you mean by "crayon and glitter post fails the basic smell test".  Do you deny that the organizations listed have taken large sums of money from the fossil fuel industry and its 'friends' and that they have done nothing but fight efforts to stop action to curtail AGW?  What test do you think this post fails?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 30, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.
> ...




Funny so now post the commercials, billboards and car racing sponsorship



.


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Funny so now post the commercials, billboards and car racing sponsorship






			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> *





			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Heartland Institute And James Taylor
> * Competitive Enterprise Institute
> * Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
> * Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
> ...



Just visit these websites.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 30, 2016)

Pumpkin Row said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Pumpkin Row said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Then I advise you not to even consider an education in science. Your ethics simply are not adaquete to work in any scientific field.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 30, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mamooth Crick, please explain how CO2 can make ice melt at 12F



Frank, why do you think CO2 can make ice melt at 12F?

You need to work that in with your Grand Unified Theory of Denialism. Intelligent photons, Guam tipping over, floating bowling balls, ice melting at 12F ... I wonder how you'll tie it all together. Everyone eagerly awaits the results of your research.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jul 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


_Me and 97% of scientists, apparently._


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

Ms Pumpkin Row,

You seem to buy into the contention that an extremely large majority of over 10,000 degreed scientists have all formed a conspiracy to defraud the people of planet Earth.  To do so, they have communicated sufficiently to maintain a coherent picture throughout thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.  They find the same temperatures.  They find the same trends.  They find the same causes.  On hundreds and hundreds of different parameters measured, they are in perfect agreement.  They have managed to create a coherent, extremely detailed and fully rational simulacrum of a global process that, you claim, simply does not exist.  Amazing work. And through all of that, not a single one of these thousands of scientists, from different nations with different governments, religions, science practices, funding practices... NOT ONE has ever confessed to the conspiracy.  NOT ONE has ever slipped up and given it all away.  These are some VERY smart and VERY disciplined people Ms Pumpkin Row.

PS: You don't get rich from research grants.  Grants pay for the conduct of the research.  They are not put in the researcher's pockets.  They might help someone keep their job, but so would good work whereas the grand conspiracy would put every one of those thousands of scientists at immediate risk of losing their entire careers and likely facing prosecution.

Yeah... that all makes sense.

Don't take the stupid side in this argument.  And the Grand Global Conspiracy is  most definitely the stupid side.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> You seem to buy into the contention that an extremely large majority of over 10,000 degreed scientists have all formed a conspiracy to defraud the people of planet Earth.  To do so, they have communicated sufficiently to maintain a coherent picture throughout thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.  They find the same temperatures.  They find the same trends.  They find the same causes.  On hundreds and hundreds of different parameters measured, they are in perfect agreement.


_Not entirely true, they've had to correct each other a few different times, and I actually do think that they either communicate or read each others research. Coordinating isn't that hard. Besides, earlier in this thread I already pointed out why, if Global Warming even existed, people have nothing to do with it. _


Crick said:


> They have managed to create a coherent, extremely detailed and fully rational simulacrum of a global process that, you claim, simply does not exist.  Amazing work.


_Not so much detailed, no, you guys just trust these scientists with blind faith._


Crick said:


> And through all of that, not a single one of these thousands of scientists, from different nations with different governments, religions, science practices, funding practices... NOT ONE has ever confessed to the conspiracy.  NOT ONE has ever slipped up and given it all away.  These are some VERY smart and VERY disciplined people Ms Pumpkin Row.


_You seem to assume that because the news didn't cover it, it hasn't happened. If someone did reveal, not only would it because a whisper, but they'd likely never be able to work in the scientific field again._



Crick said:


> PS: You don't get rich from research grants.  Grants pay for the conduct of the research.  They are not put in the researcher's pockets.  They might help someone keep their job, but so would good work whereas the grand conspiracy would put every one of those thousands of scientists at immediate risk of losing their entire careers and likely facing prosecution.


_If '97%' is in on it, according to the claims, then I highly doubt there's much for them to worry about, especially with the Establishment covering their backs. Perpetuating this myth is likely easier than actually doing actual science._



Crick said:


> Yeah... that all makes sense.
> 
> Don't take the stupid side in this argument.


_I'm not, if I were, I'd be claiming that Global Warming isn't a myth._


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ms Pumpkin Row,
> 
> You seem to buy into the contention that an extremely large majority of over 10,000 degreed scientists have all formed a conspiracy to defraud the people of planet Earth.  To do so, they have communicated sufficiently to maintain a coherent picture throughout thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.  They find the same temperatures.  They find the same trends.  They find the same causes.  On hundreds and hundreds of different parameters measured, they are in perfect agreement.  They have managed to create a coherent, extremely detailed and fully rational simulacrum of a global process that, you claim, simply does not exist.  Amazing work. And through all of that, not a single one of these thousands of scientists, from different nations with different governments, religions, science practices, funding practices... NOT ONE has ever confessed to the conspiracy.  NOT ONE has ever slipped up and given it all away.  These are some VERY smart and VERY disciplined people Ms Pumpkin Row.
> 
> ...


Pumpkin stated the 97%, remember, that is 75 out of 77.  So you're number of degreed scientists is in error.  And the skeptics have over 30,000 degreed that disagree with your 75.  ouch. No global warming in anyone's eyes.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 1, 2016)

More *'global warning in action, right before our eyes'*....
*
Alberta's unusually early and large fire is just the latest example of a hotter Earth with bigger fires*
U.S. news and World Report
May 10, 2016
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
(excerpts)
*WASHINGTON (AP)  Alberta's unusually early and large fire is just the latest of many gargantuan fires on an Earth that's grown hotter with more extreme weather. Earlier this year, large wildfires hit spots on opposite ends of the world  Tasmania and Oklahoma-Kansas. Last year, Alaska and California pushed the U.S. to a record 10 million acres burned. Massive fires hit Siberia, Mongolia and China last year and Brazil's fire season has increased by a month over the past three decades. It got so bad that in 2009, Australia added a bright red "catastrophic" to its fire warning index. 

"The warmer it is, the more fires we get," said Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fire at the University of Alberta. Flannigan said the area burned in Canada has doubled since the 1970s "and we think that's due to climate change." Last week, temperatures pushed past 90 degrees Fahrenheit (mid 30s Celsius) in Alberta, which is unusual for May in northern Canada. "The Alberta wildfires are an excellent example of what we're seeing more and more of: warming means snow melts earlier, soils and vegetation dries out earlier, and the fire season starts earlier. It's a train wreck," University of Arizona climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck wrote in an email.

Worldwide, the length of Earth's fire season increased nearly 19 percent from 1979 to 2013, according to a study by Mark Cochrane, a professor of fire ecology at South Dakota State University. Fires had steadily been increasing, but then in the late 1990s and early 2000s, "we've suddenly been hit with lots of these large fires we can't control," Cochrane said. In terms of acreage burned, the worldwide total may be dropping because of better firefighting, but in North America and Siberia "fires have grown quite a bit due to warming," Columbia University climate and ecology scientist Park Williams wrote in an email. "My estimate is that global warming has been responsible for about half of this increase." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences earlier this year in a study determined that "climate warming has resulted in longer fire seasons." For the entire U.S., the 10-year average number of acres burned in wildfires has more than doubled from about 3 million acres in the mid-1980s to 7 million acres now, according to an analysis of government data by The Associated Press. "Globally we are seeing more fires, bigger fires, more severe fires," said Kevin Ryan, a retired U.S. Forest Service scientist.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> More *'global warning in action, right before our eyes'*....
> *
> Alberta's unusually early and large fire is just the latest example of a hotter Earth with bigger fires*
> U.S. news and World Report
> ...



*Flannigan said the area burned in Canada has doubled since the 1970s "*_*and we think that's due to climate change."*
_
That's some serious proof there...........


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 1, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> More *'global warning in action, right before our eyes'*....
> *
> Alberta's unusually early and large fire is just the latest example of a hotter Earth with bigger fires*
> U.S. news and World Report
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Flannigan said the area burned in Canada has doubled since the 1970s "_*and we think that's due to climate change.*_"
> 
> That's some serious proof there...........



The entire article contains some serious EVIDENCE, Turdster.....which you are apparently quite blind to, like a good little denier cult dingbat.

Since NOBODY ever claimed that one scientist's opinion somehow constitutes "_proof_", you can take your really idiotic straw-man argument there and shove it back up your ass (assuming there is room for it, what with your head already taking up so much space in your rectum).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > More *'global warning in action, right before our eyes'*....
> ...



I looked at the article and there was zero proof.
You should probably cut your CO2 emissions to zero, just to be safe.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

There is never proof in the natural sciences.  There is evidence.  There are predictions.  There are routes of falsification. Which make you dubious about AGW?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> There is never proof in the natural sciences.  There is evidence.  There are predictions.  There are routes of falsification. Which make you dubious about AGW?



There was no evidence that human caused warming is causing more or larger forest fires.
*
Which make you dubious about AGW?*

The people pushing it. The "solutions" they're pushing.


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2016)

IF you think there's no evidence Todd, I can only assume you haven't looked.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2016)

*Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures*

*



*

*Another alarmist lie bites the dust....*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> IF you think there's no evidence Todd, I can only assume you haven't looked.



Thanks for the charts. Which one has the evidence that it's AGW to blame?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> IF you think there's no evidence Todd, I can only assume you haven't looked.





Total bogusness..........and if people didn't notice, displays from the IPCC which of course is going to pop out alarmist presentations. Too.....anybody who knows how to read a graph ( not most people ) can see clearly that the change is exceedingly tiny compared to the mean........*OH BUT THAT RED INCREASE LINE SURE LOOKS DAUNTING
*
LOOK.........THE GLOBAL WARMING BOZO'S ALWAYS ARE DISPLAYING GRAPHS AND FIGURES WITH LOTS AND LOTS OF COLOR TO DUPE THE VIEWER. bUT CHECK THE WORLD MAP WITH THE INCREASE IN "FIRE COUNT"......VERY VERY MINIMAL!! fUCKING DUH*.........
*
These progressives habitually present stuff in a fraudulent manner to brainwash the dim witted.........whether you are talking the environment, economics, politics...........

Too.........it is all the global warming k00ks who try to link forest fire increase with drought.......*zero correlation* easily seen via any review of drought maps back to the 1800's.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 2, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> *Spectacular Drop In Global Average Satellite Temperatures*
> 
> tps://*wattsupwiththat.*files.wordpress.com/2016/07/uah_lt_1979_thru_june_2016_v6-1.jpg?w=1050&h=608[/IMG][/B]
> 
> *Another alarmist lie bites the dust....*



Nope!

Another denier cult dingbat demonstrates his gullible stupidity....

In the real world....

....*you are very severely retarded!!!*

Particularly if you believe anything coming from that lying, fossil fuel industry sponsored blog that you source a lot of your bullshit from.

Your post = just more denier cult twaddle and spin from the bamboozled Boobster.

In the real world.....

*June 2016 Was 2nd Warmest June in Satellite Record: Global Temperature Trend Update
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade*
Reason.com
Ronald Bailey
Jul. 1, 2016
(excerpts)
*Although global temperatures fell rapidly from May to June as the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event fades, June 2016 was nonetheless the second warmest June in the satellite temperature record, according to the press release from the University of Alabama Huntsville. June 2016 trailed June 1998 by 0.23 C, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at UAH. Compared to seasonal norms, however, June 2016 was the 30th warmest month overall since the satellite temperature dataset began in December 1978. June 2016 also was the second warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere (0.51 C compared to June 1998 at 0.60 C above seasonal norms), but the eighth warmest June in the Southern Hemisphere and, despite the El Niño remnants, only the sixth warmest June in the tropics. The graphic below compares how temperature trends evolved during the big El Nino back in 1997/1998 and the current one that is now fading. 






UAH

Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade.
Global composite temp.: +0.34 C (about 0.61 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.51 C (about 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.17 C (about 0.79 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.
Tropics: +.38 C (about 0.68 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for June.






UAH*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IF you think there's no evidence Todd, I can only assume you haven't looked.
> ...


OK, Todd. You already know that GHGs do warm the atmosphere. We have increased the CO2, the CH4, NOx, and added industrial gasses for which there are no natural analogs. In the meantime, the TSI has decreased, India and China have put vast amounts of aerosols in the air, more than making up for the decrease in aerosols from the US and Europe. And the temperature continues to increase. 

Care to name the cause, and present evidence for that cause?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

More striking examples of global warming in action are popping up.

This evidence of the reality and dangers of global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes will be very fresh in the public's mind when we head into the upcoming Presidential elections in November with Republican Presidential and Congressional candidates insanely denying that anything unusual is happening.

Just over this last weekend....

*Over 150 Dead, Millions Evacuated After Catastrophic Flooding Hits China, Pakistan*
Published:
Jul 5 2016
By Associated Press
weather.com
(Excerpts)
*Catastrophic floods have taken more than 150 lives in China and Pakistan this weekend after days of heavy rain. In China, 128 have been killed and another 42 people have been reported missing according to figures released by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, China.org.cn reports. A mudslide in Guizhou Province killed 23, state media told the BBC. Eight more people died in the city of Wuhan in Hubei Province when a section of a wall collapsed. About 18 inches of rain fell in Macheng, China, in the four days ending 8 a.m. local time on Monday, said weather.com meteorologist Chris Dolce.

The rain collapsed more than 40,000 houses and forced the evacuation of nearly 1.5 million people in 11 regions, mostly along the Yangtze River and its distributaries, China.org.cn reports, and nearly 600,000 people are in urgent need of basic living assistance. The rain has also destroyed more than 700,000 acres of crops, the Xinhua news agency repoorts.  Floods and landslides are also affecting telecommunication and electricity facilities, halting or delaying traffic in some regions. The ministry estimated total economic losses of $5.73 billion. Vice Premier Wang Yang warned last month that there was a high possibility of floods in the Yangtze River and Huai River basins this year, which equate to a large swath of China's southern, central and eastern areas.

(MORE: China Tornado Kills 98, Injures 800)

In Pakistan, heavy monsoon rains and flash floods have claimed at least 30 lives and washed away a mosque and several houses in Ursoon, an area of Chitral. Thirteen people are still missing in Chitral,  the districtâs deputy commissioner Usama Waraich told Gulf News, adding that authorities were evacuating some residents with more rain forecast Monday. The mayor of Chitral district, Maghfirat Shah said the flash flooding hit as people were offering up special Ramadan prayers at the mosque. Dozens of worshippers were swept away in the floodwaters, which destroyed the mosque and damaged several nearby houses and a security post. Afghan authorities also said they had recovered 13 bodies, including eight Pakistani soldiers, which had been swept over the border from Chitral into Afghanistan, Gulf News said. *


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Certainly, "warming" is not the cause of the fires, since there is none

Google

The warmest year on record is 1934 for the US.

Meanwhile, every incremental human life in Cali consumes 20-25 gallons of freshwater every day, stealing such water from rivers, streams, aquifers, lakes, all finite land based water supplies.  When humans drain freshwater from nature, nature gets dry....

Solution - desalination of ocean water, leaving nature's water in nature

Problem with solution - Algore's FRAUD is consuming all the enviro funds and lying/misdiagnosing real enviro problems


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Certainly, "warming" is not the cause of the fires, since there is none
> Google
> The warmest year on record is 1934 for the US.
> Meanwhile, every incremental human life in Cali consumes 20-25 gallons of freshwater every day, stealing such water from rivers, streams, aquifers, lakes, all finite land based water supplies.  When humans drain freshwater from nature, nature gets dry....
> ...



LaDumbshit's usual clueless off-topic insanity.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

desalination is "insanity."

CO2 based "climate change" is "real."

LOL!!

The FRAUD loves those fires.  They aren't about to correctly diagnose them and fix the problem, because those behind the FRAUD

do not care one bit about the REAL ENVIRONMENT.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> desalination is "insanity." CO2 based "climate change" is "real." LOL!! The FRAUD loves those fires.  They aren't about to correctly diagnose them and fix the problem, because those behind the FRAUD do not care one bit about the REAL ENVIRONMENT.



And LaDumbshit continues to demonstrate how utterly clueless and insane he/she/it actually is.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

RT - against desal - for FRAUD as long as it enriches DEMOCRATS


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> RT - against desal



Nope! I never said that, you flaming dumbshit. 

Take your off-topic bullshit and shove it back up your ass, bozo.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

If you are for funding Algore's FRAUD then you are 100% against desal - against funding it and against using it since your FRAUD doesn't believe it is needed...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> If you are for funding Algore's FRAUD then you are 100% against desal - against funding it and against using it since your FRAUD doesn't believe it is needed...


You are insane!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Since desalination would actually solve a real environmental problem, and "Global Warming" just takes taxdollars and flushes them into the pockets of left wing liars... it is hence "insane" to fix real environmental problems according to RT... since every "problem" is always an "opportunity" for Democrats to make more taxpayer money VANISH...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ms Pumpkin Row,
> 
> You seem to buy into the contention that an extremely large majority of over 10,000 degreed scientists have all formed a conspiracy to defraud the people of planet Earth.  To do so, they have communicated sufficiently to maintain a coherent picture throughout thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.  They find the same temperatures.  They find the same trends.  They find the same causes.  On hundreds and hundreds of different parameters measured, they are in perfect agreement.  They have managed to create a coherent, extremely detailed and fully rational simulacrum of a global process that, you claim, simply does not exist.  Amazing work. And through all of that, not a single one of these thousands of scientists, from different nations with different governments, religions, science practices, funding practices... NOT ONE has ever confessed to the conspiracy.  NOT ONE has ever slipped up and given it all away.  These are some VERY smart and VERY disciplined people Ms Pumpkin Row.
> 
> ...





*“That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" ~ Freeman Dyson *


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 5, 2016)

Say again?

90% of Earth ice on Antarctica increasing says what about the credibility of the taxpayer funded left wing liars saying "the ice is melting...."  ???

LOL!!!

The Leftism religion has a HOLY TEXT, and in that text it says 

THOU SHALT ONLY PARROT LEFT WING LIARS, and NEVER THINK OR ASK QUESTIONS OF SUCH LEFT WING LIARS


----------



## Crick (Jul 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ms Pumpkin Row,
> ...



Freeman Dyson's position on AGW is a sad thing.  He was once one of the very smartest people on the entire planet.  But, as can be seen, no one is immune to the effects of aging.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ms Pumpkin Row,
> 
> You seem to buy into the contention that an extremely large majority of over 10,000 degreed scientists have all formed a conspiracy to defraud the people of planet Earth.  To do so, they have communicated sufficiently to maintain a coherent picture throughout thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies.  They find the same temperatures.  They find the same trends.  They find the same causes.  On hundreds and hundreds of different parameters measured, they are in perfect agreement.  They have managed to create a coherent, extremely detailed and fully rational simulacrum of a global process that, you claim, simply does not exist.  Amazing work. And through all of that, not a single one of these thousands of scientists, from different nations with different governments, religions, science practices, funding practices... NOT ONE has ever confessed to the conspiracy.  NOT ONE has ever slipped up and given it all away.  These are some VERY smart and VERY disciplined people Ms Pumpkin Row.
> 
> ...



*


bear513 said:



			“That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" ~ Freeman Dyson
		
Click to expand...

*
No great "_mystery_" here. "_A whole generation of scientific experts_" *ISN'T* "_blind to the obvious facts_"....instead the once great mathematician and theoretical physicist, but now tragically semi-senile, 92 year old Freeman Dyson, with no education or experience in any part of climate science, *IS the one *"_blind to the *obvious* facts_"

As the rest of the world scientific community can plainly see.

*The Danger of Cosmic Genius*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 5, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ms Pumpkin Row,
> ...





But nobody is caring what the scientific community is saying.........top climate scientists are even saying it ( see THIS link >>> California Academy of Sciences Driector: "Explaining the science isnt working"  )

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20his.gif.html]
	
[/URL]



These dopes in here have been falling all over themselves explaining the science to us...........for years and years, and renewable energy is still a joke and voters don't give a rats ass about climate change as an election issue!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 5, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ms Pumpkin Row,
> ...



“Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion,”


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 5, 2016)

Not sure but starting to think Thunder is fond of getting smacked upside of the face.....but will give this panty waist credit for showing up all the time to get his clock cleaned.

s0n......you just got pwned again *@www.selfknobbyintherear.com* 

And now Ms Pumpkin in here to dish out pwnage of her own.............10,000 scientists say hooey to the climate science fraternity bozo's!!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 6, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ms Pumpkin Row,
> ...




Lmao fruit cake, so you consider the people who study of worm fossils more credible on the climate ?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > More *'global warning in action, right before our eyes'*....
> ...



That is not proof of any kind... cyclical changes in the earth cause great dry areas and burns of massive areas. Not only that, but the behavior of putting out small fires which clear the under brush and dead wood, have not been stopped. This is poor land management practices. When fires do happen now they are quickly out of control due to the fuels which have built up..

One must evaluate the whole problem not just the preconceived  blame CAGW meme...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 6, 2016)

FIRES = humans sucking too much fresh water from nature

Solution = massive desalination

Problem = Algore's FRAUD loves the FIRES and is squeezing out all other REAL ENVIRO causes to fund his FRAUD which does NOTHING to help the REAL ENVIRO


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> FIRES = humans sucking too much fresh water from nature



More reality-challenged bullshit from LaDumbshit.

In the real world....

*Why Big, Intense Wildfires Are the New Normal*
*Climate change, untamed vegetation, and development have created a new wildfire* *landscape.*
National Geographic
By Melody Kramer
PUBLISHED AUGUST 30, 2013


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 6, 2016)

Indeed, this above birdbrain is actually arguing that human consumption of land based fresh water has nothing to do with fires...

LOL!!!

All this idiot does is cut, paste and parrot.  If he cannot parrot it, it doesn't exist, or something like that...


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2016)

bear513 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..

Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


dude, again with the thousand's number.  post up that link of the thousand climate scientists.  Are there even that many in the world?  I know there are geologists, physicists, engineers, mathematicians, cartoonists and what have you, but  climate scientists?  name them bubba, I've grown tired of your use of that figure without evidence.  We gave you the 30,000 list that supports our side.  Now post yours. It's now time.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > FIRES = humans sucking too much fresh water from nature
> ...


mismanaged forests are the reason for intense wildfires.

The mismanagement of the national forests

"This bibliographic record was created by the Tall Timbers Research Station Library and is provided without charge to promote research and education in Fire Ecology. The E.V. Komarek Fire Ecology Database and Thesaurus are the intellectual property of Tall Timbers Research Station, Inc. This record display is provided by FRAMES." 

oops more bull stuff.

BTW, anyone from the progressive side wish to challenge this?  There are more links concerning mismanaged national forests.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Her scientists include the bass fishermen of california...

The basket weaver scientists of India

The worm scientist of America


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.





bear513 said:


> What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..
> 
> Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?



The thousands of scientists I'm speaking about do their own research, get it published in peer reviewed journals.  An enormous majority of their results - very close to 100% - support the theory of AGW.  They read the research of others.  They read the IPCC's assessment report which is an assessment of all that research.  Being trained, degreed scientists, they understand the research.  Their conclusions, almost to a man, is that, yes indeed, the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation.

I'm glad to hear you say "What crap".  You couldn't find ANY research material to support your claims, could you.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.
> ...



Well this is your opportunitie to prove it. My hundred upon hundreds of scientists says you are wrong


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.
> ...



Crick we all know were your sciencetist get their information from it's not a secrete ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

Secrete?

You know nothing about the work of scientists, but since we're talking about scientists of many sorts from almost every nation on the planet, there's not really a damned thing you can tell about them in the way of generalization.  The Grand Global Conspiracy is as stupid and irrational as it ever was.

Where is your scientific data?  Where is your evidence?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> You know nothing about the work of scientists




They aren't scientists.  They are fraudulent fudgebakers, liars, and taxpayer funded leeches who won't answer the first question of Earth climate change ...

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Certainly, "warming" is not the cause of the fires, since there is none
> 
> Google
> 
> ...


Not at all.

NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S. | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

*NCDC Announces Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S.*







Difference from average annual temperature in 2012 compared to the 1981–2010 average. Map by NOAA climate.gov team. Large versions of annual and monthly maps are available for reuse.
According to NOAA scientists, the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. for 2012 was 55.3°F, which was 3.2°F above the 20th century average and 1.0°F above the previous record from 1998. The year consisted of the fourth warmest winter, a record warm spring, the second warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn. Although the last four months of 2012 did not bring the same unusual warmth as the first 8 months of the year, the September through December temperatures were warm enough for 2012 to remain the record warmest year, by a wide margin.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Are you ever proving what an ignorant dumb fuck you are. No, they do not 'sign' a report. Their name is only on a paper if they contributed to that paper. And there are thousands of papers from all disciplines of science showing the effects of the increasing warmth on this planet, papers published in the scientific journals in all nations of the world. Lying bastards like you are a dime a dozen, you mean absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things. Little braying jackasses serenading the moon. 

You obviously are not even capable of finishing the basic classes that you are required to finish to get a degree in science. All you can do is try to denigrate your superoures.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Who you trying to bullshit ?


Top science groups tell climate change doubters in Congress to knock it off

In a letter dated Tuesday, 31 leading U.S. scientific organizations sent members of Congress a no-nonsense message that human-caused climate change is real, poses risks to society and is backed by overwhelming evidence.

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the letter states. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”

The effort to draft the letter wasspearheaded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), whose leader, Rush Holt — a former member of Congress, vigorously promoted its message...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Congress should respond:

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

2. Over the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so what did CO2 have to do with either event?

3. You fudgebaking liars claim the Marshall Islands are sinking because of sea level rise, when, in fact, they are sinking because they are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.  Why are you LYING about why the Marshalls are sinking?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I spotted The bullshit old rocks and your mad as hell


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.





bear513 said:


> What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..
> 
> Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?





Crick said:


> The thousands of scientists I'm speaking about do their own research, get it published in peer reviewed journals.  An enormous majority of their results - very close to 100% - support the theory of AGW.  They read the research of others.  They read the IPCC's assessment report which is an assessment of all that research.  Being trained, degreed scientists, they understand the research.  Their conclusions, almost to a man, is that, yes indeed, the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation.
> 
> I'm glad to hear you say "What crap".  You couldn't find ANY research material to support your claims, could you.



All you've let out is another indicator of your subnormal intelligence.  The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.
> ...



That's just moronic as telling me the UN has a fucking army...

They are going by the same report...


----------



## boedicca (Jul 9, 2016)

I could use me some of that Global Warming here in Oaklandtown.  We've had an Unseasonable Cool Summer to date.  The local news just announced yet another cooler than normal day.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.




That is a big LIE.  Every scientist who reports NO WARMING gets their taxpayer funding CUT OFF.  Only those FUDGING with the FUDGEBAKING LIARS continues with taxpayer funding.  The VAST MAJORITY of people with real science backgrounds disputes the FRAUD because it is so obviously FRAUD.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.





bear513 said:


> What crap? The thousands of so called scientist you speak of read the same God damn report and just sign there name..
> 
> Oops I let out a little secret didn't I?





Crick said:


> The thousands of scientists I'm speaking about do their own research, get it published in peer reviewed journals.  An enormous majority of their results - very close to 100% - support the theory of AGW.  They read the research of others.  They read the IPCC's assessment report which is an assessment of all that research.  Being trained, degreed scientists, they understand the research.  Their conclusions, almost to a man, is that, yes indeed, the primary cause of global warming is human GHG emissions and deforestation.
> 
> I'm glad to hear you say "What crap".  You couldn't find ANY research material to support your claims, could you.





bear513 said:


> That's just moronic as telling me the UN has a fucking army...
> 
> They are going by the same report...





Crick said:


> All you've let out is another indicator of your subnormal intelligence.  The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.



You apparently haven't a clue what goes on in the world around you.

1) The IPCC CONDUCTS NO CLIMATE RESEARCH
2) The IPCC's Assessment Reports are assessments of the ongoing, peer reviewed research conducted world wide by accredited scientists on the various topics involved in global warming
3) A very small minority of the world's climate scientists work for the IPCC conducting such assessments.
4) The climate scientists of the world do not form their opinion by reading the IPCC's assessment reports. They base them on their own work and the work of other scientists.
5) The vast majority of scientists conducting climate research agree with the IPCC's conclusion.  This should come as no surprise since that IPCC's conclusion is based on their work which overwhelmingly supports the reality of AGW.

Do you think you've got a handle on that now?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.
> ...



They think we don't have Google or something 


Al Gore's house


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking cultists, cold is caused by warming, floods are caused by warming, drought by warming. Declining ocean levels by warming, increasing ocean levels by warming. And of course, the heartbreak of psoriasis is caused by global warming.
> ...



So how do you answer when everything from drought to floods, to more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more snow, less snow, record warm weather to record cold weather and on and on is caused by global warming? GW is said to be linked to sex drive and mental disorders, and on and on, why is everything we do now linked to global warming when hundreds of years ago global warming did not have this effect?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.
> ...



Just go outside it really simple to tell it was the same way it was 45 years ago.

Btw it is NOAA controlled by Michael Mann


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.





Apparently LaDexter said:


> That is a big LIE.  Every scientist who reports NO WARMING gets their taxpayer funding CUT OFF.  Only those FUDGING with the FUDGEBAKING LIARS continues with taxpayer funding.  The VAST MAJORITY of people with real science backgrounds disputes the FRAUD because it is so obviously FRAUD.



Show us evidence supporting this statement: _"The VAST MAJORITY of people with real science backgrounds disputes the FRAUD because it is so obviously FRAUD."_


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Papageorgio said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



We do not because that is not the case.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.
> ...



Crick I just reported you. .
I didn't say that


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Let me guess: it belongs to LaDexter.  The problem is that I put him on ignore but the system is being inconsistent about displaying him.  Sometimes I see a his posts but the content is replaced with a fat bar that reads "You are ignoring this poster" and other times he is simply invisible.  The quote for which I gave you credit appeared in your post but LaDexter's post was not shown at all on my display.  That made his comments appear to be yours.  I still cannot see any posts from LaDexter in this thread.  I'm not complaining mind you...

I'm sure management here will come down harshly on me for the error.  It was an obvious attempt to... what?  Make you appear ignorant?  Hmmm....


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us evidence supporting this statement:



Take your pick from the list....


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Does CO2 explain why one Earth polar circle has 9 times the ice of the other??

I don't think you believe your posts.  I think you are a paid hack that sucks out part of the billions of taxdollars Algore's FRAUD wastes instead of helping the actual environment.  You are the worst enemy the environment ever had.  Your greed is greater than your patriotism and your environmentalism, which are both ABSOLUTE ZERO,.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


That is not a scientific paper, you daft idiot, that is an advisory letter from scientists concerning policy. And a wise one. Unfortunately we have to many really stupid people in Congress for it to have any effect.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So you hiding out in a cave in Idaho is a wise one?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Not at all, although I like Idaho enough that would not be a bad thing. However, again, after September, I will be dividing my time between a steel mill and Portland State University. Studying for a degree in a scientific discipline.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

The cascade mountains are an area that I see often. And, yes, the warming is very apparent to anyone that has seen these glaciers over a period of 50 years.

Global glacier retreat






Milk Lake Glacier in 1988 clinging to the slopes above the greenish lake.







Milk Lake in 2009, the glacier now entirely gone

.
*What has research proven?  

We have measured the mass balance on ten glaciers in the North Cascades each year since 1984.  The cumulative mass loss has been substantial.  Annual mass balance is the most sensitive annual glacier climate indicator.  North Cascade glaciers annual balance has averaged -0.51 m/a of water equivalent from 1984-2010 a cumulative loss of over 13.25m in glacier thickness. This represents a net loss of ice thickness exceeding 14 m or 20-40 % of their total volume since 1984 due to negative mass balances. The trend in mass balance is becoming more negative which is fueling more glacier retreat and thinning note figure at right.  The map at right indicates the location of the glaciers (green circles) where we monitor annual glacier mass balance. 

The annual glacier mass balance record below indicates that the response of annual balance is quite similar for each glacier.  This demonstrates that it is regional climate changes from year to year that control glacier mass balance, not local microclimates.  The cause of the negative mass balances has primarily been temperature rise.  Precipitation has increased during the last 25 years.  However, snowpack has not indicating more winter rain and melt events. 

The data indicate broad regional continuity in glacial response to climate.  Cross correlation values of annual balance between glaciers ranged from 0.73 to 0.98.  The record reflects less variability and a more negative trend from 1984-1995.  Since 1996, there has been increasing inter-annual variability with alternately extreme positive and negative years, with a dominantly negative trend.  The annual balance of individual glacier is in a Table below The chart at right shows the annual balance of each glacier and how they are closely correlated, following the same trend from year to year, but do have a significant range in annual balance during each given year. 

*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

Well, since where I live is right there in every post, perhaps you should retake the third grade. And, yes, I have been in all the mountain ranges in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. But not often as I would like, and never for as long as I would like.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, since where I live is right there in every post, perhaps you should retake the third grade. And, yes, I have been in all the mountain ranges in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. But not often as I would like, and never for as long as I would like.





Here is your "global warming" cause........educate yourself. NOAA and the NWC are under gag orders not to talk about this.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 10, 2016)

LOL


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 10, 2016)

LOL indeed.

Individual glaciers come and go.  The one with 90% of Earth ice is still coming in to the tune of at least 80 billion tons of ice every year, or about 50,000 times the ice that melted on top of that rathole...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Secrete?
> 
> You know nothing about the work of scientists, but since we're talking about scientists of many sorts from almost every nation on the planet, there's not really a damned thing you can tell about them in the way of generalization.  The Grand Global Conspiracy is as stupid and irrational as it ever was.
> 
> Where is your scientific data?  Where is your evidence?


*Where is your scientific data?  Where is your evidence?*

Well for me, it is the lack of evidence from those making the ridiculous claims about CO2 that is my evidence.  It implies made uppy stuffy.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I consider the thousands of climate scientists who accept AGW a better reason to form a conclusion than the crap you've all spewed here arguing to reject it.
> ...


*All you've let out is another indicator of your subnormal intelligence.  The work of virtually every single scientist on this planet supports AGW.*

You mean not all scientist agree with AGW?  whooooooa.  why not?  I thought it was just message board skeptics that did that.  Now you're saying that there indeed scientist who don't fall into line?  hmmmmmmm


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

Approximately 1 percent of them.  Likely less than that these days.  The trend is approaching a statistical zero.

Is that really where you think you ought to be?  You've seen the sorts of people that make up that 1%.  Many are retired geriatric cases.  Many have been outsiders and contrarians all their lives.  Many have significant financial reasons to make the arguments they're making.  Overall, they are not an impressive lot.  You certainly couldn't argue that they are demonstrably the more intelligent segment of the body of the world's scientists.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Approximately 1 percent of them.  Likely less than that these days.  The trend is approaching a statistical zero.
> 
> Is that really where you think you ought to be?  You've seen the sorts of people that make up that 1%.  Many are retired geriatric cases.  Many have been outsiders and contrarians all their lives.  Many have significant financial reasons to make the arguments they're making.  Overall, they are not an impressive lot.  You certainly couldn't argue that they are demonstrably the more intelligent segment of the body of the world's scientists.


Well than post that link


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc.  Don't push your luck.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc.  Don't push your luck.



Telling, right there.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456?  I have had the man on ignore for some time now.  The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere.  I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.

How about you?  Do you believe any symptoms of global warming are easily discernible in the present day?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2016)

The issue isn't whether the climate is warming or cooling or static...no one doubts that the climate changes...the issue is whether man is the cause and you have already demonstrated in spectacular fashion that there simply is no real evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

How do you believe I have so demonstrated?  By repeatedly citing WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, for which you're only repartee has been "It's all lies?.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> How do you believe I have so demonstrated?  By repeatedly citing WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, for which you're only repartee has been "It's all lies?.




Funny how there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to be seen in any of what you have cited.....all models all the time...models which consistently fail by the way....you are entertaining...I'll give you that...and I do believe you actually believe that you have provided such evidence...it goes a long way towards explaining how you came to be duped so thoroughly....you clearly wouldn't recognize actual observed, measured, quantified evidence if it bit a big old piece right out of your ass.

Physical basis without the first bit of physical evidence...what a laugh...typical of climate pseudoscience though....


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

As so many times before, you are demonstrably incorrect.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456?  I have had the man on ignore for some time now.  The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere.  I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.
> 
> How about you?  Do you believe any symptoms of global warming are easily discernible in the present day?



Ignore? I don't use it, I find a variety of opinions interesting and educational. Climate change has been going on since the formation of the earth. I don't get to excited about it. Some guy yesterday said we passed the tipping point on Climate Change and the planet could only support life for 100-150 more years. This type of wild speculation has been going on since the 70's and none of it has come to fruition yet. Maybe I need to give it time. 

What I find really interesting is that those that believe in Global Warming now Climate Change go absolutely nuts if you don't agree with them. I wonder where that regressive attitude comes from? 

To have someone on ignore and then open their posts seems pretty strange to me. You really aren't ignoring him are you?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 12, 2016)

Papageorgio said:


> What I find really interesting is that those that believe in Global Warming now Climate Change go absolutely nuts if you don't agree with them. I wonder where that regressive attitude comes from?




It really borders on the level you get when you question the Bible to a die hard with a 40 IQ...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm doing you a favor even reading your crap jc.  Don't push your luck.


or what?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 12, 2016)

Climate "Scientists" showing their "Evidence" of AGW


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456?  I have had the man on ignore for some time now.  The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere.  I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.
> 
> How about you?  Do you believe any symptoms of global warming are easily discernible in the present day?


Explanation, I can't debate with these folks cause i can't produce the evidence they request.  So, ignore is my only option.  hahahahahahaahahaha.

Global warming is right before my eyes, not, global cooling and i still challenge you to present real data from the stations and not altered data.  you can't or won't do it.  But your GW is fudged data on fudged charts.  LOL.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> As so many times before, you are demonstrably incorrect.



So prove it skid mark...go on back to the whole thread asking for actual evidence to support the A in AGW and bring any post where you believe you posted observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the idea that man is altering the global climate.


I predict that no such post will be forthcoming because no such post was ever made....prove me wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Have you attempted any substantial debates with poster jc456?  I have had the man on ignore for some time now.  The only reason I even open his posts is that the "usual crowd" of deniers seems to have petered out and wandered off somewhere.  I sit here waiting for someone to post and eventually get sufficiently frustrated to open an ignored post (jc is not the only one I ignore) and think about responding to it.
> ...



Must be frustrating to them to believe so wholeheartedly in something and to constantly have to deal with us crazy skeptics wanting some actual evidence when we all know that no such evidence exists....we just don't play nice...it isn't fair for us to be asking for what we all know doesn't exist...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Hey, look at all the smart photons. DERP!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 12, 2016)

Back on topic......

*Global Warming in Action, Right Before Our Eyes
*
Stronger storms were predicted.....and stronger storms are happening.
*
Super typhoon Nepartak causes devastation across Taiwan's coastline
Cars overturned and roofs torn off as first major storm of the season hits eastern coast with winds of up to 234km/h
7 July 2016 

China braces as super typhoon Nepartak kills three in Taiwan
Winds of 200km as 37,000 people evacuated on China’s eastern coast and flights and trains cancelled
8 July 2016 

Super typhoon Nepartak: six dead in China as tens of thousands flee storm
Nearly 2,000 homes destroyed as storm brings chaos to China’s south-eastern coast after hitting Taiwan
11 July 2016 

More than 420,000 people flee as Nepartak makes landfall in China
July 9, 2016 
*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Back on topic......
> 
> *Global Warming in Action, Right Before Our Eyes
> *
> ...



Find a Virgin -- feed her to a volcano.. That ought to fix this onslaught of hurricanes. 

        Whiny children...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Back on topic......
> 
> *Global Warming in Action, Right Before Our Eyes
> *
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Find a Virgin -- feed her to a volcano.. That ought to fix this onslaught of hurricanes. Whiny children...



Find something important that effects millions of people -- spew a meaningless, idiotic non-sequitur.. Retardedly imagine you said something relevant.  Loony denier cult morons...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic......
> ...



Damn the good old days Meg Ryan was so cute, adorable and lovable


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic......
> ...



I was just playing off his post...

The movie Joe vs the volcano...


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Climate "Scientists" showing their "Evidence" of AGW



Why don't you actually look up what is actually going on in this picture.  We've gone through this before.  I've thought you might have remembered.

How to limit risk of climate catastrophe


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Climate "Scientists" showing their "Evidence" of AGW
> ...



So no cut and paste from the A in AGW thread where you posted physical evidence that supports the A in AGW....didn't think so....I re read the thread a couple of times already and wouldn't have even challenged you to bring such a post here if one existed...In fact, I wouldn't have even started the thread if such physical evidence that man is altering the global climate existed...in fact, I wouldn't be a skeptic if such physical evidence that man is altering the global climate existed...

It is always interesting though, to see what passes for physical evidence in the minds of believers...and it goes a long way towards explaining why you and yours are such dupes.

Thanks again for making my prediction come true...I can always count on you to behave as predicted.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2016)

Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.

Anyone interested in examining the evidence can easily read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  Or feel free to read the thousands of peer reviewed studies, many of which that report assesses.

PS: Thanks for continuing to quote me in your sig.  It's probably better advertising than I could arrange on my own.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.
> 
> Anyone interested in examining the evidence can easily read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  Or feel free to read the thousands of peer reviewed studies, many of which that report assesses.
> 
> PS: Thanks for continuing to quote me in your sig.  It's probably better advertising than I could arrange on my own.


*
Thanks again, I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs.*

Lie? Like the Hockey Stick that left out the MWP and the LIA?

I can't remember, when did Michael Mann win his Nobel Prize? Can you refresh my memory?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.
> 
> Anyone interested in examining the evidence can easily read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  Or feel free to read the thousands of peer reviewed studies, many of which that report assesses.
> 
> PS: Thanks for continuing to quote me in your sig.  It's probably better advertising than I could arrange on my own.


I'm still waiting on the excerpt you feel provides your evidence out of that IPCC report.  Still nothing.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Back on topic......
> 
> *Global Warming in Action, Right Before Our Eyes
> *
> ...



Continuing ON TOPIC from post #246.....

*China’s Worst Flood In Decades Has Decimated Its Farmland*
Modern Farmer
By Dan Nosowitz
July 12, 2016
(excerpts)
*The worst flooding since 1998 is wreaking havoc on Taiwan and, especially, southern mainland China. The death count is nearing 200, and the effects may go on for much longer, thanks to the destruction of cropland. The flooding is due to a combination of factors; heavy rainfall thanks to El Niño has hammered the entire region for weeks, but it was a weather system now named Typhoon Nepartak that took the weather to the current destructive levels. The typhoon hit Taiwan on July 7th, then hammered mainland China on the 8th, causing even more heavy rainfall and huge wind speeds. **Dozens of rivers in 12 of China’s 23 provinces swelled and overflowed, most importantly the Yangtze. The area immediately surrounding these rivers comprises most of China’s most important cropland, a huge portion of which was either damaged or destroyed by the floods. It’s estimated that around 6.7 million acres of cropland was submerged. Reuters reported that millions of fowl were killed in only one small region; it’s not known exactly the extent of the damage, but it’s estimated to be in the range of $10 billion.*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic......
> ...


so you're now saying they had worse flooding decades ago?  what the f?  I thought CO2 has increased and now every event has to be greater than decades ago.  Right?  I mean how can it not exceed the decades ago flooding?  omG


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic......
> ...



So you have one typhoon, which does even reach the top 10 in typhoons and a flood that is not the worst ever, not the worst in the last 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, not even the last 25 or 20 years. Only 18 years ago. 

How do you link the typhoons to global warming? In the late 50's and 60's had the worst typhoons. Has global warming caused the intensity of typhoons to decrease?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Back on topic......
> 
> *Global Warming in Action, Right Before Our Eyes
> *
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Continuing ON TOPIC from post #246.....
> 
> *China’s Worst Flood In Decades Has Decimated Its Farmland*
> Modern Farmer
> ...





Papageorgio said:


> So you have one typhoon.....


Nope! Not even close, you poor denier cult retard.

The topic of this thread is the evidence all around us that constitutes
*"Global warming in action....right before our eyes"*
And it started with the flooding in West Virginia and came around to the flooding in India, Pakistan and China. Then the flooding in China was made much worse by what was originally called a 'Super-Typhoon' called Nepartak, that ravaged Taiwan with 145mph winds, and then declined to just a huge tropical storm by the time it hit the coast of China, which still dumped a huge amount of rain - because, as as discussed in the OP, the global warming driven warmer atmosphere is holding more water vapor.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.
> 
> Anyone interested in examining the evidence can easily read "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  Or feel free to read the thousands of peer reviewed studies, many of which that report assesses.
> 
> PS: Thanks for continuing to quote me in your sig.  It's probably better advertising than I could arrange on my own.



And as easy as it would be, if you weren't a bald faced liar, to copy your post and put it here to slap me down....you don't do it....instead you try and claim that you did post the evidence I asked for rather than just bring it here....that is the problem with being a liar in a place like this crick...you get exposed in short order....like now..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.
> ...



Hope you can stand a long wait....like till the end of time and then some.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks again,  I guess, for showing us that the folks on the other side of this argument lie like dogs. Or perhaps just you.
> ...




You keep calling me a liar but have yet to prove it.  You've yet to even provide evidence.  You've yet to even suggest where the evidence that I was lying might be.  What's the problem?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You are kidding....right skid mark?  Every time you fail to provide the observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW that you claim to have posted you prove it for me...  All I need to to prove claim is to keep pointing out that you aren't posting what would be so easy to post since you claimed to have already posted it at least once....thus proving the lie....and you would rather be called a liar than to admit that you never posted the requested evidence because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2016)

Like dogs.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like dogs.



Yep...if you didn't lie like a dog you could post the observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that you claim that you posted....I can do this on and on and every time you say something stupid instead of simply posting what you claim to have already posted, it just reinforces what a liar you are.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 16, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Back on topic......
> ...



Name me the years that there hasn't been flooding, typhoons, hurricanes, droughts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2016)

Papageorgio said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



If we'd just spend $10 trillion on windmills and high speed trains that no one will ride, and stop using oil, there'd never be another flood, typhoon, hurricane or drought.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like dogs.


Cats


----------



## Crick (Jul 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like dogs.





SSDD said:


> Yep...if you didn't lie like a dog you could post the observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that you claim that you posted....I can do this on and on and every time you say something stupid instead of simply posting what you claim to have already posted, it just reinforces what a liar you are.



Lying dog.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

You've never addressed a single word in this document.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Like dogs.
> ...


well again, post what you believe backs your claim of observed?  That's a rather large document and your request is opposite of what is needed.  We need you to show us what you believe backs your claim, and then we can post snippets that we believe counter that argument.  It's how a debate goes.  We aren't psychic


----------



## Crick (Jul 19, 2016)

Psychic?  All I'm looking for is someone who can read.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Psychic?  All I'm looking for is someone who can read.


well sure, post up what you want us to read.  you know the stuff you think backs your observation claim in the document.  We've been waiting.  again, we aren't psychic so we'd like to know what is you think is there. your turn post it up.  It's called copy and paste.


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Like dogs.





SSDD said:


> Yep...if you didn't lie like a dog you could post the observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that you claim that you posted....I can do this on and on and every time you say something stupid instead of simply posting what you claim to have already posted, it just reinforces what a liar you are.





Crick said:


> Lying dog.
> 
> Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
> 
> You've never addressed a single word in this document.



Not one single word.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Like dogs.
> ...


I know, you still haven't posted that snippet that you think backs your claim. Where is it?  Which section, page and paragraph is it?


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

I post links to the entire thing because the entire thing - not some little snippet - is evidence that supports the validity of AGW.


----------

