2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...

[jc456]

194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.

wrong, 194 individuals out of 7 billion, not good odds

NATIONS, idiot.

individuals. how many people were there who voted? nations or people? Paris would have been a little crowded if the entire globe were there don't ya think?

 

[jc456]

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

There's no argument; the dilatory efforts of oil and coal producers, purveyors and the propagandists, those who put profit before people, and the air they breath, the water they drink, the soil they cultivate, and our great oceans, is obvious to the world.

The New Right (Anarcho-Capitlaists) ruck choose to believe those who have a conflict of interest, and to accuse the Scientists who accept grant money to study the issues of having a conflict of interests.

ahhh, it seems your feelings are hurt that I don't believe as you do. It's really simple, you want me to believe, you show me how 58 is greater than 62 first off, and then post up where 1.6 f is dangerous. go for it.

 

[jc456]

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."

© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.

Totally retarded thinking by the poster. Please professor, draw us the link between sunspots and how the sun warms the Earth. Then explain how and why a decrease in sunspots negate the greenhouse effect.

You can't be this stupid.

yeah he can. he has no idea about hot and the years of hot.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

DENIER!!!!

 

[HappyJoy]

Political partisanship...it'll kill us all.

Can't wait to see what 2016, 2020, 2025 and 2030 bring. Should be fun, for your sake I hope you all don't have kids.

 

[HappyJoy]

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Political partisanship...it'll kill us all.

Can't wait to see what 2016, 2020, 2025 and 2030 bring. Should be fun, for your sake I hope you all don't have kids.

Please go fuck yourself

Assuming you're not 80 and die off in time, remember this thread when you have an uncomfortable discussion with those younger than you.

Son, we wasted trillions on windmills. Sorry, we can't afford your college.

 

[bripat9643]

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Political partisanship...it'll kill us all.

Can't wait to see what 2016, 2020, 2025 and 2030 bring. Should be fun, for your sake I hope you all don't have kids.

Please go fuck yourself

Assuming you're not 80 and die off in time, remember this thread when you have an uncomfortable discussion with those younger than you.

I said please, now it's just go fuck yourself and take your sick, death worshiping Cult with you

A death wish is ignoring the evidence.

Whatever, sock girl. Love the faux concern "for the Chillun!!!!!!"

 

[HappyJoy]

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.

 

[HappyJoy]

Political partisanship...it'll kill us all.

Can't wait to see what 2016, 2020, 2025 and 2030 bring. Should be fun, for your sake I hope you all don't have kids.

Please go fuck yourself

Assuming you're not 80 and die off in time, remember this thread when you have an uncomfortable discussion with those younger than you.

I said please, now it's just go fuck yourself and take your sick, death worshiping Cult with you

A death wish is ignoring the evidence.

Whatever, sock girl. Love the faux concern "for the Chillun!!!!!!"

I don't think I feel any concern for you personally.

The only thing you got right about that is that I am a consumer of socks. That is what you meant, right?

 

[westwall]

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.

What's funny is you claim the religious types are the "deniers" but the Catholic Church's official position is that AGW is real and a threat. But what is truly funny is the AGW cult themselves are a religion in everything but name. You have your high priests who "translate" the word of God (remember according to you silly people if you're not a climatologist you can't understand what they are saying. Which ignores the fact that PhD climatologists can't teach graduate level hard science courses but geologists can teach every climatology class there is) you have your Church on Earth (the IPCC), you have your scriptures (the various IPCC reports) and you wish to persecute the non believers, you call us deniers but the effect is the same.

Face it dude, you are a religious fucking fruitcake.

 

[IanC]

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I am a classical liberal, an atheist, and have voted left or extreme left in every election so far. I actually treat science as a substitute for religion and my vote for Pope would be Feynman, dead or alive. I am disgusted with climate science. they have turned into a cult with a distorted version of science that only 'sounds' like science, but on closer inspection looks like high school politics.

no one with even rudimentary understanding of science and the scientific method would consider climate science 'settled'. that other fields are willing to ignore the travesty happening with the cult leaders like Michael Mann is appalling.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.

What's funny is you claim the religious types are the "deniers" but the Catholic Church's official position is that AGW is real and a threat. But what is truly funny is the AGW cult themselves are a religion in everything but name. You have your high priests who "translate" the word of God (remember according to you silly people if you're not a climatologist you can't understand what they are saying. Which ignores the fact that PhD climatologists can't teach graduate level hard science courses but geologists can teach every climatology class there is) you have your Church on Earth (the IPCC), you have your scriptures (the various IPCC reports) and you wish to persecute the non believers, you call us deniers but the effect is the same.

Face it dude, you are a religious fucking fruitcake.

Old fool, most of the people giving lectures at the fall meetings of the AGU do teach hard science at the graduate level. And I have yet to see one of them denying that the climate is getting warmer, changing in ways that are detrimental to us, and that we are the primary cause of that change. I have posted many videos of the lectures from those meetings here, with the learned men stating exactly that. Now, can you post something from the AGU that states otherwise?

Both the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America, have statements that AGW is real and an increasing problem. That is the consensus among geologists in the US.

 

[SSDD]

How about you first explain to us what that has to do with anything? That's because it looks like just another desperate deflection on your part, one you're throwing out because you're getting humiliated again.[/quote[

If you weren't such an idiot, old woman, you would know...but since you are, I will explain...in crick's signature, he states that I believe that the second law of thermodynamics routinely violates special relativity... Special relativity only applies when the curvature of space time due to gravity is so small that it can be discounted as non existent...

It made no sense that he would make such an idiot claim in the first place....it is completely unsurprising that you would fail to see why it was an idiot claim or understand why I asked him the question.....clearly crick doesn't have a clue by making such a moronic claim....clearly you don't have a clue because you had to ask.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There's no argument; the dilatory efforts of oil and coal producers, purveyors and the propagandists, those who put profit before people, and the air they breath, the water they drink, the soil they cultivate, and our great oceans, is obvious to the world.

The New Right (Anarcho-Capitlaists) ruck choose to believe those who have a conflict of interest, and to accuse the Scientists who accept grant money to study the issues of having a conflict of interests.

Can you please explain why NOAA decided to alter the temperature of 1997 which at 62F puts it a solid 4F above the 2015 "record"?

No.

Can you?

One data point for one year nearly two decades ago seems to me to be an example of cherry picking.

One data point? The world average temperature for the year 1997, and it's eliminated like an out of favor Stalin sidekick

That's no an answer, and it also reflects your ignorance on meaning of a data point.

So once we eliminate the years that had warmer temperatures, 2015 is a record setter.

You're OK with changing data that does not fit this stupid AGW theory of yours

My theory? My theory is absent, I don't have one and have never posted anything to suggest I have. I simply don't believe pollutants are benign.

And, you don't have a theory, you are an absolute believer that hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists in a number of disciplines, are conspiring to attribute human activity to climate change, so as to receive grant money to study its effects.

Only a fool ignores the recent weather patterns and cherry picks data to support their iconoclastic theory, and only a fool believes and echoes the propaganda guised in academic parlance, claiming the burning of carbon based products is without a cost to our planet.

Only a fool believes oil and coal are the future and given to us by God for our indiscriminate use; and only a fool argues that green and renewal sources of energy are a foolish endeavor and a wasteful expenditure.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you please explain why NOAA decided to alter the temperature of 1997 which at 62F puts it a solid 4F above the 2015 "record"?

No.

Can you?

One data point for one year nearly two decades ago seems to me to be an example of cherry picking.

One data point? The world average temperature for the year 1997, and it's eliminated like an out of favor Stalin sidekick

That's no an answer, and it also reflects your ignorance on meaning of a data point.

So once we eliminate the years that had warmer temperatures, 2015 is a record setter.

You're OK with changing data that does not fit this stupid AGW theory of yours

My theory? My theory is absent, I don't have one and have never posted anything to suggest I have. I simply don't believe pollutants are benign.

And, you don't have a theory, you are an absolute believer that hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists in a number of disciplines, are conspiring to attribute human activity to climate change, so as to receive grant money to study its effects.

Only a fool ignores the recent weather patterns and cherry picks data to support their iconoclastic theory, and only a fool believes and echoes the propaganda guised in academic parlance, claiming the burning of carbon based products is without a cost to our planet.

Only a fool believes oil and coal are the future and given to us by God for our indiscriminate use; and only a fool argues that green and renewal sources of energy are a foolish endeavor and a wasteful expenditure.

Unlike you, I actually read the AGW Cult papers and have been for 15 years now. In all that time, I've never seen one single repeatable lab experiment linking minuscule changes in an atmospheric trace element to changes in temperature; hence my skepticism.

We can trap anti-protons, we can replicate conditions a nano-second after the Big Bang, so why can't we control for varying CO2 levels from 280 to 400PPM? Maybe, just maybe, the AGWCult tried it, found those changes has absolutely no effect on temperature and declared the science settled

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The theory of AGW isn't science. It's religion.

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.

What's funny is you claim the religious types are the "deniers" but the Catholic Church's official position is that AGW is real and a threat. But what is truly funny is the AGW cult themselves are a religion in everything but name. You have your high priests who "translate" the word of God (remember according to you silly people if you're not a climatologist you can't understand what they are saying. Which ignores the fact that PhD climatologists can't teach graduate level hard science courses but geologists can teach every climatology class there is) you have your Church on Earth (the IPCC), you have your scriptures (the various IPCC reports) and you wish to persecute the non believers, you call us deniers but the effect is the same.

Face it dude, you are a religious fucking fruitcake.

Old fool, most of the people giving lectures at the fall meetings of the AGU do teach hard science at the graduate level. And I have yet to see one of them denying that the climate is getting warmer, changing in ways that are detrimental to us, and that we are the primary cause of that change. I have posted many videos of the lectures from those meetings here, with the learned men stating exactly that. Now, can you post something from the AGU that states otherwise?

Both the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America, have statements that AGW is real and an increasing problem. That is the consensus among geologists in the US.

Climate change is not a hard science

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you don't believe in what a vast majority of scientists say then you lost the right to tell others they believe in a religion. You're a religious conservative, right? Your talking point is stupid enough but if you are a Christian then you're just an idiot to post what you did.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a die-hard atheist. So how does that square with your imbecile theories about "deniers?" Anybody who accepts some scientific theory as true simply because a majority says it's true only proves that the don't know the first thing about science.

You have an entire party full of morons who accept religious theories and you're more than happy with it. Anyway, the so called theory of climate change is accepted about as much as evolution or gravity outside of the religious fanatics that control the conservative theology that you associate with.

You think you're a civilized person, but you're actually a barbarian. Your thought processes are no better than the thought processes of aborigines with bones through their noses and a missionary in the stew pot.

I make money and pay my taxes, I have no fucking clue why you are bringing aborigines into it, my fair haired little retard.

What's funny is you claim the religious types are the "deniers" but the Catholic Church's official position is that AGW is real and a threat. But what is truly funny is the AGW cult themselves are a religion in everything but name. You have your high priests who "translate" the word of God (remember according to you silly people if you're not a climatologist you can't understand what they are saying. Which ignores the fact that PhD climatologists can't teach graduate level hard science courses but geologists can teach every climatology class there is) you have your Church on Earth (the IPCC), you have your scriptures (the various IPCC reports) and you wish to persecute the non believers, you call us deniers but the effect is the same.

Face it dude, you are a religious fucking fruitcake.

Old fool, most of the people giving lectures at the fall meetings of the AGU do teach hard science at the graduate level. And I have yet to see one of them denying that the climate is getting warmer, changing in ways that are detrimental to us, and that we are the primary cause of that change. I have posted many videos of the lectures from those meetings here, with the learned men stating exactly that. Now, can you post something from the AGU that states otherwise?

Both the American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of America, have statements that AGW is real and an increasing problem. That is the consensus among geologists in the US.

Climate change is not a hard science

Of course not. The disciplines of climate change are "hard science:

• Earth Sciences
• Biological Sciences
• Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis

Unlike the soft science of economic theories, which many on the far right right claim are immutable, such as Reaganomics.