Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[ding]

you can change climate even without moving the continents.

No, you can't. You only think you can. Why do you keep referring to weather patterns as climate?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You're talking to a false religion.

Jo

-sigh-

You know how BORING your types' points get when you trot out literally the same thing every other scientific illiterate has said before you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you can't.

Ummm, what about the last several glacial advances. We've had NUMEROUS glaciation events and interglacials in the Cenozoic. The continents weren't dramatically different in position since the last time there was a mile of ice sitting on northern Illinois.

You only think you can. Why do you keep referring to weather patterns as climate?

Because weather patterns over a long period of time are part of climate.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That doesn't sound like a disaster to me.

Ask the Mayans how they fared when their climate got drier for decades at a time.

 

[ding]

Wow. Honestly, Ding, you are smarter than this. Why are you acting as if these things aren't real??????

Because they aren't real. I'm still wondering what you think this disaster is supposed to be. Cats sleeping with dogs? Rain falling up?

A warmer world is a wetter world. A wetter world is a greener world. I'm not seeing the disaster.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So if I told you I talked directly to Satan and he told me that God is real...I'm good right?

Huh????

Lol...
You guys are a scream.

Jo

Sounds like you might be a bit confused on things. Maybe you are trying to say that science can't be trusted? I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because they aren't real.

Huh?

I'm still wondering what you think this disaster is supposed to be. Cats sleeping with dogs? Rain falling up?

I've tried to explain it to you a number of times. I am beginning to think you don't know where you food comes from.

A warmer world is a wetter world. A wetter world is a greener world. I'm not seeing the disaster.

That's because you understand neither climate nor agriculture. Or where you get food from.

 

[haveatit]

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Chairman of Exxon is not a Climate Scientist you moron.

If he said that then he was wrong. He was probably kissing the ass of the EU banks that have Green lending requirements where he gets better lending rates.

There is no proof whatsoever that human produced CO2 has altered the climate. Just a stupid bullshit correlation, some shit in shit out computer models and a lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data from scientists that know they are lying.

The actual Principle Climate Scientists ADMITTED in many emails that they purposely produced fraudulent and cherry picked data to promote the scam. We have caught NOAA, NASA and the UN Climate Commission using fraudulent data. Not once but several times.

Only idiots believe in this scam.

Nobody said he was. But as the leader of one of the largest energy companies in the world, no doubt he would have communication with the top scientists in the world on the topic. Next, there is no "principle" climate scientist. And even if the scientist you speak of said anything like what you suggest to any degree, no doubt it has been taken out of context. Or misrepresented in some other way. So what you say is probably bullshit. From what I see, for deniers, there is plenty of it out there.

 

[ding]

This is such a stupid conversation it beggars the imagination.

Enough.

I agree that you thinking the world is teetering on disaster is stupid.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I agree that you thinking the world is teetering on disaster is stupid.

OK, ding, I'm done here. You are either playing a game or you are EXTREMELY stupid. I can't tell which.

 

[ding]

Again, that's not the only driver of climate. Yes it has caused climates to change but SURELY you know that continental movement is EXTREMELY slow (mm/year).

I'm not sure why you think this is an important point to raise. Yes it's a forcing, no, it isn't the only one. And, yes, climate CAN AND HAS changed even when continental masses remained essentially unchanged.

Yes, I do understand that continental drift is very slow. Just slightly slower than the rate the sea level has been rising for the past 6,000 years.

Earth's landmass configuration and topological features and how it affects circulation in the ocean coupled with seasonal temperatures is what determines the weather patterns.

 

[ding]

climate CAN AND HAS changed even when continental masses remained essentially unchanged.

I think you are talking about weather patterns. The earth's climate is that of an icehouse planet. Been that way for ~3 million years. It won't be changing anytime soon.

 

[ding]

Ummm, what about the last several glacial advances. We've had NUMEROUS glaciation events and interglacials in the Cenozoic. The continents weren't dramatically different in position since the last time there was a mile of ice sitting on northern Illinois.

Glacial cycles are triggered by orbital forcing because the northern hemisphere is close to the threshold for extensive continental glaciation.

 

[ding]

The continents weren't dramatically different in position since the last time there was a mile of ice sitting on northern Illinois.

The ice was probably only a 1000m thick in Illinois during the last glacial maximum.

 

[ding]

Because weather patterns over a long period of time are part of climate.

If the US turned into a desert you would have a point. But that won't be happening in a warmer, wetter, greener world.

 

[ding]

Ask the Mayans how they fared when their climate got drier for decades at a time.

You mean when their weather patterns changed.

 

[ding]

Huh? I've tried to explain it to you a number of times. I am beginning to think you don't know where you food comes from. That's because you understand neither climate nor agriculture. Or where you get food from.

You believe that even though the world will be an overall wetter and greener climate, the net effect is that the world's weather patterns will somehow be vastly different than today. I don't. I believe that given that there is no change in earth's landmass distribution that there won't be much of a change relative to today's weather patterns except it will be slightly wetter and greener.

 

[ding]

OK, ding, I'm done here. You are either playing a game or you are EXTREMELY stupid. I can't tell which.

Making it personal yet again.

I'm not playing games. I am disagreeing with you. Your prediction of an impending climate disaster is unfounded and emotional.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your graph is crap. Mine are better.

And why is my graph "crap"?
It's as if you don't want to have this conversation. Every response is pointless.

 

[Flash]

Nobody said he was. But as the leader of one of the largest energy companies in the world, no doubt he would have communication with the top scientists in the world on the topic. Next, there is no "principle" climate scientist. And even if the scientist you speak of said anything like what you suggest to any degree, no doubt it has been taken out of context. Or misrepresented in some other way. So what you say is probably bullshit. From what I see, for deniers, there is plenty of it out there.

You don't understand these energy companies.

I have a good friend that is an executive for Duke Energy, one of the largest utility companies in the world.

Duke is putting in all these stupid worthless solar farms. My friend is a real Engineer and he knows as well as I do that solar is shitty technology so I asked him why would Duke do such a stupid thing.

His answer.

1. The get a lot of financing from EU banks. The stupid EU requires that banks only lend to companies that are "Green". Putting in the stupid solar farms checks that box.

2. The filthy ass US Federal government gives tax breaks and subsides for building the stupid things.

3. The companies can pass along the cost to the consumers.

In other words not a damn technological reason but all political. Despicable, isn't it? Tons of money being spent and we won't get jackshit for it.

Diffused solar energy cannot be concentrated enough to supply any significant energy needs. We need the solar energy that was already concentrated in fossil fuels. Or else nuclear.

If the stupid environmental wackos hadn't shut down the FFTF test bed at Hanford we could be well on our way to developing fusion power. It was the best test bed in the world but the stupid environmental wackos managed to get the Democrats to help them to shut it down. Disgusting, isn't it?

Liberals are the dumbest mutherfvckers on the earth, aren't they?