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

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, you're not qualified.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

What a fool you are.. Do you think NOAA or NASA are reputable?

Who is reputable?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do alarmists feel it necessary to lie about warming when its been cooling now since 2004?
What a fool you are.. Do you think NOAA or NASA are reputable?

Who is reputable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

Who is reputable?

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

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

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

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

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

Well there you go...

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

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

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

 

[Sun Devil 92]

from your link:

"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."
​

So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words). Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?

Why is it bogus?

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

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

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

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

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

I can't get enough of this.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why is it bogus?

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

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

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

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

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

I can't get enough of this.

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

Well there you go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why is it bogus?

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

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

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

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

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

I can't get enough of this.

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

Well there you go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

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

I can't get enough of this.

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

Guess what... were at the top of the

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

Well there you go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You provide nothing of substance or truth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

IN other words, One YOU THINK IS OK... which means the only nut case is you becasue you fail to think for yourself or look at empirical evidence..

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

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

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

Well there you go...

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, you're not qualified.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

Who is reputable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Old Rocks]

Why is it bogus?

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

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

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

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

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

I can't get enough of this.

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