Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We had another shift in weather patterns a few decades ago. Before that time violent storms were pretty common. Only a few idiots are claiming that humans have no affect on the planet. Personally, I would rather deal with the ants in my yard than nuke all the neighbors to make sure they don't spread ants. You prefer total destruction of human civilization to deal with a minor annoyance.
Yet you call me crazy.
Are you fucking insane?
I'll follow my rule of never arguing with an idiot
Says the guy that thinks humans impact the Earth more than the sun or moon or earth itself.....
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you cant point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I dont know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.
Fear not folks, warmth brings life.
Congratulations! Forbes has successfully maintained its reputation as a magazine with no connection whatsoever to dispassionate scientific inquiry.
That makes me feel better. Truly it does. Because now I can have a relatively high confidence that if I buy the latest issue of Scientific American, their contributors won't try to impress me with their knowledge of the causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.
Did you mention science?
Here is some science for you, let's see how you react to it. Over the last 15 years humans have dumped 100,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is roughly 25% of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity since 1750. Despite this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature has remained relatively stable.
Every climate model we use says this is impossible, yet it happened. That, like it or not, proves there is a problem with the models, not the people who point that fact out. In fact, the actual real world temperatures were already at the low end of 20 different climate model predictions in 2005. The situation has only gotten worse since then, and the real world temps are expected to fall through the bottom of those predictions in a few years.
The research is beginning to suggest that we really don't know how the climate works. Climate responds to higher degrees of CO2 than we thought. Science, believe it or not, doesn't care that it was wrong. Scientists are developing new models that suggest a doubling of CO2 will result much smaller temperature changes which will remain far below the catastrophic tipping point that the doomsayers love to trumpet.
The question now is, do you trust science, or are you a climate denier?
Source: (I would like to point out that The Economist has been one of the leading voices among the doomsayers before you try to deny their numbers based on a conspiracy theory.)
Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist
Jesus, it's not about if we gotten warmer only or cooler only or in the past 20 years only. It's about the shift in weather patterns, the violent storms, the global impact etc.
If you had ants in your yard they would affect your lawn. Hundred of Millions of humans cannot have zero effect on the planet. Be serious.
We had another shift in weather patterns a few decades ago. Before that time violent storms were pretty common. Only a few idiots are claiming that humans have no affect on the planet. Personally, I would rather deal with the ants in my yard than nuke all the neighbors to make sure they don't spread ants. You prefer total destruction of human civilization to deal with a minor annoyance.
Yet you call me crazy.
Are you fucking insane?
I'll follow my rule of never arguing with an idiot
Congratulations! Forbes has successfully maintained its reputation as a magazine with no connection whatsoever to dispassionate scientific inquiry.
That makes me feel better. Truly it does. Because now I can have a relatively high confidence that if I buy the latest issue of Scientific American, their contributors won't try to impress me with their knowledge of the causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.
Did you mention science?
Here is some science for you, let's see how you react to it. Over the last 15 years humans have dumped 100,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is roughly 25% of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity since 1750. Despite this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature has remained relatively stable.
Every climate model we use says this is impossible, yet it happened. That, like it or not, proves there is a problem with the models, not the people who point that fact out. In fact, the actual real world temperatures were already at the low end of 20 different climate model predictions in 2005. The situation has only gotten worse since then, and the real world temps are expected to fall through the bottom of those predictions in a few years.
The research is beginning to suggest that we really don't know how the climate works. Climate responds to higher degrees of CO2 than we thought. Science, believe it or not, doesn't care that it was wrong. Scientists are developing new models that suggest a doubling of CO2 will result much smaller temperature changes which will remain far below the catastrophic tipping point that the doomsayers love to trumpet.
The question now is, do you trust science, or are you a climate denier?
Source: (I would like to point out that The Economist has been one of the leading voices among the doomsayers before you try to deny their numbers based on a conspiracy theory.)
Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist
Two things.
First of all, climate models are the weakest link in climate science. The models are getting better all the time, but they can't predict with complete accuracy what will happen since not every variable is known, and it's not known how every variable interacts with all others.
Secondly, the increased heat of climate change/global warming doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It ultimately goes into the ocean.
Jesus, it's not about if we gotten warmer only or cooler only or in the past 20 years only. It's about the shift in weather patterns, the violent storms, the global impact etc.
If you had ants in your yard they would affect your lawn. Hundred of Millions of humans cannot have zero effect on the planet. Be serious.
It's always going to get warmer. It's always going to get cooler and there will always be periods of devastating storm activity? Lived long enough to have experienced a lot of it. Read about hot summers, cold summers, warm winters, cold winters by writers from as long ago as recording words were possible.
What's the point
We may be those ants. Who you kickin out of the yard so you can quit freakin out over normal weather? You or me?
Bet the answer is me.......
I get this response often and here's my follow up question: Have I or anyone else ever ever ever claimed that there has never been periods of cooling and periods of warming?
If not, who are you talking too and why are you giving me "rain is wet" arguments?
Did you mention science?
Here is some science for you, let's see how you react to it. Over the last 15 years humans have dumped 100,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is roughly 25% of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity since 1750. Despite this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere the temperature has remained relatively stable.
Every climate model we use says this is impossible, yet it happened. That, like it or not, proves there is a problem with the models, not the people who point that fact out. In fact, the actual real world temperatures were already at the low end of 20 different climate model predictions in 2005. The situation has only gotten worse since then, and the real world temps are expected to fall through the bottom of those predictions in a few years.
The research is beginning to suggest that we really don't know how the climate works. Climate responds to higher degrees of CO2 than we thought. Science, believe it or not, doesn't care that it was wrong. Scientists are developing new models that suggest a doubling of CO2 will result much smaller temperature changes which will remain far below the catastrophic tipping point that the doomsayers love to trumpet.
The question now is, do you trust science, or are you a climate denier?
Source: (I would like to point out that The Economist has been one of the leading voices among the doomsayers before you try to deny their numbers based on a conspiracy theory.)
Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist
Two things.
First of all, climate models are the weakest link in climate science. The models are getting better all the time, but they can't predict with complete accuracy what will happen since not every variable is known, and it's not known how every variable interacts with all others.
Secondly, the increased heat of climate change/global warming doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It ultimately goes into the ocean.
Two things: First of all, the fact that all of the dire predictions you post are based on something you just said is bull shit proves which if us actually cares about science. Secondly, that is what the models say, which you just admitted are useless.
So, to sum it up, models are useless, but the models say we are doomed.
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you cant point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I dont know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.
Fear not folks, warmth brings life.
I see it's much easier to just say "things have happened and always will" is much easier than looking for differences in size and scope. I say things are diff, you say things are the same. Scientist say things are different and you say no they're not.
It's easy.
The wetlands outside of New Orleans have been reduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Fact
Those wetlands helped reduce the speed, force and strength of storms. Fact
Katrina was more devastating because of that reduction in wetlands. Fact
Your response to ignore the differences in Katrinas size, strength and impact will be: there has always been storms!
Here you go caption, I dont make shit up, dont have to, your buddies are wondering whether...well just read the bold....I'm guessing the ones that think the Sun is more important are called deniers and anti science by people like you and the...well again read that....Is a Planetary Cooling Spell Straight Ahead? NASA: We May Be On the Verge of a ?Mini-Maunder? Event. | Global Research
All climate scientists agree that the sun affects Earths climate to some extent.
No shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who didnt know this?
They only disagree about whether or not the effect form the sun is minor compared to man-made causes.
Do people really debate this?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you cant point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I dont know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.
Fear not folks, warmth brings life.
Really???
1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice
Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.
The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the worlds largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.
NY Times
Two things.
First of all, climate models are the weakest link in climate science. The models are getting better all the time, but they can't predict with complete accuracy what will happen since not every variable is known, and it's not known how every variable interacts with all others.
Secondly, the increased heat of climate change/global warming doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It ultimately goes into the ocean.
Two things: First of all, the fact that all of the dire predictions you post are based on something you just said is bull shit proves which if us actually cares about science. Secondly, that is what the models say, which you just admitted are useless.
So, to sum it up, models are useless, but the models say we are doomed.
The climate models aren't useless. They're just not infallible anymore than any individual crash test will predict with 100% accuracy what will happen to that make and model car each and every time an accident happens.
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you cant point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I dont know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.
Fear not folks, warmth brings life.
Really???
1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice
Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.
The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the worlds largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.
NY Times
Two things.
First of all, climate models are the weakest link in climate science. The models are getting better all the time, but they can't predict with complete accuracy what will happen since not every variable is known, and it's not known how every variable interacts with all others.
Secondly, the increased heat of climate change/global warming doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It ultimately goes into the ocean.
Two things: First of all, the fact that all of the dire predictions you post are based on something you just said is bull shit proves which if us actually cares about science. Secondly, that is what the models say, which you just admitted are useless.
So, to sum it up, models are useless, but the models say we are doomed.
The climate models aren't useless. They're just not infallible anymore than any individual crash test will predict with 100% accuracy what will happen to that make and model car each and every time an accident happens.
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?
Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All? - Forbes
A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you cant point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I dont know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.
The above is what I have been saying all along. Yet the GW side keeps saying that climate change is undeniable. That the change has been drastic. They do point to the glaciers which apparently have receded as they have since the last ice age but other then that everything seems to be the same as it was when I was young.
Fear not folks, warmth brings life.
Really???
1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice
Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.
The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the worlds largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.
NY Times
The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!
Really???
1,600 Years of Ice in Andes Melted in 25 Years
Changes in the Qori Kalis Glacier, Quelccaya Ice
Cap, Peru, are shown between 1978 (top) and 2002.
Glacial ice in the Peruvian Andes that took at least 1,600 years to form has melted in just 25 years, scientists reported Thursday, the latest indication that the recent spike in global temperatures has thrown the natural world out of balance.
The evidence comes from a remarkable find at the margins of the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru, the worlds largest tropical ice sheet. Rapid melting there in the modern era is uncovering plants that were locked in a deep freeze when the glacier advanced many thousands of years ago.
NY Times
The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!
There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?
The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!
There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?
How many people live in a desert? Historically, people have tended to settle where there IS water. It's only recently that cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas have sprung up because they tapped into aquifers and/or transported water from rivers like the Colorado to meet their needs.
The point of melting glaciers is that it WILL affect millions (probably 100s of millions) of people.
The people who have traditionally depended on the spring and summer run off from that glacier for the irrigation of their crops and for their drinking water are probably not going to be able to sustain a living there anymore. Now, imagine what would happen to countless towns and cities if glaciers the world over melt, especially in areas of the world where there are millions of people 'downstream' across hundreds of miles and international borders who have depended on glacial run off every year in order to sustain their lives!
There are people living in some desert who are going to get a larger supply of water than they are used to. Most climate models that predict massive problems actually show that, overall, more people will benefit from the changes than will be harmed. Am I supposed to care about the lives of a few thousand people more than I care about the millions who will get more food?
How many people live in a desert? Historically, people have tended to settle where there IS water. It's only recently that cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas have sprung up because they tapped into aquifers and/or transported water from rivers like the Colorado to meet their needs.
The point of melting glaciers is that it WILL affect millions (probably 100s of millions) of people.
Here you go caption, I dont make shit up, dont have to, your buddies are wondering whether...well just read the bold....I'm guessing the ones that think the Sun is more important are called deniers and anti science by people like you and the...well again read that....
