Yet ANOTHER AGW k00ks prediction fAiL

Oh my the AGW cult is at it again trying to link weather and climate, yet claim they are not the same on other threads.

9Major&MinorHurricans_lg.jpg


Hurricanes are violent storms that began with the same principle as described above. Warm, moist ocean air encounters cooler air above and begins to rise through the cooler air because it is lighter. In this case, the temperature differential is great and the warm, moist air rises ever faster. As the water vapor condenses, it releases heat, which creates even a greater temperature differential. The coriolis effect of the earth's rotation causes the rising air mass to begin to rotate. When the internal winds become strong enough, air mass develops into a tropical storm and then a hurricane. It all depends on a strong temperature differential between the warm sea surface and a cold middle troposphere. While it is true the ocean surface warms with greenhouse warming, the mid-troposphere warms even faster, reducing the temperature gradient and the threat of a hurricane. While this is poorly understood, the number of hurricanes declined during the period when rapid warming was occurring during the last 30 years of the twentieth century. Research at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has shown that global warming increases wind shear, which also decreases the number and violence of Hurricanes.


Yep.....Big Al Gore and the fraud religion have been making bomb thrower predictions for years.......on snow......lack of snow......tornado's.......hurricanes......forest fires......you name it. They messed up so many times, they had to change "global warming" to "climate change" because they were looking like dick heads.
 
NOAA's comments are not 15 years old. They were made with full awareness of the what global temperatures have been doing the last 15 years. Unlike you, they actually look even further back. And they look things besides surface temps. Things like the radiative imbalance at the ToA and the heat buildup in the deep ocean. Global warming has not stopped. It hasn't even slowed down.

yeah i know

blah blah blah

just another revision on the same ol scam

Wow, that was an incredibly convincing argument.
 
NOAA's comments are not 15 years old. They were made with full awareness of the what global temperatures have been doing the last 15 years. Unlike you, they actually look even further back. And they look things besides surface temps. Things like the radiative imbalance at the ToA and the heat buildup in the deep ocean. Global warming has not stopped. It hasn't even slowed down.










Everyone and their brother knows the NOAA has been rigging the data >>>> Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government | GlobalResearchReport.com .......the AGW k00ks just cant accept it!!!:itsok::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
LMBO.....this is a MUST watch..........hysterical stuff!!! Dang.....even I didn't know about some of these laughable global warming predictions!!! All from the so-called "climate science experts".

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvlbY21G9M#t=59"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvlbY21G9M#t=59[/ame]


These people..........what a joke!! They are lying before they even get to their vehicle in the morning!!
 
Thread summary:

Deniers get caught lying about predictions, as usual.

Deniers, like good cultists, rage at those who caught them lying, and then double down on their big lie.

Just more evidence of how uber-socialists like skook tend to lie a lot.
 
NOAA's comments are not 15 years old. They were made with full awareness of the what global temperatures have been doing the last 15 years. Unlike you, they actually look even further back. And they look things besides surface temps. Things like the radiative imbalance at the ToA and the heat buildup in the deep ocean. Global warming has not stopped. It hasn't even slowed down.







Wow..... all the way back to...when exactly? Do they go back to the 1950's when there were SIGNIFICANTLY more storms? Nahhh, they stop in the 1970's when the frequency was at it's lowest.

They, like you, are a farce.
 
Thread summary:

Deniers get caught lying about predictions, as usual.

Deniers, like good cultists, rage at those who caught them lying, and then double down on their big lie.

Just more evidence of how uber-socialists like skook tend to lie a lot.






The ONLY people who lie here are you....admiral. But, I have to admit, you trying to paint the sceptics with YOUR brush and your philosophies is truly pathetic. But then, when a religion fails the fallout is usually traumatic for the faithful...
 
Westwall, why is it you auto-neg whenever someone calls you a liar, but then you spin about and auto-label everyone you disagree with as "liar"?

Is it that you don't recognize your inconsistency, or that you just don't care?
 
Westwall, why is it you auto-neg whenever someone calls you a liar, but then you spin about and auto-label everyone you disagree with as "liar"?

Is it that you don't recognize your inconsistency, or that you just don't care?






People accusing me of lying then not being able to back it up deserve to be negged. It's almost the only reason I do neg unlike most. I won't neg you for having an opinion opposite to mine, that's A-OK (unlike your buddy olfraud) but I will neg you for making an accusation against me that is not backed up by facts.

When I have made mistakes (and yes I have) I ADMIT to them and post a retraction...unlike you.

It's as simple as that.
 
Westwall, why is it you auto-neg whenever someone calls you a liar, but then you spin about and auto-label everyone you disagree with as "liar"?

Is it that you don't recognize your inconsistency, or that you just don't care?

People accusing me of lying then not being able to back it up deserve to be negged. It's almost the only reason I do neg unlike most. I won't neg you for having an opinion opposite to mine, that's A-OK (unlike your buddy olfraud) but I will neg you for making an accusation against me that is not backed up by facts.

When I have made mistakes (and yes I have) I ADMIT to them and post a retraction...unlike you.

It's as simple as that.

Where're the retractions for the multiple sock puppet charges you've made?

Where's your apology for removing the color tags in my post without cause?
 
Westwall, where are you? You don't seem comfortable when the topic is your inconsistent behavior. Since you claim to always admit mistakes, let's get to work on that.

On multiple occasions, you have called me a sock as well, despite having zero evidence for such a thing. Please tell everyone here that you made a mistake to do so, and that you have zero evidence that Crick and I have ever run socks. If you won't do that, at least post your evidence that we did run socks, so everyone will know you're not simply refusing to admit your mistakes.

Next, let's talk about your mistakes concerning the way you, on multiple occasions, have fabricated fake quotes and assigned them to me. You know, those times you wrote that I said I was a "nucular (sic) watch officer". "(sic)" means "thus it was written". Use of that word means you were not paraphrasing me; you were directly attributing those exact words to me. Since I have never used the word "nucular", that was obviously a fake quote you created. Will you own up to that mistake?

The ball's in your court. Do you admit your mistakes?
 
Thread summary:

Deniers get caught lying about predictions, as usual.

Deniers, like good cultists, rage at those who caught them lying, and then double down on their big lie.

Just more evidence of how uber-socialists like skook tend to lie a lot.


You meant he one like leading climate science guys saying that "soon, children will not know what snow is.":2up::eusa_dance::2up::eusa_dance::2up:

And then a mere 5 years later saying increasing amounts of snow = global warming!!:itsok:
 
Westwall, where are you? You don't seem comfortable when the topic is your inconsistent behavior. Since you claim to always admit mistakes, let's get to work on that.

On multiple occasions, you have called me a sock as well, despite having zero evidence for such a thing. Please tell everyone here that you made a mistake to do so, and that you have zero evidence that Crick and I have ever run socks. If you won't do that, at least post your evidence that we did run socks, so everyone will know you're not simply refusing to admit your mistakes.

Next, let's talk about your mistakes concerning the way you, on multiple occasions, have fabricated fake quotes and assigned them to me. You know, those times you wrote that I said I was a "nucular (sic) watch officer". "(sic)" means "thus it was written". Use of that word means you were not paraphrasing me; you were directly attributing those exact words to me. Since I have never used the word "nucular", that was obviously a fake quote you created. Will you own up to that mistake?

The ball's in your court. Do you admit your mistakes?

Still waiting. He did SAY
Westwall said:
When I have made mistakes (and yes I have) I ADMIT to them and post a retraction...unlike you.

It's as simple as that.
 
Hmm... no Westwall response. No admission of his violation of the rules. No retraction. No apology.

No surprise
 
Hmm... no Westwall response. No admission of his violation of the rules. No retraction. No apology.

No surprise



OMG!!!


Are you fucking serious?


What a fairy you are s0n.......a bonafide fairy!!!:gay::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface: Yes......the definition of pathetic.



Id ban myself from this forum forever before asking a member to apologize!!!


s0n....word don't mean shit in life. You've bought all the PC levels of stoopid. Its about behavior s0n......buckle up your chinstrap and take a lesson!!:itsok:
 
Is there any behavior you can't find acceptable with such a position? Ethically, you're the fucking black hole of Calcutta.

You are a stupid, bigoted asshole.
 
Last edited:
Westwall, why is it you auto-neg whenever someone calls you a liar, but then you spin about and auto-label everyone you disagree with as "liar"?

Is it that you don't recognize your inconsistency, or that you just don't care?

People accusing me of lying then not being able to back it up deserve to be negged. It's almost the only reason I do neg unlike most. I won't neg you for having an opinion opposite to mine, that's A-OK (unlike your buddy olfraud) but I will neg you for making an accusation against me that is not backed up by facts.

When I have made mistakes (and yes I have) I ADMIT to them and post a retraction...unlike you.

It's as simple as that.

Where're the retractions for the multiple sock puppet charges you've made?

Where's your apology for removing the color tags in my post without cause?







Sock puppet accusations are not against the rules and you clowns call sceptics "deniers" as a pejorative, so I call you socks as a pejorative. See how that works?

I removed the color tags because that is a tool Moderators use and is thus reserved for Moderators.
 

Forum List

Back
Top