this year begins with no cooling....hotest first five months on record

[Papageorgio]

Bob Woodruff said that, but no scientist said it.

So Woodruff is a denier?

 

[Old Rocks]

Is your computer candle powered? How do you do it?

You and your Gaian denier nature cult are free to swear off modern technology and go live in a cave if you wish.

However, we won't be going along with you, and trying to guilt trip us into doing so won't work.

Now you're just being obtuse. I'm not the one calling for the end of abundant, cheap and efficient energy in coal and petroleum. You do realize that is why we have all the technology we have today don't you? If we get rid of it like you climate change believers want to, you will have to rely on very expensive, inefficient and spotty wind and solar power.....or just do without. So how will you power your computer and can you limit yourself to when they wind is blowing or sun is out?

You do realize we would never be where we are today without the efforts of horses? So let's stable a couple in your bedroom.

We can get rid of coal as an energy source in less than a generation, replacing it with wind and solar at a better price than we currently pay for coal. Petroleum will take a bit longer, but the writing is on the wall.

 

[Old Rocks]

It really looks like 2015 is going to be a very interesting year. For sure, warmer than even 2014, and with the El Nino extending into 2016, we may see three very warm years in a row.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It really looks like 2015 is going to be a very interesting year. For sure, warmer than even 2014, and with the El Nino extending into 2016, we may see three very warm years in a row.

Depending on how radical the adjustment to prior year temperatures are, of course.

 

[thereisnospoon]

did you ask that on the thread about cooling .....i doubt it......why do conservatives hate science

Face palm

Exactly...

I have been looking for some kind of facepalm thingy to use as a response to some of these left wing boobs...
Can you send me that ^link?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I remember, based on scientific data, New York suppose to be under water in June this year.

Only you deniers have made that prediction. Nobody on the rational side has said such a thing. It's exclusively deniers here who ramble about how NYC supposed to be underwater now.

I have no idea why you predicted that. It's one of the countless things you've been wrong about. That's why you have no credibility, because you get every single thing wrong.

Now, if you're saying we said it, you should back it up, by linking to the exact quote with full context, and then demonstrating the person who said it represents every rational person.

There is not such thing as a "denier"...
That term was invented by your left wing radical leaders who needed a catchy word to fit in with the climate change narrative.
The narrative isn't working. So your liberal playbook tells you to "demonize all who dare to oppose the left wing agenda".
So you guys came up with "denier"....
None of you left wing radical enviro wackos will end up doing a thing to participate the solutions which YOUR SIDE invented.
And why is this? Because the to so called cause for climate change has nothing to do to with climate at all. It has two purposes. One, it is an agenda to gin up support for democrats.
Two, it is an attempt to gain a means to create new taxes and crushing regulations on business and industry....Meanwhile, you whiners on the left rail on about loss of manufacturing and jobs going overseas....
Just what do you think would happen to the remainder of US based manufacturing if the political left got is way and was able to enact all this ridiculous climate change crap?

 

[mamooth]

Well yes and no. Woodruff presented it in the show based the show on the climate change scientist's "settled science". He's simply reporting what the "leading" climate scientists were saying.

No, no scientist said NYC would be underwater now.

And yes, it's kind of telling that you get your science from journalists.

If you're going to believe and push the science, you have to own it when its wrong.

The science hasn't been wrong. You, however, have been spectacularly wrong on all counts, so you need to own that.

 

[mamooth]

There is not such thing as a "denier"...

Sure there is. It's a person who denies the evidence. Like you.

That term was invented by your left wing radical leaders who needed a catchy word to fit in with the climate change narrative.

No, the word has been in the English language for many centuries.

The narrative isn't working. So your liberal playbook tells you to "demonize all who dare to oppose the left wing agenda".

It's telling that you try to make this entirely about politics. Deniers do that, because they're all part of a fringe extremist political cult. Denialism is just one of the many crazy mantras that their political cult orders them to chant.

In contrast, the mainstream science is non-political. It crosses all political boundaries all across the world. Because it's science, not politics.

So you guys came up with "denier"....
None of you left wing radical enviro wackos will end up doing a thing to participate the solutions which YOUR SIDE invented.
And why is this? Because the to so called cause for climate change has nothing to do to with climate at all. It has two purposes. One, it is an agenda to gin up support for democrats.
Two, it is an attempt to gain a means to create new taxes and crushing regulations on business and industry....Meanwhile, you whiners on the left rail on about loss of manufacturing and jobs going overseas....
Just what do you think would happen to the remainder of US based manufacturing if the political left got is way and was able to enact all this ridiculous climate change crap?

Your cult has been preaching this same economic armageddon hysteria for decades, in response to any environmental regulation. And armageddon never happens. Your credibility there is exhausted.

2016 will be fun. Denialism is a big loser of a position among normal people, so the GOP nominee will have to hem and haw and declare he's not a denier, all while trying to secretly signal to his crazy base that he is a denier just like them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is not such thing as a "denier"...

Sure there is. It's a person who denies the evidence. Like you.

That term was invented by your left wing radical leaders who needed a catchy word to fit in with the climate change narrative.

No, the word has been in the English language for many centuries.

The narrative isn't working. So your liberal playbook tells you to "demonize all who dare to oppose the left wing agenda".

It's telling that you try to make this entirely about politics. Deniers do that, because they're all part of a fringe extremist political cult. Denialism is just one of the many crazy mantras that their political cult orders them to chant.

In contrast, the mainstream science is non-political. It crosses all political boundaries all across the world. Because it's science, not politics.

So you guys came up with "denier"....
None of you left wing radical enviro wackos will end up doing a thing to participate the solutions which YOUR SIDE invented.
And why is this? Because the to so called cause for climate change has nothing to do to with climate at all. It has two purposes. One, it is an agenda to gin up support for democrats.
Two, it is an attempt to gain a means to create new taxes and crushing regulations on business and industry....Meanwhile, you whiners on the left rail on about loss of manufacturing and jobs going overseas....
Just what do you think would happen to the remainder of US based manufacturing if the political left got is way and was able to enact all this ridiculous climate change crap?

Your cult has been preaching this same economic armageddon hysteria for decades, in response to any environmental regulation. And armageddon never happens. Your credibility there is exhausted.

2016 will be fun. Denialism is a big loser of a position among normal people, so the GOP nominee will have to hem and haw and declare he's not a denier, all while trying to secretly signal to his crazy base that he is a denier just like them.

No..There isn't....And again, the term 'denier' is just a made up word.
First off, no one, not the scientists nor any one else can determine beyond a shadow of a doubt what is "climate normal"..All weather records are based on averages. These averages are extrapolated over the period of 30 years and displayed as "normal"....Any expert in the field of climate study knows Climate is cyclical. Ever changing. The earth will always balance itself. The term for that balancing act is "equilibrium"..For example..This late winter/early spring, the eastern 2/3rds of the US experienced a cooler and wetter winter than climate normal( avg) while the Western third mainly the southwest was under the influence of a high pressure system that stayed mostly in place for the better part of the winter and early half of spring....That pattern reversed itself in late April. The east coast became warmer and drier than climate avg.
These are scientifically explained climate phenomenon that are accepted as fact by climate scientists around the world. And I am not including those scientists for hire that will produce a conclusion favorable to the people or groups that are filling their bank accounts.
I don't care about the dictionary definition of 'denier'....The concern is with the use of the term in relation to the environmentalist liberal agenda....
"
t's telling that you try to make this entirely about politics. Deniers do that, because they're all part of a fringe extremist political cult. Denialism is just one of the many crazy mantras that their political cult orders them to chant.

In contrast, the mainstream science is non-political. It crosses all political boundaries all across the world. Because it's science, not politics.

Oh please. This is you taking what your side does then accuses your opposition of doing the same......Then demanding that your opponent prove a negative..Sorry, that won't fly here.
Again, YOUR SIDE invented this denier thing.
BTW, do you use fossil fuels? Do you use products made with petro chemical derivatives? If so, you have no right to complain....
I am sick and tired of you lefties doing nothing but paying lip service to your 'causes'...You all have a lot to say. You complain constantly. Yet, you do NOTHING
Newsflash. Nobody cares. We have lots of other problems to solve, lots of other more pressing issues than waste time chasing climate ghosts based solely on what some well paid scientists with an agenda say 'might happen'.....
And don't try to tell me that this climate thing isn't political.....Your side has already proposed a whole bunch of new taxes and regulations on business and individuals....Obama has taken it upon himself to violate federal law and removed the EPA from under Congressional scrutiny. And why did The Chosen One do this? Because he threw a hissy fit over the fact that Congress, even the democrats who had to answer to their constituents back home, refused to go along with his "green energy agenda".... Politics......

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well yes and no. Woodruff presented it in the show based the show on the climate change scientist's "settled science". He's simply reporting what the "leading" climate scientists were saying.

No, no scientist said NYC would be underwater now.

And yes, it's kind of telling that you get your science from journalists.

If you're going to believe and push the science, you have to own it when its wrong.

The science hasn't been wrong. You, however, have been spectacularly wrong on all counts, so you need to own that.

You bed wetters have been listening to such things as " the world's oil supply will be gone in 50 years"....."the winters will be so cold, that ports will be frozen over".....Etc etc ...
None of which has come to fruition.
Now it's "climate change"....How convenient. The climate changes all the time....
We're in the throws of a heat wave here right now.....The southern plains are getting more rain than they know what to do with..The northeast and Midwestern states haven't seen temps this cool in years....It nature balancing itself....

 

[Ame®icano]

did you ask that on the thread about cooling .....i doubt it......why do conservatives hate science

Face palm

Exactly...

I have been looking for some kind of facepalm thingy to use as a response to some of these left wing boobs...
Can you send me that ^link?

 

[Ame®icano]

There is not such thing as a "denier"...

Sure there is. It's a person who denies the evidence. Like you.

The premise is that there is an evidence.

 

[mamooth]

And I am not including those scientists for hire that will produce a conclusion favorable to the people or groups that are filling their bank accounts.

And nobody is paying attention to your conspiracy theory. If the evidence supported you, you wouldn't have to always resort to a conspiracy theory.

I don't care about the dictionary definition of 'denier'....The concern is with the use of the term in relation to the environmentalist liberal agenda....

So you want us to be all PC and not use the common dictionary definitions of words. Nah. Denier is a fine word, so we'll keep using it.

Oh please. This is you taking what your side does then accuses your opposition of doing the same......Then demanding that your opponent prove a negative..Sorry, that won't fly here.

Given I never asked you to prove a negative, I'm wondering why you said such a thing. We proved the positive, that humans have caused global warming. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. That part of the science is quite settled.

BTW, do you use fossil fuels? Do you use products made with petro chemical derivatives? If so, you have no right to complain....

If you want to swear off modern technology and live in a cave, go on and do so. Just don't try to force everyone else to do it as well.

While we here on the rational side are taking the steps so that alternate energy sources will be in place before the fossil fuels run out, deniers are hostile to that. They apparently want us all sitting in the dark freezing when the fossil fuels run out.

And don't try to tell me that this climate thing isn't political.....Your side has already proposed a whole bunch of new taxes and regulations on business and individuals....Obama has taken it upon himself to violate federal law and removed the EPA from under Congressional scrutiny. And why did The Chosen One do this? Because he threw a hissy fit over the fact that Congress, even the democrats who had to answer to their constituents back home, refused to go along with his "green energy agenda".... Politics......

Making it about Obama is a fine way to show you're motivated solely by your political beliefs, and not by reason and evidence.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And I am not including those scientists for hire that will produce a conclusion favorable to the people or groups that are filling their bank accounts.

And nobody is paying attention to your conspiracy theory. If the evidence supported you, you wouldn't have to always resort to a conspiracy theory.

I don't care about the dictionary definition of 'denier'....The concern is with the use of the term in relation to the environmentalist liberal agenda....

So you want us to be all PC and not use the common dictionary definitions of words. Nah. Denier is a fine word, so we'll keep using it.

Oh please. This is you taking what your side does then accuses your opposition of doing the same......Then demanding that your opponent prove a negative..Sorry, that won't fly here.

Given I never asked you to prove a negative, I'm wondering why you said such a thing. We proved the positive, that humans have caused global warming. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. That part of the science is quite settled.

BTW, do you use fossil fuels? Do you use products made with petro chemical derivatives? If so, you have no right to complain....

If you want to swear off modern technology and live in a cave, go on and do so. Just don't try to force everyone else to do it as well.

While we here on the rational side are taking the steps so that alternate energy sources will be in place before the fossil fuels run out, deniers are hostile to that. They apparently want us all sitting in the dark freezing when the fossil fuels run out.

And don't try to tell me that this climate thing isn't political.....Your side has already proposed a whole bunch of new taxes and regulations on business and individuals....Obama has taken it upon himself to violate federal law and removed the EPA from under Congressional scrutiny. And why did The Chosen One do this? Because he threw a hissy fit over the fact that Congress, even the democrats who had to answer to their constituents back home, refused to go along with his "green energy agenda".... Politics......

Making it about Obama is a fine way to show you're motivated solely by your political beliefs, and not by reason and evidence.

You go ahead and keep using "denier"....Nobody cares.
"We proved positive"?.....What the fuck does that mean? and who is "we"?
Newsflash, "we" have not proven anything of the kind. The only certainty which was proven by scientific research is that the Earth's climate is in constant flux. That there is no actual 'normal'...
"If you want to swear off modern technology and live in a cave, go on and do so. Just don't try to force everyone else to do it as well."
No./..YOU are the one wetting your panties over this alleged man made climate change thingie. This is YOUR issue. All you are doing is offering lip service. You screech about climate change, yet you are unwilling to do anything about it.. That makes you a hypocrite. You cannot have it both ways.
Taking steps on 'alternate' energy sources?.....Such as?......Are you running for political office?
What the hell is an "alternate' energy source? Do you mean such as when the power goes out, you fire up a generator?
Tell me....What do your brilliant all knowing all seeing lefty scientists offer as a time table for 'fossil fuels to run out"?....
Hey rocket scientist......The climate change crap has ZERO to do with fossil fuel supplies. Climate change is politics. Plain and simple. And how do I come to this? Because outside of things such as Cap and Trade ( Knee cap and Tax), wind farms that nobody wants to see nor have them anywhere near their residence, and other fledgling technologies which are prohibitively expensive and have no market so no investor is going to waste a dime on any of them...That's how...
BTW, the term is "alternative"....Not alternate......
hey, I am all for new energy technology. But under these conditions.
1. it must be as or more efficient that fossil fuels
2. must be as readily available as our current supply..
3. must carry a consumer price no greater than or even less than our current sources.
4. must deliver the same or greater performance.
5. must allow reap the same or greater economic benefit to the users. That would be US.....
Find a source( that you said "we are taking steps to have in place") that meets the above conditions and you have another person on your side.

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[thereisnospoon]

 

[Wyatt earp]

And I am not including those scientists for hire that will produce a conclusion favorable to the people or groups that are filling their bank accounts.

And nobody is paying attention to your conspiracy theory. If the evidence supported you, you wouldn't have to always resort to a conspiracy theory.

I don't care about the dictionary definition of 'denier'....The concern is with the use of the term in relation to the environmentalist liberal agenda....

So you want us to be all PC and not use the common dictionary definitions of words. Nah. Denier is a fine word, so we'll keep using it.

Oh please. This is you taking what your side does then accuses your opposition of doing the same......Then demanding that your opponent prove a negative..Sorry, that won't fly here.

Given I never asked you to prove a negative, I'm wondering why you said such a thing. We proved the positive, that humans have caused global warming. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. That part of the science is quite settled.

BTW, do you use fossil fuels? Do you use products made with petro chemical derivatives? If so, you have no right to complain....

If you want to swear off modern technology and live in a cave, go on and do so. Just don't try to force everyone else to do it as well.

While we here on the rational side are taking the steps so that alternate energy sources will be in place before the fossil fuels run out, deniers are hostile to that. They apparently want us all sitting in the dark freezing when the fossil fuels run out.

And don't try to tell me that this climate thing isn't political.....Your side has already proposed a whole bunch of new taxes and regulations on business and individuals....Obama has taken it upon himself to violate federal law and removed the EPA from under Congressional scrutiny. And why did The Chosen One do this? Because he threw a hissy fit over the fact that Congress, even the democrats who had to answer to their constituents back home, refused to go along with his "green energy agenda".... Politics......

Making it about Obama is a fine way to show you're motivated solely by your political beliefs, and not by reason and evidence.

You go ahead and keep using "denier"....Nobody cares.
"We proved positive"?.....What the fuck does that mean? and who is "we"?
Newsflash, "we" have not proven anything of the kind. The only certainty which was proven by scientific research is that the Earth's climate is in constant flux. That there is no actual 'normal'...
"If you want to swear off modern technology and live in a cave, go on and do so. Just don't try to force everyone else to do it as well."
No./..YOU are the one wetting your panties over this alleged man made climate change thingie. This is YOUR issue. All you are doing is offering lip service. You screech about climate change, yet you are unwilling to do anything about it.. That makes you a hypocrite. You cannot have it both ways.
Taking steps on 'alternate' energy sources?.....Such as?......Are you running for political office?
What the hell is an "alternate' energy source? Do you mean such as when the power goes out, you fire up a generator?
Tell me....What do your brilliant all knowing all seeing lefty scientists offer as a time table for 'fossil fuels to run out"?....
Hey rocket scientist......The climate change crap has ZERO to do with fossil fuel supplies. Climate change is politics. Plain and simple. And how do I come to this? Because outside of things such as Cap and Trade ( Knee cap and Tax), wind farms that nobody wants to see nor have them anywhere near their residence, and other fledgling technologies which are prohibitively expensive and have no market so no investor is going to waste a dime on any of them...That's how...
BTW, the term is "alternative"....Not alternate......
hey, I am all for new energy technology. But under these conditions.
1. it must be as or more efficient that fossil fuels
2. must be as readily available as our current supply..
3. must carry a consumer price no greater than or even less than our current sources.
4. must deliver the same or greater performance.
5. must allow reap the same or greater economic benefit to the users. That would be US.....
Find a source( that you said "we are taking steps to have in place") that meets the above conditions and you have another person on your side.

Well said, these hypocrites bitch about it here on a cell phone or computer made out of oil.

 

[EverCurious]

And along the same vein: SIDC - Solar Influences Data Center

 

[kwc57]

Well yes and no. Woodruff presented it in the show based the show on the climate change scientist's "settled science". He's simply reporting what the "leading" climate scientists were saying.

No, no scientist said NYC would be underwater now.

And yes, it's kind of telling that you get your science from journalists.

If you're going to believe and push the science, you have to own it when its wrong.

The science hasn't been wrong. You, however, have been spectacularly wrong on all counts, so you need to own that.

You need to either stick to something like the general discussion forum and discuss knitting or gardening or try harder to inform yourself. Here is a current NYC flooding story. When all the global warming predictions don't pan out, they just manipulate the models, the data and push the dates out further.

Future New York City Will Be Hotter Partially Underwater - Apocalypse Soon - Curbed NY

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, no scientist said NYC would be underwater now.

I agree, I don't consider Michael Mann a scientist either.

Sea Level Rise Coastal Flooding METEO 469 From Meteorology to Mitigation Understanding Global Warming

A cult leader and a charlatan, yes; scientist? Not even close.