Islands Disappear As Ocean Levels Rise

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

You disagree that global temperatures have been at record highs? Do you have some reliable data that says otherwise?

100 years of unreliable data is not fucking records.when the earth is 4.5 billion years old


..

150 years! But we have a dozen or so proxies that go back a few thousand times that. Anyways, if you had your way we wouldn't have a record at all and it certainly won't become more accurate. Hypercritical much?

You couldn't read a1920 thermometer if it bit you on the ass.

.

And that answer means what? Other than the fact that you have no answer.

Could you decifer what that bi-polar wind bag was talking about?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

You disagree that global temperatures have been at record highs? Do you have some reliable data that says otherwise?

100 years of unreliable data is not fucking records.when the earth is 4.5 billion years old


..

150 years! But we have a dozen or so proxies that go back a few thousand times that. Anyways, if you had your way we wouldn't have a record at all and it certainly won't become more accurate. Hypercritical much?

You couldn't read a1920 thermometer if it bit you on the ass.

.

I have a couple of old thermometers, moron. I've been reading such devices since I was young as I track storms. Of course, our network that allows such records to be maintained wouldn't even get funded if assholes and trash like you had your way.

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

You disagree that global temperatures have been at record highs? Do you have some reliable data that says otherwise?

100 years of unreliable data is not fucking records.when the earth is 4.5 billion years old


..

150 years! But we have a dozen or so proxies that go back a few thousand times that. Anyways, if you had your way we wouldn't have a record at all and it certainly won't become more accurate. Hypercritical much?

You couldn't read a1920 thermometer if it bit you on the ass.

.

I have a couple of old thermometers from that time period, moron. I've been reading such devices since I was young as I track storms. Of course, our network that allows such records to be maintained wouldn't even get funded if assholes and trash like you had your way.

Check you had to explain to me that you know how to read a thermometer.


Ok now tell me why I don't want weather stations funded?


.

 

[Liminal]

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000
Posted on June 23, 2014by Ssteven Goddard

Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

[...]

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

[...]

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

Fortunately we can count on a bunch of ignorant dipships on the internet to know what empirical evidence looks like.

 

[Ernie S.]

So... if it happened before without humans, it can't be caused by humans now?

It happened repeatedly without humans, so how can you claim they are responsible for any significant contribution now?
Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

As if knowing who or what to blame for the fact of global climate change will alter the outcome.

If humans aren't causing more than 1/10 of a percent of it, human intervention will not fix it, dolt.

 

[Ernie S.]

Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

That analogy fails because it blindly assumes that climate behaves randomly, even though all evidence indicates it doesn't.

You can't just assume, like denier cultists do. You have to go by hard evidence, like the real scientists.

It doesn't make any difference if it's random or not. The simple fact that it has happened repeatedly through history BEFORE humans, one can not assume that when it happens again, this time WITH humans, that humans cause it. It's illogical to assume out paltry contribution to global CO2 has anything but a minuscule effect on global temperature.
Over the last half million years there have been 5 cycles of about 100,000 years of CO2 and temperature highs. In each case, CO2 has risen in relation to temperature, not the other way around. CO2 highs ALWAYS occur 1 to 5 million years AFTER a temperature maximum.

 

[Liminal]

So... if it happened before without humans, it can't be caused by humans now?

It happened repeatedly without humans, so how can you claim they are responsible for any significant contribution now?
Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

As if knowing who or what to blame for the fact of global climate change will alter the outcome.

If humans aren't causing more than 1/10 of a percent of it, human intervention will not fix it, dolt.

And of course with all your expertise you know which scientists to believe and how to put the information into a context.....right professor?

 

[Ernie S.]

I don't believe "scientists" with a proven history of lying, so yes I guess I do, to a certain extent know which scientists to believe.

 

[Liminal]

I don't believe "scientists" with a proven history of lying, so yes I guess I do, to a certain extent know which scientists to believe.

Based on your extensive understanding of climate science.

 

[Liminal]

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

You disagree that global temperatures have been at record highs? Do you have some reliable data that says otherwise?

As you know, no global warming in nearly TWENTY YEARS.

Wrong again. But I'm sure the stock holders of energy corporations are grateful for your support.

 

[Liminal]

The opinions of an infinitesimally small minority of scientists who are all paid by energy corporations does not constitute legitimate scientific evidence.

 

[jc456]

You almost gotta laugh that global warming lefties think the world is only a couple of thousand years old even though we know there was an ice age and another ice age and global cooling for a couple of hundred years. It's a freaking religion to the left. You have to disregard your senses and trust a guru who doesn't even have a background in science while the East Coast has been 10 to 20 degrees below average temperature for the last month.

Why are you deniers all so incredibly stupid all the time?

what exactly is that telling me?

 

[jc456]

Seriously you post that AGW cult propaganda as evidence?

You disagree that global temperatures have been at record highs? Do you have some reliable data that says otherwise?

so how long have we been on here posting? where's your reliable data that says there have been record highs. name an area of the globe.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Look Trump has gone "Full AGW LIbtard"

Trump warns of dire effects of global warning in application to build sea wall
to protect one of his golf courses. Not that this will bother his lemmings. They'll just say he's playing the game.

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”
But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”


The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.

“It's diabolical," said former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, an advocate of conservative solutions to climate change. “Donald Trump is working to ensure his at-risk properties and his company is trying to figure out how to deal with sea level rise. Meanwhile, he’s saying things to audiences that he must know are not true. … You have a soft place in your heart for people who are honestly ignorant, but people who are deceitful, that’s a different.

Read more: Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

 

[jc456]

My ideal world would be one in which everyone had enough education to have some idea how the world worked, what was going on in it and possessed the ability to make accurate judgments of risk and reward. Right now, as a conversation with you clearly demonstrates, that is not the case.

so are you saying you know how the climate works? Really? come on man.

 

[jc456]

So... if it happened before without humans, it can't be caused by humans now?

It happened repeatedly without humans, so how can you claim they are responsible for any significant contribution now?
Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

As if knowing who or what to blame for the fact of global climate change will alter the outcome.

what does that mean? What is your solution to your climate problem since you think you know the issue?

 

[jc456]

Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

That analogy fails because it blindly assumes that climate behaves randomly, even though all evidence indicates it doesn't.

You can't just assume, like denier cultists do. You have to go by hard evidence, like the real scientists.

dude/ dudette, how does the climate work? You have the blue prints do you?

 

[jc456]

Now that the temperatures of the '30's have been surpassed since 2000, you just cannot say that there has been no warming.

there has been no warming. There I can say it easily, and I know you can't debate it. Cause we all know the data available today has been tampered with.

 

[jc456]

So... if it happened before without humans, it can't be caused by humans now?

It happened repeatedly without humans, so how can you claim they are responsible for any significant contribution now?
Think dice. Before you walked into the room I rolled 7 six times out of ten chances. You walk into the room and I roll 7. Did you have an effect on the dice?

As if knowing who or what to blame for the fact of global climate change will alter the outcome.

If humans aren't causing more than 1/10 of a percent of it, human intervention will not fix it, dolt.

And of course with all your expertise you know which scientists to believe and how to put the information into a context.....right professor?

wow, what the heck does this even mean? What expertise do you have that qualifies you?

 

[jc456]

The opinions of an infinitesimally small minority of scientists who are all paid by energy corporations does not constitute legitimate scientific evidence.

and scientists paid by politicians through government grants is solid funding right? Wow s0n, wow, come on man! I'll tell you what, let's pull the politicians out of this and take the funding away and let the oil companies fund all the research. What do you think the outcome would be? you think it would be the same? LOL

 

[jc456]

I don't believe "scientists" with a proven history of lying, so yes I guess I do, to a certain extent know which scientists to believe.

Based on your extensive understanding of climate science.

again, like you have extensive understanding of climate science. Really? want to get back to basis and tell us what science actually proves CO2 increases temperatures?