Maui Burning

[john doe 101]

You don't present evidence. Moron. You present talking points.

I showed you a graph. You said one graph is meaningless. You then went on to say there is no amount of evidence that can prove you wrong. Which just proves you're delusional.

 

[westwall]

I showed you a graph. You said one graph is meaningless. You then went on to say there is no amount of evidence that can prove you wrong. Which just proves you're delusional.

Big whoop. I have presented dozens of graphs along with a lot more.

You clods ignore it because it refutes your cult leaders proclamations.

 

[john doe 101]

Big whoop. I have presented dozens of graphs along with a lot more.

You clods ignore it because it refutes your cult leaders proclamations.

You havent shown 1 graph to back up your point that we are currently living with the lowest CO2 levels in human history. Did you wake up today and decide you're just going to lie about everything?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Are you denying the vast majority of scientists believe man is affecting climate?

if all of you climate cultists would thrust yourselves in a lave lake, we'd cool off soon

 

[Unkotare]

Are you seriously suggesting the fire on Maui was started by green lasers from satellites?

According to EMH, the lasers were fired from the Jewish laser base on the moon.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Big whoop. I have presented dozens of graphs along with a lot more.

You clods ignore it because it refutes your cult leaders proclamations.

every thunderstorm is global warming....lol

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

You havent shown 1 graph to back up your point that we are currently living with the lowest CO2 levels in human history. Did you wake up today and decide you're just going to lie about everything?

a few yrs back paris beat its all time high by 1 degree a fucking century ago

explain 100 YRS AGO GOOBER

 

[john doe 101]

a few yrs back paris beat its all time high by 1 degree a fucking century ago

explain 100 YRS AGO GOOBER

People like me wouldnt have to explain things like this to you if you werent stupid. Or you could tell us the difference between weather and climate.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

People like me wouldnt have to explain things like this to you if you werent stupid. Or you could tell us the difference between weather and climate.

see you can't fucking explain ......lolol...stupid???....have you slaved to a shit job your while existence.....that is stupid....bitter and dumb is a shit life son....lol

 

[multivita-man]

every thunderstorm is global warming....lol

Just so we're clear, I agree that tying a specific single event like this to a global phenomenon is not advised. Global warmings effects as 'proof' are really borne out by cumulative evidence, not a specific event such as a single forest fire or even a single bad year of forest fires.

Even if we can all agree that phenomena during a 10-15 year period are becoming more frequent, that doesn't necessarily prove climate change. The bigger question is, if we see a 10-15 year period of phenomena, can we expect this to revert back to a norm, or is it an indefinite change that is likely to not only not change but keep intensifying in the foreseeable future.

Based on all the meteorological and climatological data we're seeing, as well as observed 'tipping point' metrics, it would seem that the latter scenario - future intensification - is more likely. If I'm wrong and we revert back to 'normal', I'll happily admit it - I would be relieved, even. But the evidence doesn't seem to be giving us much reason for optimism.

 

[john doe 101]

see you can't fucking explain ......lolol...stupid???....have you slaved to a shit job your while existence.....that is stupid....bitter and dumb is a shit life son....lol

I did explain. Now if you're too lazy to look up "weather" and "climate" in a dictionary, there probably isnt much hope for you. Or am I being too obtuse for you? One things for sure you really appear to be unhinged you cant seem to get a coherent thought from your mind to the keyboard.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Just so we're clear, I agree that tying a specific single event like this to a global phenomenon is not advised. Global warmings effects as 'proof' are really borne out by cumulative evidence, not a specific event such as a single forest fire or even a single bad year of forest fires.

Even if we can all agree that phenomena during a 10-15 year period are becoming more frequent, that doesn't necessarily prove climate change. The bigger question is, if we see a 10-15 year period of phenomena, can we expect this to revert back to a norm, or is it an indefinite change that is likely to not only not change but keep intensifying in the foreseeable future.

Based on all the meteorological and climatological data we're seeing, as well as observed 'tipping point' metrics, it would seem that the latter scenario - future intensification - is more likely. If I'm wrong and we revert back to 'normal', I'll happily admit it - I would be relieved, even. But the evidence doesn't seem to be giving us much reason for optimism.

i'm still waiting for the ice age predicted in the 70's by the same type of morons as today

check back with me after the promised ice age while i hide for it to come

 

[john doe 101]

i'm still waiting for the ice age predicted in the 70's by the same type of morons as today

check back with me after the promised ice age while i hide for it to come

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

"Results showed that despite the media claims, just ten per cent of papers predicted a cooling trend. On the other hand, 62% predicted global warming and 28% made no comment either way. "

 

[multivita-man]

i'm still waiting for the ice age predicted in the 70's by the same type of morons as today

check back with me after the promised ice age while i hide for it to come

The vast majority of papers before 1980 predicted warming, not cooling.

That being said, 'warming' could actually result in 'cooling' impacts. If, for example, warmer waters shut down the currents in the Atlantic Ocean, that could actually make temperatures colder in parts of the Northern Hemisphere - for a time, anyway - which brings up an important point about climate change: these impacts won't be linear.

 

[odanny]

The vast majority of papers before 1980 predicted warming, not cooling.

The moron elevates one claim, he also has never believed a newspaper because one said "Dewey defeats Truman".

 

[john doe 101]

The vast majority of papers before 1980 predicted warming, not cooling.

That being said, 'warming' could actually result in 'cooling' impacts. If, for example, warmer waters shut down the currents in the Atlantic Ocean, that could actually make temperatures colder in parts of the Northern Hemisphere - for a time, anyway - which brings up an important point about climate change: these impacts won't be linear.

You're last sentence just confused most of the right wingers on here. But exactly....the warmer waters in the Atlantic would actually make Europe colder. But good luck trying to explain that to some of these dolts on here.

 

[Rambunctious]

But.... Biden is on vacation again and riding his bike completely unattached and in solitude protected from any questions about an American state that has just been devastated by fire....

 

[skye]

But.... Biden is on vacation again and riding his bike completely unattached and in solitude protected from any questions about an American state that has just been devastated by fire....

What do you expect from him?

 

[odanny]

Русская шлюха вернулась

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

The moron elevates one claim, he also has never believed a newspaper because one said "Dewey defeats Truman".

awwwww...look at the little angry report button pusher who always gets his acorns smacked