29 excuses for "the pause"!!!

[skookerasbil]

Again........I cant stop laughing.


ONLY 29 excuses???!!!!!


Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ?pause? in global warming ? ?If you can?t explain the ?pause?, you can?t explain the cause?? | Climate Depot

 

[skookerasbil]

1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]


3) Chinese coal use [debunked]


4) Montreal Protocol


5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]


6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]


7) Stratospheric Water Vapor


8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]


9) Stadium Waves


10) ‘Coincidence!’


11) Pine aerosols


12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://


14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere


15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Crick]

What do you call someone that has to provide the laughter at his own jokes?

A LOSER​

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html


104,539




Oooooooooooooops

 

[ScienceRocks]

What evidence do you have that deburks the pollution aerosol negative forcing stopping the warming? The 1950's-1970's cooling is believed to have been caused by ours.

 

[Kosh]

What evidence do you have that deburks the pollution aerosol negative forcing stopping the warming? The 1950's-1970's cooling is believed to have been caused by ours.

What evidence or real scientific proof that you have (not based on AGW religious scripture) that CO2 drives climate?

 

[jc456]

What do you call someone that has to provide the laughter at his own jokes?

A LOSER​

But, the joke is you! So I supposed that means you be .............. LoSiNg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again........I cant stop laughing.


ONLY 29 excuses???!!!!!


Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ?pause? in global warming ? ?If you can?t explain the ?pause?, you can?t explain the cause?? | Climate Depot

There's only one reason, SkoOkS

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait! When you add in the heat on the Sun side of the planet Mercury the AGW numbers are off the fucking charts!!

"SkOoKS is killing us, sOn! I haven't lost like this since my right hand turned me down for sex"

 

[Crick]

What do you call someone that has to provide the laughter at his own jokes?

A LOSER​

But, the joke is you! So I supposed that means you be .............. LoSiNg

No. It means when you try to tell a joke "on me", you lose.

 

[skookerasbil]

Didn't see this on the list?

Too many spilled Slurpees!!!

 

[Mr. H.]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

 

[ScienceRocks]

They admitted to the pause! That is a big step!

 

[skookerasbil]

They admitted to the pause! That is a big step!

Not on this board they didn't. Total delusion in here......nukes their credibility, but it doesn't matter to these people. Sorta reminds one of Jonestown!!

 

[Crick]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

As far as I can tell, it is deniers who wish to convert all mention of "global warming" to "climate change". And they do so despite their apparent unawareness that the only reason "climate change" ever appeared was that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and that would be the CO2 from the human combustion of fossil fuels) was found to be having more effects than simple warming: ocean acidification, for instance. Climate change is simple a more inclusive term. Global warming is still taking place. Despite your fervent desires, no one on my side of the disagreement is embarrassed to use the term. If you want to talk about climate change, we can talk about climate change. If you want to talk about global warming, we can talk about that. Just clear your mind of the erroneous idea that the two terms are synonymous.

 

[skookerasbil]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

As far as I can tell, it is deniers who wish to convert all mention of "global warming" to "climate change". And they do so despite their apparent unawareness that the only reason "climate change" ever appeared was that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and that would be the CO2 from the human combustion of fossil fuels) was found to be having more effects than simple warming: ocean acidification, for instance. Climate change is simple a more inclusive term. Global warming is still taking place. Despite your fervent desires, no one on my side of the disagreement is embarrassed to use the term. If you want to talk about climate change, we can talk about climate change. If you want to talk about global warming, we can talk about that. Just clear your mind of the erroneous idea that the two terms are synonymous.

Dang s0n......you are so naïve. I'd get it if you were twenty something but dang.........

For curious peeps checking t his thread out, Id point this out. Skeptics like me recognize that there are special interests on both sides of the climate debate. The AGW true believers think there are no special interests connected to "climate science"......that climate science is ONLY about good intentions and scientific truth.

Anybody who REALLY educates themselves on this ends up a skeptic. But don't take me word for it.......check it out yourself. One tip........follow the money, as they say!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate science Let s follow the money

Government monopsony distorts climate science says SPPI

Science and Public Policy

Climate Science follow the money Watts Up With That

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490


Climate Money The Climate Industry billion so far trillions to come Originals


Climategate Follow the Money NWO Observer

 

[Crick]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

As far as I can tell, it is deniers who wish to convert all mention of "global warming" to "climate change". And they do so despite their apparent unawareness that the only reason "climate change" ever appeared was that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and that would be the CO2 from the human combustion of fossil fuels) was found to be having more effects than simple warming: ocean acidification, for instance. Climate change is simple a more inclusive term. Global warming is still taking place. Despite your fervent desires, no one on my side of the disagreement is embarrassed to use the term. If you want to talk about climate change, we can talk about climate change. If you want to talk about global warming, we can talk about that. Just clear your mind of the erroneous idea that the two terms are synonymous.

Dang s0n......you are so naïve. I'd get it if you were twenty something but dang.........

For curious peeps checking t his thread out, Id point this out. Skeptics like me recognize that there are special interests on both sides of the climate debate. The AGW true believers think there are no special interests connected to "climate science"......that climate science is ONLY about good intentions and scientific truth.

Anybody who REALLY educates themselves on this ends up a skeptic. But don't take me word for it.......check it out yourself. One tip........follow the money, as they say!!!

I've got a better idea. Since this is a discussion about a science topic, follow the science. And once there, as good science does, follow the data.

 

[jc456]

I tell ya, when Liberals have an agenda there's no changing it. If they have to, they'll even rename it (from "global warming" to "climate change"). And if folks don't fall in line with any given agenda, they are castigated and scorned. Fuck 'em.

As far as I can tell, it is deniers who wish to convert all mention of "global warming" to "climate change". And they do so despite their apparent unawareness that the only reason "climate change" ever appeared was that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and that would be the CO2 from the human combustion of fossil fuels) was found to be having more effects than simple warming: ocean acidification, for instance. Climate change is simple a more inclusive term. Global warming is still taking place. Despite your fervent desires, no one on my side of the disagreement is embarrassed to use the term. If you want to talk about climate change, we can talk about climate change. If you want to talk about global warming, we can talk about that. Just clear your mind of the erroneous idea that the two terms are synonymous.

Nope more MuMbO JuMbO!!!!!!!