Freezing And/Or Snowing In 56 States!,Well John Kerry,Gore & Obama!,How Is This All Global Warming?

[Wyatt earp]

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

You mean the article points out that Hansen is an idiot. Hansen himself says recent heat waves are proof of global warming. Allow me to quote from the article.

The relentless, weather-gone-crazy heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it cannot be anything but man-made global warming, a top Nasa scientist says.​

The research, by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than one in 300. Now the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by Professor James Hansen.

He says that statistically what is happening is not random or normal, but simply climate change.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Prof Hansen said.​

No, Hansen is NOT an idiot. He's a serious scientist who doesn't always conform to the mainstream.

He is quite specific about what events are attributable to climate change, and he shows his science on why. That is NOT what you were claiming.


The fact of the matter is that climate change is making extremes more likely. It would be nice if there was a "climate change" thing like El Nino, or something, but that's not the way climate change works.

Hansen is the biggest fake ever to hit climatology..

It would help if you studied his bull shit with out Rose collared glasses on.

If you want to disagree with something, you should state what it is. And, it would be great if you stated why.

Also, there has been no serious proposal for a climate change response where we would be economically damaged as a nation.

Let's remember that the average gas tax in OECD countries is $2.65/gallon, and they are not dying. So, moaning about the relatively tiny changes proposed by even the most radical in the US is ridiculous.

Like I always said liberals don't know math, economics or business..



God you are a fucking moron..



.

I won't even bother to post a link because you have absolutely no common fucking sense...







Global warming is real, climate change is real and they are expensive. The latest research from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that suggests fighting climate change could cost the equivalent of 4% of the total world economy by 2030. The reading is grim.

The IPCC said that keeping the current warming of the planet to just 2 degrees Celsius would require a “40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels.” What that means is we’re trying to keep greenhouse gases below 480 parts per million in the atmosphere; currently, that figure is around 400 ppm.

Alex Morales at Bloomberg reported, “Containing the concentration to 480 ppm ‘would entail global consumption losses’ of 1 percent to 4 percent in 2030. That range would rise to 2 percent to 6 percent in 2050 and then to as much as 12 percent in 2100 when compared with scenarios that don’t involve fighting climate change, according to the document.” In other words, spend a little now or a lot later.

 

[WillReadmore]

This is absolutely false.

You can NOT come up with even ONE example of climatologists taking action such as this.

It must hurt to be so fucking stupid. None other than James Hansen has said so:

Heatwaves are proof of global warming, says Nasa scientist

Yes - that article points out that you don't know what the HECK you are talking about.

It points out that what you said is dead wrong. James Hansen is a world famous climate scientist, and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say.

Now admit you're an ignorant moron.

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

 

[WillReadmore]

You mean the article points out that Hansen is an idiot. Hansen himself says recent heat waves are proof of global warming. Allow me to quote from the article.

The relentless, weather-gone-crazy heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it cannot be anything but man-made global warming, a top Nasa scientist says.​

The research, by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than one in 300. Now the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by Professor James Hansen.

He says that statistically what is happening is not random or normal, but simply climate change.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Prof Hansen said.​

No, Hansen is NOT an idiot. He's a serious scientist who doesn't always conform to the mainstream.

He is quite specific about what events are attributable to climate change, and he shows his science on why. That is NOT what you were claiming.


The fact of the matter is that climate change is making extremes more likely. It would be nice if there was a "climate change" thing like El Nino, or something, but that's not the way climate change works.

Hansen is the biggest fake ever to hit climatology..

It would help if you studied his bull shit with out Rose collared glasses on.

If you want to disagree with something, you should state what it is. And, it would be great if you stated why.

Also, there has been no serious proposal for a climate change response where we would be economically damaged as a nation.

Let's remember that the average gas tax in OECD countries is $2.65/gallon, and they are not dying. So, moaning about the relatively tiny changes proposed by even the most radical in the US is ridiculous.

Like I always said liberals don't know math, economics or business..



God you are a fucking moron..



.

I won't even bother to post a link because you have absolutely no common fucking sense...







Global warming is real, climate change is real and they are expensive. The latest research from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that suggests fighting climate change could cost the equivalent of 4% of the total world economy by 2030. The reading is grim.

The IPCC said that keeping the current warming of the planet to just 2 degrees Celsius would require a “40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels.” What that means is we’re trying to keep greenhouse gases below 480 parts per million in the atmosphere; currently, that figure is around 400 ppm.

Alex Morales at Bloomberg reported, “Containing the concentration to 480 ppm ‘would entail global consumption losses’ of 1 percent to 4 percent in 2030. That range would rise to 2 percent to 6 percent in 2050 and then to as much as 12 percent in 2100 when compared with scenarios that don’t involve fighting climate change, according to the document.” In other words, spend a little now or a lot later.

China has opened up a whole new area of industry, designing solar and wind power equipment. They have more patents by far than any other country in this area. They are the major innovators and manufacturers of this equipment.


My point here is that if we just sit here and pay for it, it could get expensive. I fully agree with that.

On the other hand, if we start building new industry around these changes, it could be a major source of employment and an economic benefit for the US. This isn't just a matter of solar and wind, either. Every watt we save is a watt that can be used for some other purpose.

But, that isn't going to happen if we just let other nations treat us like road kill.

It's not going to happen if we operate on the basis that the need for this equipment is fake.

It's not going to happen if our direction is to let other nations take the lead.

 

[Silhouette]

Freezing And/Or Snowing In 56 States!,Well John Kerry,Gore & Obama!,How Is This All Global Warming?

Explained here: (& BTW, why was my thread moved to the "dungeon" of "environment" forum; while this one remains in "politics"?)

The Politics vs The Reality Of Climate Change

 

[WillReadmore]

Freezing And/Or Snowing In 56 States!,Well John Kerry,Gore & Obama!,How Is This All Global Warming?

Explained here: (& BTW, why was my thread moved to the "dungeon" of "environment" forum; while this one remains in "politics"?)

The Politics vs The Reality Of Climate Change

It sounds like you are suggesting that our planet is not warming.

That would be a radical deviation from what climatologists are reporting - even those who don't see human contribution as being the central cause.

 

[AntonToo]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015
2 2014
3 2010
4 2013
5 2005

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

 

[bripat9643]

It must hurt to be so fucking stupid. None other than James Hansen has said so:

Heatwaves are proof of global warming, says Nasa scientist

Yes - that article points out that you don't know what the HECK you are talking about.

It points out that what you said is dead wrong. James Hansen is a world famous climate scientist, and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say.

Now admit you're an ignorant moron.

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

1998 was warmer than all those years, moron.

 

[AntonToo]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

1998 was warmer than all those years, moron.

No it is not idiot.

1998 ties 2009 in 6th place.

 

[bripat9643]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

1998 was warmer than all those years, moron.

No it is not idiot.

1998 ties 2009 in 6th place.

That's according to fake "homogenized" databases created by the AGW con artists. Satellite data shows the 1998 is the warmest year on record.

 

[AntonToo]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

1998 was warmer than all those years, moron.

No it is not idiot.

1998 ties 2009 in 6th place.

That's according to fake "homogenized" databases created by the AGW con artists. Satellite data shows the 1998 is the warmest year on record.

And the inevitable conspiracy theory.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yes - that article points out that you don't know what the HECK you are talking about.

It points out that what you said is dead wrong. James Hansen is a world famous climate scientist, and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say.

Now admit you're an ignorant moron.

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

Yes, it does matter.

And, no, Hansen did NOT do what you suggested.

His position IS backed by his science and is NOT an example of your claims of overly broad or unsupported claims made by climatologists.

You've got nothing on Hansen.

And, your original charge is ridiculous.

 

[WillReadmore]

RANK 1 = WARMEST PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015 YEAR

1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17

And without fail 2016 is on track to be, yes, yet another hottest year on record, complete with hottest month ever recorded (July).

2016 on track for hottest year on record

Questions?

1998 was warmer than all those years, moron.

No it is not idiot.

1998 ties 2009 in 6th place.

That's according to fake "homogenized" databases created by the AGW con artists. Satellite data shows the 1998 is the warmest year on record.

Then cite it.

NOAA says the 15 hottest years on record are all in this century, except for 1998, tied for 6th:
Global Analysis - Annual 2015 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

And, NASA confirms that 1998 does not lead - as does Japan and other nations.

So, are you proposing a world wide conspiracy theory??

 

[bripat9643]

It points out that what you said is dead wrong. James Hansen is a world famous climate scientist, and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say.

Now admit you're an ignorant moron.

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

Yes, it does matter.

And, no, Hansen did NOT do what you suggested.

His position IS backed by his science and is NOT an example of your claims of overly broad or unsupported claims made by climatologists.

You've got nothing on Hansen.

And, your original charge is ridiculous.

He did exactly what I said. Now you're trying to justify it by claiming that science supports it. The reality is that science doesn't support it. It's pure abracadabra. You're just admitted that what I said is part of the methodology of the global warming wizards. Nothing has been more emphatically proved wrong than the claim that global warming produces "extreme" weather events.

 

[WillReadmore]

No, you are wrong for two clear reasons:

- the article points out that his results are NOT consistent with the majority of science.

- it points to very specific problems that his techniques clearly ascribe to climate change. That's not even SLIGHTLY similar to your claim that there is willy nilly attribution to climate change every time there is a natural disaster. He points to specific scientific evidence concerning specific results.

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

Yes, it does matter.

And, no, Hansen did NOT do what you suggested.

His position IS backed by his science and is NOT an example of your claims of overly broad or unsupported claims made by climatologists.

You've got nothing on Hansen.

And, your original charge is ridiculous.

He did exactly what I said. Now you're trying to justify it by claiming that science supports it. The reality is that science doesn't support it. It's pure abracadabra. You're just admitted that what I said is part of the methodology of the global warming wizards. Nothing has been more emphatically proved wrong than the claim that global warming produces "extreme" weather events.

Your whole direction is to IGNORE science. So, don't now try to quote science!

I pointed out that the case you cited has a scientist making very specific claims backed by scientific evidence. That is NOT what you were claiming.

 

[bripat9643]

We aren't talking about what the article says, moron, we're talking about what he said. James Hansen is indisputably a "climate scientist," and he said exactly what you claim climate scientists never say. The article was written by skeptics who point out the James Hansen is a douche bag and a moron.

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

Yes, it does matter.

And, no, Hansen did NOT do what you suggested.

His position IS backed by his science and is NOT an example of your claims of overly broad or unsupported claims made by climatologists.

You've got nothing on Hansen.

And, your original charge is ridiculous.

He did exactly what I said. Now you're trying to justify it by claiming that science supports it. The reality is that science doesn't support it. It's pure abracadabra. You're just admitted that what I said is part of the methodology of the global warming wizards. Nothing has been more emphatically proved wrong than the claim that global warming produces "extreme" weather events.

Your whole direction is to IGNORE science. So, don't now try to quote science!

I pointed out that the case you cited has a scientist making very specific claims backed by scientific evidence. That is NOT what you were claiming.

No, I ignore humbugs who claim the are doing science but prove by their utterances that they are wizards doing abracadabra. His claims are not backed by the evidence. They are backed by fake data that has been "homogenized." There is absolutely no evidence that global warming causes "extreme weather." The past 10 years have been a period of unparalleled lack of extreme weather, exactly the opposite of what AGW cultists have claimed.

 

[WillReadmore]

Hansen is not always mainstream, and the article pointed that out. You have NOTHING to counter that.

Hansen backed his statements with science. And, you have NOTHING to counter that, either.

Frankly, that selfie of you really says it all. If you are going to attempt to have a real conversation, you are just going to have to grow up.

It doesn't matter whether he is "mainstream" or not. You claimed that NO climate scientist ever said what he clearly said.

End of story.

Yes, it does matter.

And, no, Hansen did NOT do what you suggested.

His position IS backed by his science and is NOT an example of your claims of overly broad or unsupported claims made by climatologists.

You've got nothing on Hansen.

And, your original charge is ridiculous.

He did exactly what I said. Now you're trying to justify it by claiming that science supports it. The reality is that science doesn't support it. It's pure abracadabra. You're just admitted that what I said is part of the methodology of the global warming wizards. Nothing has been more emphatically proved wrong than the claim that global warming produces "extreme" weather events.

Your whole direction is to IGNORE science. So, don't now try to quote science!

I pointed out that the case you cited has a scientist making very specific claims backed by scientific evidence. That is NOT what you were claiming.

No, I ignore humbugs who claim the are doing science but prove by their utterances that they are wizards doing abracadabra. His claims are not backed by the evidence. They are backed by fake data that has been "homogenized." There is absolutely no evidence that global warming causes "extreme weather." The past 10 years have been a period of unparalleled lack of extreme weather, exactly the opposite of what AGW cultists have claimed.

Now you are stretching what Hansen actually said. Plus, you are disagreeing with the science being used even though you were originally complaining that the problem was not using science.

And, Hansen pointed to clear evidence that certain kinds of extremes are far more likely as warming occurs. It's true that science has shown that Hurricanes are not more FREQUENT with warming, but that's a different issue.

So, for example, Hansen pointed to specific cases of serious drought in the US, and gave evidence that the strength of these droughts was linked to climate change - the warming planet.

This is not the same as your claims of sweeping attributions not based on science.

In fact, that doesn't support your argument of sweeping attributions even Hansen's specific argument turns out to be inaccurate. He was not making a sweeping claim. And, he backed his claim with scientific evidence. There is nothing invalid about that.


Not only that, but the thing is we will NEVER have proof. Ever. No natural science supplies proof on ANY topic.

Our direction needs to be more sophisticated than demanding proof, unless you are arguing that science should NEVER contribute to public policy.

So, in the end I suspect we disagree more fundamentally than your bogus complaint would suggest, as I do believe we need to allow science to affect our public policy decision making.