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

[PredFan]

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

Helloooo?

So what?

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

That ain't science, that's fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

This was already explained to you.

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

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

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

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

how many inches of snow will fall in DC today?

A lot

 

[HappyJoy]

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

194 nations agreed the USA should pay for fake science

Link?

Link to what, Crick?

Your integrity.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

That ain't science, that's fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

Really? Like what?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

Good post, and right on point.

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

lol... like you are one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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

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

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That IS what your church prophesied, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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