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

[Dovahkiin]

Other than it obviously not disproving climate change.

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Not the level of Co2 we have now.

I'm talking about now.

We are going to continue to warm.

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.

Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Not the level of Co2 we have now.

I'm talking about now.

We are going to continue to warm.

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.

Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.

Translation~ you are right but I have no retort and will continue to pull opinions out of my ass and "Believe" have "Faith " in the government .

 

[Old Rocks]

And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord?

In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.

 

[skookerasbil]

And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord?

In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.

Indeed.......but democracy speaks to majorities....and for almost 10 years now, congress hasn't shown a bit of interest in doing anything about "global warming". THAT is the people speaking.......the essence of democracy. In 2014, candidates who ran on climate change got their clocks cleaned. Democracy speaking in volumes.

Why is that?

Simple

Because the government response to global warming is to tax the shit out of its people while we have far more pressing matters in terms of where government monies go. Tens of billions for failed solar companies. Easy come easy go for progressives. Appropriations are getting to be a Jonestown in this country........which is of no concern to progressives. Fuck the future generations......spend tens of trillions based upon computer models that are wrong all the time. Shit.........the computer models were so far off for this blizzard as to be laughable. AND THAT WAS 24 HOURS OUT!!!

Progressives never care about what stuff costs...........if it sounds good, spend, spend, spend. They have no clue about what 20 trillion+ in debt means for the future. They spend like drunken sailors..........most never had to balance a damn checkbook in their life or live on a budget.

Government needs to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to develop innovative energy forms instead of pushing this 18th century concept of energy ( renewables ). It they cant stand on their own in the marketplace, see ya!!! Same for oil.........no subsidies. People think ethanol is some new thing.........been around almost 200 years. If it cant make it in the marketplace, screw it. Its called common sense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you didn't have a point.

Other than it obviously not disproving climate change.

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Wow... the farce in this one is strong...

I guess you missed the part where earth entered periods of glaciation millions of times with levels of CO2 at 7,000ppm or higher?

When we use a chart with the spatial resolution to see thousands of years you will see the cyclical nature of the earth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Not the level of Co2 we have now.

I'm talking about now.

We are going to continue to warm.

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.

Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.

Your opinion has no relevance when considered with facts.. as are most alarmists..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Not the level of Co2 we have now.

I'm talking about now.

We are going to continue to warm.

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.

Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.

Your opinion has no relevance

You're right, which is why the US Senate voted 95-0 in favor of the Kyoto protocol in 1997.

Oh, wait, it was 95-0, against.

world governments who will work to combat the problem.

Yes, poor countries will accept bribes from rich countries.
Rich countries will pretend the bribes accomplish something useful.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And what the hell is your faith in? An obese junkie on the AM radio? A fake British Lord?

In a democracy, we elect people to represent us. We are the government, except for asses that whine and puke about government, and never bother to be involved.

In a democracy, we elect people to represent us.

95-0. Hurray democracy!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar. And, in another generation, coal will be a memory. So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty. So all we got out of that failure to see the future was bad press, when we succeeded in doing what was needed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar. And, in another generation, coal will be a memory. So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty. So all we got out of that failure to see the future was bad press, when we succeeded in doing what was needed.

And business voted in favor of natural gas, wind, and solar.

And Congress voted against natural gas in the 70s.

And, in another generation, coal will be a memory.

Unless Congress votes for it, again.

So we actually achieved what would have been out goal if we had signed that treaty.

Hurray fracking!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, hurray for natural gas. A good bridge to a completely non-polluting grid. And in two generations, it will be gone. Solar, wind, geothermal, and other clean forms of generation will completely take there place. Solar is already cheaper than coal and natural gas on the utility level. As the grid scale batteries come on line, you will have a far more robust grid, at less cost.

All of this is feasible with the present technology. And one can see that the present technology is advancing very rapidly.

 

[Roudy]

Do I believe in what?

I believe within 15 years, whether you like it or not, life is going to be very different.

Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Keep dreaming.

Dreaming what? Do you agree with this?

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

You're a deep thinker, aren't you? Hint: It's not saying what you think it is.

So tell us what it really says.

He's trying to figure out a way to change what it actually means. LOL

 

[Roudy]

Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Keep dreaming.

Dreaming what? Do you agree with this?

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

You're a deep thinker, aren't you? Hint: It's not saying what you think it is.

So tell us what it really says.

It's pretty clear "The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity."

Did that help?

Wow! Ya don't say! And what pray tell does the article say this low solar activity will do to temps on earth?

 

[Roudy]

So tell us what it really says.

It's pretty clear "The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity."

Did that help?

That's not different than what Roudy said. Did you have a point?

It's shouldn't be any different, it's a direct quote.

So you didn't have a point.

Other than it obviously not disproving climate change.

Actually it did say something about the effects on the climate, read again:

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

 

[Roudy]

Did Roudy say it disproved climate change?

Actually he went a step further and is saying that scientists are predicting global cooling, read it for yourself:


Yes, according to what scientists are predicting about the Sun's behavior, there will be global cooling.

Post 440 if you are interested. Are you done now?

Less input from the Sun won't cool the Earth? I guess you can go with that.

Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.

Kind of like how our warmest period coincided with higher CO2 levels?

Not the level of Co2 we have now. We are going to continue to warm.

Not the level of Co2 we have now.

I'm talking about now.

We are going to continue to warm.

Shorter, colder growing seasons would be really bad.
A new ice age would be a catastrophe. A CO2 insurance policy is a good idea.

Your opinion has no relevance when it comes to the world scientific communities consensus and world governments who will work to combat the problem. Deniers cling to forums for a reason.

Blah blah blah. "The earth is flat."

Scientific consensus in the mid to late 70's was that "we"re going to run out of oil in one to two decades" and "the earth is heading for an ice age". Didn't Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet say that the consensus is that we'd all be under 10 feet of water by now?

"Perhaps nowhere have the alarmists’ predictions been proven as wrong as at the Earth’s poles. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, Al Gore, publicly warned that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

Speaking to an audience in Germany five years ago, Gore — sometimes ridiculed as “The Goracle” — alleged that “the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” Gore said again, in case anybody missed it the first time, is “the period of time during which it is now expected to disappear.”

 

[Roudy]

So tell us what it really says.

It's pretty clear "The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity."

Did that help?

That's not different than what Roudy said. Did you have a point?

It's shouldn't be any different, it's a direct quote.

So you didn't have a point.

Other than it obviously not disproving climate change.

Well, here's some direct quotes by experts in the past, I wonder how their predictions panned out. Let's not let the facts get in our way now.....

"Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

 

[Crick]

The next time you want to make fun of someone's predictions, find one that uses a date.

 

[jc456]

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

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

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

Sure, Koch funded Richard Mueller.

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

He does believe in climate change.

I believe in climate change so? What the fk does that mean? The climate is always changing. That seems to be a sticking point for you eh?

 

[jc456]

"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.

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

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

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

and 100% of those funded by government money say that man makes the world warmer. So what is your point, the climateologists need to make a living and the government won't fund them to tell them man isn't a cause. Do you understand that? Oh wait, I forgot, you don't.

 

[jc456]

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.

Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"

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

now that is at least admitting your bias. Of course you couldn't. Dude that is too funny. did you make that up all by yourself? Or did you take the lead from Bri?