I'm freezing Cold!! .... Global Warming or Climate Change??

[CrusaderFrank]

HADCRUT chart with the exact same 2 decade pause

That's not a pause, you cretin. Ffs, it's showing around a 0.4 °C increase in 40 years. That's a 1 °C increase in a century. One wouldn't believe it if one didn't see it.

2 decades =/= 40 years

 

[OnePercenter]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

If your ass is freezing, then it's "climate change". Libtards had to switch to that term when it wasn't possible to defend "global warming".

We're 67 degrees in Vegas today and we haven't seen a winter since 2011.

 

[TheTechnologist]

It's insulting that people don't understand the basics of Global Warming. As the Arctic warms, the Jet Stream weakens, and polar vortexes come farther south and more frequently.

It doesn't mean that winter weather will always be warmer. But in the North Pole it sure is warmer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

If your ass is freezing, then it's "climate change". Libtards had to switch to that term when it wasn't possible to defend "global warming".

We're 67 degrees in Vegas today and we haven't seen a winter since 2011.

Stop!!!

Stop right now!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's insulting that people don't understand the basics of Global Warming. As the Arctic warms, the Jet Stream weakens, and polar vortexes come farther south and more frequently.

It doesn't mean that winter weather will always be warmer. But in the North Pole it sure is warmer.

Sure they do.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i feel sorry for all of the lizards in Florida,,,they dont even have winter coats

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

kill me

I happen to love cold weather....looking out the window from a nice warm cottage with a big fireplace and my pets and warm soup....and wine and warm socks.....

I do mean this.....I adore cold weather....if I am in a safe inside warm place with people I tend to love

Yeah, but some of us are married.

 

[grainbely]

The audacity anyone has to try to sell to people we can stop climate from changing with carbon credits, is criminal.

Terminology changing to better describe what is happening is not a negative thing.

Using obscure or euphemistic terminology to misdirect or hide the truth from the public is not a good thing. .....

Talk to trump on that one. What a joke dude. Sales, even selling policy to the American people, is not a perfect process.

What is the truth? That we should stop poisoning our planet and ourselves with stuff that is meant to stay in the ground? There are better less poisonous alternatives.

Carbon credits may or may not be a good solution. Im not prepared to argue that and I have not stake in it.

Let's take a step back and look at your misguided assumption of what it is the concerned steward of planet earth wants.

"We can stop climate from changing."

Is this what you actually think? What or who is telling you this?

Here's the more accurate take. We understand that the climate changes on its own and it can do so in multiple combined and complex ways. Changing salination of the ocean, changing populations of plants and animals, changing surface composition like reflective vs. Absorbative substances, deforestation, change in atmospheric composition, and probably more things that we don't know about yet, are all playing into it to different degrees. The earth itself is the biggest complex system we know. If these things changed climate enough to jeopardize our survival wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? We require some ideal sweet spot conditions to thrive. While we have quickly improving technology, it would probably be wiser to maintain rather than neglectfully change it And adapt to the result. And if optional or preventable human activity played a big role in accelerating this change, wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? Like, if methane from grass fed livestock farms was found to be impactful in the change of atmospheric composition, should we take that into consideration separately from whatever the fk the business wants? We should give a rip what They want. Their duty is not to our society, it's to their sustained profit only and rightfully so. We would be INCREDIBLY STUPID in relinquishing our advantages to simply say "whoops the businesses want to do this so I guess we are hands off and have to live with it because socialism is bad." How fkin stupid would that be?

It's more complicated than your everyday right wing oversimplified slogan.

And here's the bottom line. Business will find a way to thrive in whatever reasonable legal framework we give it. Just make sure the delta isn't too high. We as a society through our governments pick the laws based on what we know now, not what they knew 300 years ago.

 

[grainbely]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

Here's queen idiot. It's cold out. Checkmate, Al Gore.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

Here's queen idiot. It's cold out. Checkmate, Al Gore.

How do you explain real experts who dispute the AGW alarmist doctrine?

 

[depotoo]

Oh, please. You are preaching to the choir.
That is how this mumbo jumbo started! A money scheme to redistribute wealth and make those at the top of it even wealthier. A power scheme, which does nothing to help change the climate.
Whatshould have been done is planning for how to survive when actual climate change, which always changes, does happen.

The audacity anyone has to try to sell to people we can stop climate from changing with carbon credits, is criminal.

Terminology changing to better describe what is happening is not a negative thing.

Using obscure or euphemistic terminology to misdirect or hide the truth from the public is not a good thing. .....

Talk to trump on that one. What a joke dude. Sales, even selling policy to the American people, is not a perfect process.

What is the truth? That we should stop poisoning our planet and ourselves with stuff that is meant to stay in the ground? There are better less poisonous alternatives.

Carbon credits may or may not be a good solution. Im not prepared to argue that and I have not stake in it.

Let's take a step back and look at your misguided assumption of what it is the concerned steward of planet earth wants.

"We can stop climate from changing."

Is this what you actually think? What or who is telling you this?

Here's the more accurate take. We understand that the climate changes on its own and it can do so in multiple combined and complex ways. Changing salination of the ocean, changing populations of plants and animals, changing surface composition like reflective vs. Absorbative substances, deforestation, change in atmospheric composition, and probably more things that we don't know about yet, are all playing into it to different degrees. The earth itself is the biggest complex system we know. If these things changed climate enough to jeopardize our survival wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? We require some ideal sweet spot conditions to thrive. While we have quickly improving technology, it would probably be wiser to maintain rather than neglectfully change it And adapt to the result. And if optional or preventable human activity played a big role in accelerating this change, wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? Like, if methane from grass fed livestock farms was found to be impactful in the change of atmospheric composition, should we take that into consideration separately from whatever the fk the business wants? We should give a rip what They want. Their duty is not to our society, it's to their sustained profit only and rightfully so. We would be INCREDIBLY STUPID in relinquishing our advantages to simply say "whoops the businesses want to do this so I guess we are hands off and have to live with it because socialism is bad." How fkin stupid would that be?

It's more complicated than your everyday right wing oversimplified slogan.

And here's the bottom line. Business will find a way to thrive in whatever reasonable legal framework we give it. Just make sure the delta isn't too high. We as a society through our governments pick the laws based on what we know now, not what they knew 300 years ago.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If the climate did not change the Sahara desert would be the Sahara Sea.

 

[grainbely]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

Here's queen idiot. It's cold out. Checkmate, Al Gore.

How do you explain real experts who dispute the AGW alarmist doctrine?

I dont. How do you explain the original and continuing body of experts and work saying it's still a thing? Are they all wrong and the opposition is all right? Who is funding it all?

You and I and no one here are climate scientists. I'm the development lead and product owner of an industry critical suite of applications that calculates a terabyte of data a day. So I don't know much about the weather, but transforming data to be useful in modeling and decision making is something I have growing experience with. We clean and manipulate data and views of data to improve it and if assume our customers so aswell. My questions about challenges of pro climate change data were about finding an explanation for their practices. I've found one that is good enough for me for now.

One thing I know for sure is that it's in the best interest of business interests to fight for their survival or benefit through lobbying, research, information campaigns, etc. We'd be right to question the motives of research based on funding and whatnot. If I had to pick between something funded by big oil/coal, or something funded by big renewables (if that's a thing), or something from academia with a mixed bag or questionable funding. I'm ruling out big oils information right from the start unless it's damning of the other entities. They are the entity we should be the most critical of since they have the most money, power, influence.

 

[depotoo]

Hint: research their sources of income...

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

Here's queen idiot. It's cold out. Checkmate, Al Gore.

How do you explain real experts who dispute the AGW alarmist doctrine?

I dont. How do you explain the original and continuing body of experts and work saying it's still a thing? Are they all wrong and the opposition is all right? Who is funding it all?

You and I and no one here are climate scientists. I'm the development lead and product owner of an industry critical suite of applications that calculates a terabyte of data a day. So I don't know much about the weather, but transforming data to be useful in modeling and decision making is something I have growing experience with. We clean and manipulate data and views of data to improve it and if assume our customers so aswell. My questions about challenges of pro climate change data were about finding an explanation for their practices. I've found one that is good enough for me for now.

One thing I know for sure is that it's in the best interest of business interests to fight for their survival or benefit through lobbying, research, information campaigns, etc. We'd be right to question the motives of research based on funding and whatnot. If I had to pick between something funded by big oil/coal, or something funded by big renewables (if that's a thing), or something from academia with a mixed bag or questionable funding. I'm ruling out big oils information right from the start unless it's damning of the other entities. They are the entity we should be the most critical of since they have the most money, power, influence.

 

[grainbely]

Oh, please. You are preaching to the choir.
That is how this mumbo jumbo started! A money scheme to redistribute wealth and make those at the top of it even wealthier. A power scheme, which does nothing to help change the climate.
Whatshould have been done is planning for how to survive when actual climate change, which always changes, does happen.

The audacity anyone has to try to sell to people we can stop climate from changing with carbon credits, is criminal.

Terminology changing to better describe what is happening is not a negative thing.

Using obscure or euphemistic terminology to misdirect or hide the truth from the public is not a good thing. .....

Talk to trump on that one. What a joke dude. Sales, even selling policy to the American people, is not a perfect process.

What is the truth? That we should stop poisoning our planet and ourselves with stuff that is meant to stay in the ground? There are better less poisonous alternatives.

Carbon credits may or may not be a good solution. Im not prepared to argue that and I have not stake in it.

Let's take a step back and look at your misguided assumption of what it is the concerned steward of planet earth wants.

"We can stop climate from changing."

Is this what you actually think? What or who is telling you this?

Here's the more accurate take. We understand that the climate changes on its own and it can do so in multiple combined and complex ways. Changing salination of the ocean, changing populations of plants and animals, changing surface composition like reflective vs. Absorbative substances, deforestation, change in atmospheric composition, and probably more things that we don't know about yet, are all playing into it to different degrees. The earth itself is the biggest complex system we know. If these things changed climate enough to jeopardize our survival wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? We require some ideal sweet spot conditions to thrive. While we have quickly improving technology, it would probably be wiser to maintain rather than neglectfully change it And adapt to the result. And if optional or preventable human activity played a big role in accelerating this change, wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? Like, if methane from grass fed livestock farms was found to be impactful in the change of atmospheric composition, should we take that into consideration separately from whatever the fk the business wants? We should give a rip what They want. Their duty is not to our society, it's to their sustained profit only and rightfully so. We would be INCREDIBLY STUPID in relinquishing our advantages to simply say "whoops the businesses want to do this so I guess we are hands off and have to live with it because socialism is bad." How fkin stupid would that be?

It's more complicated than your everyday right wing oversimplified slogan.

And here's the bottom line. Business will find a way to thrive in whatever reasonable legal framework we give it. Just make sure the delta isn't too high. We as a society through our governments pick the laws based on what we know now, not what they knew 300 years ago.

You are advocating for the reckless unfair approach. Eg. let businesses do whatever they want, and the rest of society will just have to deal with it and pay for dealing with it. Yeah, No. I will argue against that at every step. And it's not about control. I don't want to control what they are doing. I want to protect myself and the rest of us from financial and physical harm due to these reckless and neglectful companies choosing not to pay the real costs of responsibly operating.

 

[depotoo]

Not about control? Yes it is, every bit of it.

Oh, and life is what we individually make of it.

Oh, please. You are preaching to the choir.
That is how this mumbo jumbo started! A money scheme to redistribute wealth and make those at the top of it even wealthier. A power scheme, which does nothing to help change the climate.
Whatshould have been done is planning for how to survive when actual climate change, which always changes, does happen.

The audacity anyone has to try to sell to people we can stop climate from changing with carbon credits, is criminal.

Using obscure or euphemistic terminology to misdirect or hide the truth from the public is not a good thing. .....

Talk to trump on that one. What a joke dude. Sales, even selling policy to the American people, is not a perfect process.

What is the truth? That we should stop poisoning our planet and ourselves with stuff that is meant to stay in the ground? There are better less poisonous alternatives.

Carbon credits may or may not be a good solution. Im not prepared to argue that and I have not stake in it.

Let's take a step back and look at your misguided assumption of what it is the concerned steward of planet earth wants.

"We can stop climate from changing."

Is this what you actually think? What or who is telling you this?

Here's the more accurate take. We understand that the climate changes on its own and it can do so in multiple combined and complex ways. Changing salination of the ocean, changing populations of plants and animals, changing surface composition like reflective vs. Absorbative substances, deforestation, change in atmospheric composition, and probably more things that we don't know about yet, are all playing into it to different degrees. The earth itself is the biggest complex system we know. If these things changed climate enough to jeopardize our survival wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? We require some ideal sweet spot conditions to thrive. While we have quickly improving technology, it would probably be wiser to maintain rather than neglectfully change it And adapt to the result. And if optional or preventable human activity played a big role in accelerating this change, wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? Like, if methane from grass fed livestock farms was found to be impactful in the change of atmospheric composition, should we take that into consideration separately from whatever the fk the business wants? We should give a rip what They want. Their duty is not to our society, it's to their sustained profit only and rightfully so. We would be INCREDIBLY STUPID in relinquishing our advantages to simply say "whoops the businesses want to do this so I guess we are hands off and have to live with it because socialism is bad." How fkin stupid would that be?

It's more complicated than your everyday right wing oversimplified slogan.

And here's the bottom line. Business will find a way to thrive in whatever reasonable legal framework we give it. Just make sure the delta isn't too high. We as a society through our governments pick the laws based on what we know now, not what they knew 300 years ago.

You are advocating for the reckless unfair approach. Eg. let businesses do whatever they want, and the rest of society will just have to deal with it and pay for dealing with it. Yeah, No. I will argue against that at every step. And it's not about control. I don't want to control what they are doing. I want to protect myself and the rest of us from financial and physical harm due to these reckless and neglectful companies choosing not to pay the real costs of responsibly operating.

 

[Political Junky]

HADCRUT chart with the exact same 2 decade pause

That's not a pause, you cretin. Ffs, it's showing around a 0.4 °C increase in 40 years. That's a 1 °C increase in a century. One wouldn't believe it if one didn't see it.

2 decades =/= 40 years

A decade is 10 years.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

If the climate did not change the Sahara desert would be the Sahara Sea.

its 57 degrees in Naples!!! uugghh,,,,i cant take it anymore! now i need to find more palm trees to burn to keep me warm !!!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Buried deep in snow and below zero temperatures along the East coast.

I can't remember if this is the result of Global warming or Climate change?

Or is there a new PC term we are supposed to use?? .....

Here's queen idiot. It's cold out. Checkmate, Al Gore.

How do you explain real experts who dispute the AGW alarmist doctrine?

I dont. How do you explain the original and continuing body of experts and work saying it's still a thing? Are they all wrong and the opposition is all right? Who is funding it all?

You and I and no one here are climate scientists. I'm the development lead and product owner of an industry critical suite of applications that calculates a terabyte of data a day. So I don't know much about the weather, but transforming data to be useful in modeling and decision making is something I have growing experience with. We clean and manipulate data and views of data to improve it and if assume our customers so aswell. My questions about challenges of pro climate change data were about finding an explanation for their practices. I've found one that is good enough for me for now.

One thing I know for sure is that it's in the best interest of business interests to fight for their survival or benefit through lobbying, research, information campaigns, etc. We'd be right to question the motives of research based on funding and whatnot. If I had to pick between something funded by big oil/coal, or something funded by big renewables (if that's a thing), or something from academia with a mixed bag or questionable funding. I'm ruling out big oils information right from the start unless it's damning of the other entities. They are the entity we should be the most critical of since they have the most money, power, influence.

I find the AGW alarmist funding more dubious. It's too politicized and too promoted by politicians to not vet. Academia has lots of grant money at stake.
I never see the alarmist side debate those experts who disagree. Its mostly disparagement.
Given all of that reason to doubt, extreme measures legislated have not only cost Americans money and liberty they have also cost third-world bottom-feeders their lives. I don't think starving people in poor countries really care about future impacts of arctic ice melt.

 

[grainbely]

Not about control? Yes it is, every bit of it.

Oh, and life is what we individually make of it.

Oh, please. You are preaching to the choir.
That is how this mumbo jumbo started! A money scheme to redistribute wealth and make those at the top of it even wealthier. A power scheme, which does nothing to help change the climate.
Whatshould have been done is planning for how to survive when actual climate change, which always changes, does happen.

The audacity anyone has to try to sell to people we can stop climate from changing with carbon credits, is criminal.

Talk to trump on that one. What a joke dude. Sales, even selling policy to the American people, is not a perfect process.

What is the truth? That we should stop poisoning our planet and ourselves with stuff that is meant to stay in the ground? There are better less poisonous alternatives.

Carbon credits may or may not be a good solution. Im not prepared to argue that and I have not stake in it.

Let's take a step back and look at your misguided assumption of what it is the concerned steward of planet earth wants.

"We can stop climate from changing."

Is this what you actually think? What or who is telling you this?

Here's the more accurate take. We understand that the climate changes on its own and it can do so in multiple combined and complex ways. Changing salination of the ocean, changing populations of plants and animals, changing surface composition like reflective vs. Absorbative substances, deforestation, change in atmospheric composition, and probably more things that we don't know about yet, are all playing into it to different degrees. The earth itself is the biggest complex system we know. If these things changed climate enough to jeopardize our survival wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? We require some ideal sweet spot conditions to thrive. While we have quickly improving technology, it would probably be wiser to maintain rather than neglectfully change it And adapt to the result. And if optional or preventable human activity played a big role in accelerating this change, wouldn't we be compelled to do something about it? Like, if methane from grass fed livestock farms was found to be impactful in the change of atmospheric composition, should we take that into consideration separately from whatever the fk the business wants? We should give a rip what They want. Their duty is not to our society, it's to their sustained profit only and rightfully so. We would be INCREDIBLY STUPID in relinquishing our advantages to simply say "whoops the businesses want to do this so I guess we are hands off and have to live with it because socialism is bad." How fkin stupid would that be?

It's more complicated than your everyday right wing oversimplified slogan.

And here's the bottom line. Business will find a way to thrive in whatever reasonable legal framework we give it. Just make sure the delta isn't too high. We as a society through our governments pick the laws based on what we know now, not what they knew 300 years ago.

You are advocating for the reckless unfair approach. Eg. let businesses do whatever they want, and the rest of society will just have to deal with it and pay for dealing with it. Yeah, No. I will argue against that at every step. And it's not about control. I don't want to control what they are doing. I want to protect myself and the rest of us from financial and physical harm due to these reckless and neglectful companies choosing not to pay the real costs of responsibly operating.

I want to protect myself from the negligent and reckless business practices of big oil and coal. Why? Because they poison us, they poison our world, they are evidenced to be impacting climate. I don't want to wake up 30 years from now with cancer because they successfully lobbied for lower standards. It's not about control. It's about protection. It's about those businesses paying the real costs of operating responsibly.

If you have an argument to make, do so. Another slogan is a pile of dung.