15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

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

Here's what passes for facts among those educated by entertainers.


Quote:
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

Based on that we can conclude...........er...........nothing.

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

 

[asterism]

Here's what passes for facts among those educated by entertainers.


Quote:
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

Based on that we can conclude...........er...........nothing.

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's what passes for facts among those educated by entertainers.


Quote:
A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

Based on that we can conclude...........er...........nothing.

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for abolishing the IPCC. Here's a clue for you "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. However, that's the basis for your entire AGW jihad, so how can you give it up now?

 

[bripat9643]

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

He's a good little drone who obediently regurgitates the propaganda his ideological masters dispense.

 

[bripat9643]

Apparently conservative media teaches that AGW means everything on the globe gets warmer every day. I suppose that when you don't have statistics, that's the only model you can deal with.

No, it doesn't teach that. One thing it does teach is not to use logical fallacies like the "Appeal to Authority" and "Begging the Question."

 

[PMZ]

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

I don't need to be an expert at climate science. That’s what we have the IPCC for, and you have nobody for.

I built a very successful career solving engineering problems, which is what this is.

Plus I'm a liberal, so not afraid of the future instead of living in the past. I'm willing to manage risk and investment. I think for myself. I have faith in mankind's abilities. I'm a history buff and have studied fear based eras and growth eras.

Anybody who'd even think of this whole opportunity and not invest in basic science is simply not useful to anyone.

 

[PMZ]

Spin it all you want, the warming just isn't there.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for abolishing the IPCC. Here's a clue for you "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. However, that's the basis for your entire AGW jihad, so how can you give it up now?

In other words, it's logical in your tiny mind to believe that you are an expert in everything.

That is a logical fatality.

 

[PMZ]

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

He's a good little drone who obediently regurgitates the propaganda his ideological masters dispense.

Tell us it's merely a coincidence that conservatives all have the same ideas at the same time expressed in the same words.

 

[asterism]

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

I don't need to be an expert at climate science. That’s what we have the IPCC for, and you have nobody for.

I built a very successful career solving engineering problems, which is what this is.

Plus I'm a liberal, so not afraid of the future instead of living in the past. I'm willing to manage risk and investment. I think for myself. I have faith in mankind's abilities. I'm a history buff and have studied fear based eras and growth eras.

Anybody who'd even think of this whole opportunity and not invest in basic science is simply not useful to anyone.

I agree.

We disagree on what constitutes "Science," that's all.

Can a geologist design an airbag assembly? Can a hydrologist build a railroad bridge?

 

[asterism]

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

He's a good little drone who obediently regurgitates the propaganda his ideological masters dispense.

Tell us it's merely a coincidence that conservatives all have the same ideas at the same time expressed in the same words.

The same could be said about most liberals on some topics too. When an Art History major lectured me about climate change last summer, it was obvious that she hadn't really studied the issue much.

She even said that electric cars were better for the environment (they aren't when they just use more coal generated electricity).

 

[skookerasbil]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[gallantwarrior]

Perhaps it has eluded you that there is no protecting ice and snow from AGW. Once they're gone, they're gone. Probably for thousands of years.

And that's a bad thing how?

Because they become ocean. That huge body of water that we built most of our cities on. When it goes up, they'll come down.

I'm still not seeing the downside.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for the IPCC.

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for abolishing the IPCC. Here's a clue for you "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. However, that's the basis for your entire AGW jihad, so how can you give it up now?

In other words, it's logical in your tiny mind to believe that you are an expert in everything.

That is a logical fatality.

Seems to me he's more an expert at blindly and unquestioningly lapping up whatever agenda-driven "science" is presented to him and then steadfastly insisting on the so-called "science" is absolutely infallible and beyond question.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo PMZ......hate to break it to you but your side is losing. HUGE!! The "consensus" shit is having no effect on energy policy of western nations. Zero.......nada.......none. In fact, since 2009 green energy falls further and further into the shitter. Green energy contributes about 3% in the US.....and that is wind and solar combined. Only mental cases would thump their chests on those numbers, but of course, we know what we are dealing with here.

By 2040, the BESY estimate is renewables will be at 10% with most estimates being closer to 7%. Ive posted up scores of links supporting this.

Ive been waiting almost 3 years for one single climate nutter to post up a single link showing how the science is mattering?? Never happens because the whole global warming thing has become nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013.

 

[PMZ]

You do a lot of judging and seem to think highly of your education.

What are your credentials? What makes you an expert?

I don't need to be an expert at climate science. That’s what we have the IPCC for, and you have nobody for.

I built a very successful career solving engineering problems, which is what this is.

Plus I'm a liberal, so not afraid of the future instead of living in the past. I'm willing to manage risk and investment. I think for myself. I have faith in mankind's abilities. I'm a history buff and have studied fear based eras and growth eras.

Anybody who'd even think of this whole opportunity and not invest in basic science is simply not useful to anyone.

I agree.

We disagree on what constitutes "Science," that's all.

Can a geologist design an airbag assembly? Can a hydrologist build a railroad bridge?

You make a good case to employ the IPCC climate scientists to provide the science behind AGW and not the average man in the street.

 

[PMZ]

He's a good little drone who obediently regurgitates the propaganda his ideological masters dispense.

Tell us it's merely a coincidence that conservatives all have the same ideas at the same time expressed in the same words.

The same could be said about most liberals on some topics too. When an Art History major lectured me about climate change last summer, it was obvious that she hadn't really studied the issue much.

She even said that electric cars were better for the environment (they aren't when they just use more coal generated electricity).

My topics are science, business and engineering.

 

[PMZ]

And that's a bad thing how?

Because they become ocean. That huge body of water that we built most of our cities on. When it goes up, they'll come down.

I'm still not seeing the downside.

The only downside is the cost of protecting shoreline civilization from rising sea level. And recovering from storm damage worsened by high sea levels.

 

[PMZ]

Your kind of "thinking" is the strongest argument there is for abolishing the IPCC. Here's a clue for you "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. However, that's the basis for your entire AGW jihad, so how can you give it up now?

In other words, it's logical in your tiny mind to believe that you are an expert in everything.

That is a logical fatality.

Seems to me he's more an expert at blindly and unquestioningly lapping up whatever agenda-driven "science" is presented to him and then steadfastly insisting on the so-called "science" is absolutely infallible and beyond question.

I have faith in science. You have faith in evangelical media based political entertainers paid by big oil.

 

[PMZ]

Yo PMZ......hate to break it to you but your side is losing. HUGE!! The "consensus" shit is having no effect on energy policy of western nations. Zero.......nada.......none. In fact, since 2009 green energy falls further and further into the shitter. Green energy contributes about 3% in the US.....and that is wind and solar combined. Only mental cases would thump their chests on those numbers, but of course, we know what we are dealing with here.

By 2040, the BESY estimate is renewables will be at 10% with most estimates being closer to 7%. Ive posted up scores of links supporting this.

Ive been waiting almost 3 years for one single climate nutter to post up a single link showing how the science is mattering?? Never happens because the whole global warming thing has become nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013.

Do you realize how stupid it sounds to be trying to sell the idea that science doesn't matter?

 

[asterism]

I don't need to be an expert at climate science. That’s what we have the IPCC for, and you have nobody for.

I built a very successful career solving engineering problems, which is what this is.

Plus I'm a liberal, so not afraid of the future instead of living in the past. I'm willing to manage risk and investment. I think for myself. I have faith in mankind's abilities. I'm a history buff and have studied fear based eras and growth eras.

Anybody who'd even think of this whole opportunity and not invest in basic science is simply not useful to anyone.

I agree.

We disagree on what constitutes "Science," that's all.

Can a geologist design an airbag assembly? Can a hydrologist build a railroad bridge?

You make a good case to employ the IPCC climate scientists to provide the science behind AGW and not the average man in the street.

But not write their own software, which is the entire premise that I argue.