Chicago Records Snowiest November Storm in Over 100 Years

[CrusaderFrank]

"Chicago Records Snowiest November Storm in Over 100 Years"

Which in no way 'undermines' the science of climate change.

Evidence of climate change manifests as extreme weather conditions – both with regard to extremely hot and cold conditions.

Moreover, it's ignorant idiocy to use the weather conditions of a specific area such a single city as 'evidence' that climate change science is 'false.'

People paid to shriek "CONSENSUS!" over altered data fed through flawed computer models is not science

not according to actual climate scientists.

I suppose if one keeps relying on people who have their expertise in other areas, it's easier to dismiss the actual climate scientists.

here's the actual satellite reading of CO2. Notice where they are, notice where they're not! Mankind has NOTHING to do with the CO2

Do you want to burn the equatorial rain forests to prevent CO2?

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

 

[FJO]

The ridiculous right thinks "global" means their backyard.

The ridiculous left thinks weather is "globull warming/climate change and can even cause Muslims to turn radical...and selling carbon credits will make it all go away

Carbon credits are like one saying: "I killed a couple of dudes, but I made babies by knocking up a couple of broads to make up for it".

 

[FJO]

"Chicago Records Snowiest November Storm in Over 100 Years"

Which in no way 'undermines' the science of climate change.

Evidence of climate change manifests as extreme weather conditions – both with regard to extremely hot and cold conditions.

Moreover, it's ignorant idiocy to use the weather conditions of a specific area such a single city as 'evidence' that climate change science is 'false.'

People paid to shriek "CONSENSUS!" over altered data fed through flawed computer models is not science

not according to actual climate scientists.

I suppose if one keeps relying on people who have their expertise in other areas, it's easier to dismiss the actual climate scientists.

You have the same oxymoron in both of your sentences.
Can you guess?

 

[Meathead]

Blizzards are good things in Chicago. Cuts down on Obama's boys killing each other.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The ridiculous right thinks "global" means their backyard.

The ridiculous left thinks weather is "globull warming/climate change and can even cause Muslims to turn radical...and selling carbon credits will make it all go away

 

[RDD_1210]

"Chicago Records Snowiest November Storm in Over 100 Years"

Which in no way 'undermines' the science of climate change.

Evidence of climate change manifests as extreme weather conditions – both with regard to extremely hot and cold conditions.

Moreover, it's ignorant idiocy to use the weather conditions of a specific area such a single city as 'evidence' that climate change science is 'false.'

People paid to shriek "CONSENSUS!" over altered data fed through flawed computer models is not science

not according to actual climate scientists.

I suppose if one keeps relying on people who have their expertise in other areas, it's easier to dismiss the actual climate scientists.

here's the actual satellite reading of CO2. Notice where they are, notice where they're not! Mankind has NOTHING to do with the CO2

Do you want to burn the equatorial rain forests to prevent CO2?

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People paid to shriek "CONSENSUS!" over altered data fed through flawed computer models is not science

not according to actual climate scientists.

I suppose if one keeps relying on people who have their expertise in other areas, it's easier to dismiss the actual climate scientists.

here's the actual satellite reading of CO2. Notice where they are, notice where they're not! Mankind has NOTHING to do with the CO2

Do you want to burn the equatorial rain forests to prevent CO2?

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

 

[blastoff]

What a pain in the ass to have to have to shovel 11.2 inches of global warming. But at least we finally found those shovel-ready jobs!

 

[RDD_1210]

not according to actual climate scientists.

I suppose if one keeps relying on people who have their expertise in other areas, it's easier to dismiss the actual climate scientists.

here's the actual satellite reading of CO2. Notice where they are, notice where they're not! Mankind has NOTHING to do with the CO2

Do you want to burn the equatorial rain forests to prevent CO2?

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

here's the actual satellite reading of CO2. Notice where they are, notice where they're not! Mankind has NOTHING to do with the CO2

Do you want to burn the equatorial rain forests to prevent CO2?

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's warming, therefore it is getting colder because the ice is melting because it is raining more.... that seems to be the narrative.

These folks are mentally ill.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I blame it on faulty tomato production.

 

[RDD_1210]

I noticed you linked to an image from NASA, do you consider NASA to be a credible source on the topic of climate change?

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

 

[RDD_1210]

It's warming, therefore it is getting colder because the ice is melting because it is raining more.... that seems to be the narrative.

These folks are mentally ill.

Where did you get your climatology training from?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The satellite data is indisputable.

NASA has since stopped publishing data from the O-CO2 satellite

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

 

[RDD_1210]

So the answer to my question is......?

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

I'm not disagreeing with the data. I am saying that the same source that you pulled this data from overwhelming says that AGW is real and a threat to our planet. Overwhelmingly.

Weird how you cherry pick one chart and yet somehow ignore everything else being said by the source you used. Why is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I answered it.

The satellite data is indisputable. What don't you understand?

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

I'm not disagreeing with the data. I am saying that the same source that you pulled this data from overwhelming says that AGW is real and a threat to our planet. Overwhelmingly.

Weird how you cherry pick one chart and yet somehow ignore everything else being said by the source you used. Why is that?

Clearly, the people SAYING that are either lying or idiots. No third option.

Look at the data from a 5 week period. Where's the AGW?

 

[RDD_1210]

So you consider NASA to be a credible source? Yes or no? That is what I asked you.

Play all the games you want, we both know what you're trying to do.

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

I'm not disagreeing with the data. I am saying that the same source that you pulled this data from overwhelming says that AGW is real and a threat to our planet. Overwhelmingly.

Weird how you cherry pick one chart and yet somehow ignore everything else being said by the source you used. Why is that?

Clearly, the people SAYING that are either lying or idiots. No third option.

Look at the data from a 5 week period. Where's the AGW?

So unlike you I took the time to actually understand your image and what the data means. I found the article where it came from.

News | NASA's Spaceborne Carbon Counter Maps New Details

""Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,"".
"The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread."

Looks like those spikes are in fact due to human activity. Want to cherry pick any other data that ultimately doesn't tell the narrow-minded story you want to tell.

Now, lets get back to NASA and the fact that they say that AGW is very much real, just like your chart proves.

Thanks turnip!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

NASA is a big organization and has been caught fudging data, so overall their credibility is questionable. The satellite data shown above, however, speaks for itself.

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

I'm not disagreeing with the data. I am saying that the same source that you pulled this data from overwhelming says that AGW is real and a threat to our planet. Overwhelmingly.

Weird how you cherry pick one chart and yet somehow ignore everything else being said by the source you used. Why is that?

Clearly, the people SAYING that are either lying or idiots. No third option.

Look at the data from a 5 week period. Where's the AGW?

So unlike you I took the time to actually understand your image and what the data means. I found the article where it came from.

News | NASA's Spaceborne Carbon Counter Maps New Details

""Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,"".
"The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread."

Looks like those spikes are in fact due to human activity. Want to cherry pick any other data that ultimately doesn't tell the narrow-minded story you want to tell.

Now, lets get back to NASA and the fact that they say that AGW is very much real, just like your chart proves.

Thanks turnip!

LOL!

I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost

here's the next, and last, 6 weeks NASA every published from OCO2, they went dark after this.

I wonder why?

You will believe ANYTHING they tell you!

ANYTHING!

 

[RDD_1210]

Hahahah, so when you agree with the data the source is credible, when you don't like what they're saying, they have "been caught fudging data".

Do I have that right?

The unaltered data is the data. Do you not understand that?

^ Unaltered satellite data over a 5 week period showing the equatorial rain forest are the biggest producers of CO2, thereby effectively failing the AGWCult theory.

Why do you still believe mankind produces most of the CO2?

I'm not disagreeing with the data. I am saying that the same source that you pulled this data from overwhelming says that AGW is real and a threat to our planet. Overwhelmingly.

Weird how you cherry pick one chart and yet somehow ignore everything else being said by the source you used. Why is that?

Clearly, the people SAYING that are either lying or idiots. No third option.

Look at the data from a 5 week period. Where's the AGW?

So unlike you I took the time to actually understand your image and what the data means. I found the article where it came from.

News | NASA's Spaceborne Carbon Counter Maps New Details

""Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests,"".
"The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread."

Looks like those spikes are in fact due to human activity. Want to cherry pick any other data that ultimately doesn't tell the narrow-minded story you want to tell.

Now, lets get back to NASA and the fact that they say that AGW is very much real, just like your chart proves.

Thanks turnip!

LOL!

I almost feel sorry for you.

Almost

here's the next, and last, 6 weeks NASA every published from OCO2, they went dark after this.

I wonder why?

You will believe ANYTHING they tell you!

ANYTHING!

So let me get this straight. You say the data is correct, but their analysis of the data is wrong? But your analysis, with your background in _________ is more accurate than theirs.

Do I understand this correctly?