The Bogus practice of posting Local/Regional Daily Weather as proof/disproof of GW/AGW

[jbrownson0831]

Is Rampant here especially among Warming deniers.
("It's cold/snowed in Alaska today")
It has no place in the section.
Should be deleted/banned.
Weather is still 'environment' but NOT 'Climate' UNLESS a case can be made that we're having, ie, more tornados over a Longer period BECAUSE of it.

There are daily and whole threads here doing so. The Stupidest one, an 8 YEAR BLOG - and running - with help from the board's worst clowns, that not only denies AGW but GW by using Short Term local, regional, or Backyard cold weather events.

Let's refrain from this, or better yet post a Sticky saying threads/posts of this nature will be Deleted.

`

Time for another nap there abu dabu.

 

[Donald H]

The you will be fine with their trolls and can continue to ignore the FACT that the Global Temp, sea levels, and causal GHGs are rising since the Industrial Revolution started and now accelerated.

IOW, you agree with the immature baseless 'cold today' posts.

EDIT: Oddball's post above is standard fare/trolling here.
Some posters in the section NEVER post on topic, but are just the RW rooting gallery.
Looks like you are one as well.
Me?
I'm for On topic and meaty posts.

`

You've misunderstood what I said.

I would have to agree with the skeptics when they suggest they are winning.

 

[jbrownson0831]

IOW, no answer.
Another whiff when confronted/refuted.
`

Abu Dabu sees his shadow only 10 more years of earth existence!

 

[abu afak]

Do you deny that when there is a heat wave somewhere that there are posters on the USMB and in the MSM that will cite it as proof of GW? Your side does it as much as the other.


"IOW, no answer."

What was the question?

No I do not deny at all.
As far a doing it "as much as the other."
Absolutely NOT, and when it is done it is oft in response.

I invite you to look at Skookerasbil's 8 YEAR running thread with 7400 posts doing it.
Not enough, he gave us the scoop/new thread it snowed in Alaska in January.
Regular fare. Knowingly Trolling fare.

I asked Crusader Frank why he bumped up his 2 year old one hour Temperature snapshot of the Arctic
Nonetheless, he did it again.
Knowing tho fallacious, it would sell here because (scoop) it's cold in the Arctic in the Winter.
Ooof.

 

[1srelluc]

IOW, no answer.
Another whiff when confronted/refuted.
`

There was a question? Fancy that, all I saw was a statement.

Oh wait, are you under the misguided assumption that I give a shit about so-called climate change one way or the other and would somehow try to defend a position I do not hold?

Surely Sir, you jest.....I'm far from being a rube. I think both sides are equally retarded.

Now what I do take issue with is when you people use it to pick my pocket.

 

[abu afak]

There was a question? Fancy that, all I saw was a statement.

Oh wait, are you under the misguided assumption that I give a shit about so-called climate change one way or the other and would somehow try to defend a position I do not hold?

Surely Sir, you jest.....I'm far from being a rube. I think both sides are equally retarded.

Now what I do take issue with is when you people use it to pick my pocket.

The fact that you are posting here while "not giving a shit" about the section topic says it all.
Welcome to USMB: Trolls in training for this unmoderated **** pit. (unmoderated RWers that is)
`

 

[jbrownson0831]

The fact that you are posting here while "not giving a shit" about the section topic says it all about the trash that posts here.
`

Aww come on, you are only slightly trashy.

 

[task0778]

No I do not deny at all.
As far a doing it "as much as the other."
Absolutely NOT, and when it is done it is oft in response.

I invite you to look at Skookerasbil's 8 YEAR running thread with 7400 posts doing it.
Not enough, he gave us the scoop/new thread it snowed in Alaska in January.
Regular fare. Knowingly Trolling fare.

I asked Crusader Frank why he bumped up his 2 year old one hour Temperature snapshot of the Arctic
Nonetheless, he did it again.
Knowing tho fallacious, it would sell here because (scoop) it's cold in the Arctic in the Winter.
Ooof.

So your complaint is that their side is doing it more than you and your side is? So what? There are a number of issues that are vehemently discussed ad nauseum here on the USMB. When I new thread comes along that captures my interest, I don't pay much attention to past threads that the OP or anyone else has offered. Did he/she say something this time that I wanna talk about?

Bottom line - around here there are some who will disagree with your POV. There is an Ignore button, and it's there for a reason. I have a number of people that I ignore cuz I don't find their posts worth reading and actually I think their posts are well, deplorable.

I can agree that a winter storm somewhere is not evidence against GW, but I can also agree that a heat wave in British Columbia is not evidence in favor of GW either. Anecdotal evidence is interesting maybe, but proves nothing. It's like saying Babe Ruth was a really bad baseball player cuz he struck out one time.

 

[1srelluc]

The fact that you are posting here while "not giving a shit" about the section topic says it all.
Welcome to USMB: Trolls in training for this unmoderated **** pit. (unmoderated RWers that is)
`

I think it's important for the climate weenies to experience those that don't give a shit about what they are so invested in.

It's also important for them to realize that while we might not care about the issue we care very much about the issue be foisted upon us to the point it picks our pocket.

That is when we bitch about it and you people start calling us deniers. It's just one way with you people, never a thought for the problems you cause others....Your ilk are mean spirited and selfish to the core.

 

[abu afak]

There was a question? Fancy that, all I saw was a statement.

Oh wait, are you under the misguided assumption that I give a shit about so-called climate change one way or the other and would somehow try to defend a position I do not hold?

Surely Sir, you jest.....I'm far from being a rube. I think both sides are equally retarded.

Now what I do take issue with is when you people use it to pick my pocket.

Do you go down to the History, Science, or Australia section just to say you don't care?

More likely you're a RW Climate denying troll, dissing the thread, whole idea.

Outed clown.

Proving my point: the person who gave you a like, is About THEE most Climate-conscious (But denying) poster. SunsetTommy. The Pinball Wizard of obscure climate charts/graphs/denier-Blogs... and not much else here.

`

 

[jbrownson0831]

Do you go down to the History, Science, or Australia section just to say you don't care?

More likely you're a RW Climate denying troll, dissing the thread, whole idea.

Outed clown.

`

Bozo calling others clowns now.....how interesting....

 

[abu afak]

Bozo calling others clowns now.....how interesting....

Four posts, 34 words total.

Here we have THEE Classic USMB poster/troll/leftover internet mb reject.

EDIT
Continuing his juvenile one-line Trolling immediately below.
Again, a classic USMB poster.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Four posts, 34 words total.

Here we have THEE Classic USMB poster/troll/leftover internet mb reject.

`

Watch out there Abu Bozo, i think I just saw a piece of the sky falling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ever notice that someone on either side of the issue can always point to some bias "study" to support their view?

That's called being played for profit. Don't be a rube, it's just weather and we have been having it for quite some time.

Really? So why have we had almost 10 times the normal tornadoes in December? Why huge and destructive fires in Colorado and Kansas in December? Could this be the reason:

 

[Old Rocks]

Watch out there Abu Bozo, i think I just saw a piece of the sky falling.

So you wish to prove that not only are you an ignorant asshole, but a jerk also. You can consider it proven. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have the clown brigade of Dunning-Kruger misfits flapping yap and saying nothing at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think it's important for the climate weenies to experience those that don't give a shit about what they are so invested in.

It's also important for them to realize that while we might not care about the issue we care very much about the issue be foisted upon us to the point it picks our pocket.

That is when we bitch about it and you people start calling us deniers. It's just one way with you people, never a thought for the problems you cause others....Your ilk are mean spirited and selfish to the core.

Another wonderful ignoramus spewing his idiocy here. There have been enough extreme weather disasters in the last two years for a normal decade in my youth. But idiots just ignore that, and continue to flap their yap and prove without a doubt that they are idiots.

 

[Old Rocks]

So your complaint is that their side is doing it more than you and your side is? So what? There are a number of issues that are vehemently discussed ad nauseum here on the USMB. When I new thread comes along that captures my interest, I don't pay much attention to past threads that the OP or anyone else has offered. Did he/she say something this time that I wanna talk about?

Bottom line - around here there are some who will disagree with your POV. There is an Ignore button, and it's there for a reason. I have a number of people that I ignore cuz I don't find their posts worth reading and actually I think their posts are well, deplorable.

I can agree that a winter storm somewhere is not evidence against GW, but I can also agree that a heat wave in British Columbia is not evidence in favor of GW either. Anecdotal evidence is interesting maybe, but proves nothing. It's like saying Babe Ruth was a really bad baseball player cuz he struck out one time.

In other words, you choose to be willfully ignorant.

 

[1srelluc]

Really? So why have we had almost 10 times the normal tornadoes in December? Why huge and destructive fires in Colorado and Kansas in December? Could this be the reason:

It could be or it may not be the case at all....Why you might ask?

Well it's weather, a part of nature, and sometimes nature can be a damn harsh mistress and that is as far as I am bothered about concerning myself with it. Well that and getting out of it's way. Thank goodness for Doppler weather radar.....Which was not a climate change weenie invention BTW.

It's like I said in my first post.....Those people (like Dr. Francis) use their "studies" as their livelihood so the more folks that they can get to sign on for what they are pushing the more money (through donations and grants) they get, it's self-perpetuating.

Even if they put in the work, are sincere, and on the up and up they are so blinded by what they invested themselves in that they think nothing else matters and there's the rub.

 

[ReinyDays]

Well ... this certainly could be a enlightening debate ... what is the proper time period for our climate averages? ...

The conservative position is that since we have 140 years of empirical evidence ... we can only split this in two and have 70-year intervals ... and from here we can only remorse at the lack of data available and, of course, temper our predictions ...

From NOAA's data, I've got a single degree temperature rise from period 1880-1950 (-0.2ºC) to period 1950-2020 (+0.6ºC) ... by definition, that's global warming ... and we are predicting that temperatures will be a single degree warmer in 70 years (+1.4ºC) ... but the margin of error here is that full degree ... NOAA uses cheap thermometers ...

With this, I'm inviting others to post the exact time period we should be using ... and please include the actual averages ... it's an easy calculation ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

The conservative position is that since we have 140 years of empirical evidence ... we can only split this in two and have 70-year intervals ... and from here we can only remorse at the lack of data available and, of course, temper our predictions ...

The academic position is that "empirical" means:

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Now your thinking that ice core data, for example, can so easily is be dismissed as "theory or pure logic" leads me to think that you're apt to fall for any old BS. Being for maximum fossil fuel consumption is clearly just being an asshole. What's really hilarious is witnessing how you idiots consistently deny the empirical evidence then turn around and attempt to (ab)use your purported enemy's charts against them, since you've so pathetically got nothing else (of actual substance) to show for yourselves.