Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[Crick]

I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures. The added 120 ppm is what caused the warming we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.

And you think it's evil! Now you're just silly!

Can we take that as a vote of agreement on "the stupidest twit" issue?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up. Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280? Come on now, how do you vote here.

I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures. The added 120 ppm is what caused the warmed we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.

 

[Crick]

 

[jc456]

One too many?

You will watch the sea rise around your feet while you continue to whine about peccadilloes and minutiae... Anything other than admitting the science has been correct since AR1.

The primary cause of the warming of the last 150 years is human GHG emissions and deforestation. That is the forest deniers miss for the trees - for their political prejudices, for their anti-science biases, for their contrarian ignorance.

That warming continues now; it has never stopped.

hahahahahaaha, and yet no proof of any of it from your side. just k00k material made up. Again crick, you think that 120 ppm of CO2 is far more harmful than the initial 280? Come on now, how do you vote here.

I vote that you're the stupidest twit I've ever had the displeasure to know.

The initial 280 ppm was what was keeping the Earth at the pre-Industrial revolution temperatures. The added 120 ppm is what caused the warmed we've experienced and even with no more added, the further warming we'll see over the next century.

ouch, are they cute!!!!

 

[jc456]

again, no temperatures. Why can't you post temperatures, this crap means absolutely nothing as a point of argument.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Der der der der ocean ate my global warming!!!!

 

[Crick]

It's neck and neck twixt you and jc. The suspense is killing me!

 

[jc456]

It's neck and neck twixt you and jc. The suspense is killing me!

We could never approach taking your jack monkey belt away. you have secured that puppy with each and every post. Got any more pooh to sling?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did the ocean eat all the global warming?

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL Gratz on finding a "day" back in september when the pacific was slighly warmer than normal. ROFL And in other news man rolls craps twice in a row, global warming suspected.

 

[Crick]

again, no temperatures. Why can't you post temperatures, this crap means absolutely nothing as a point of argument.

Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it means nothing to anyone else jc.

 

[Crick]

How did the ocean eat all the global warming?

That's a decent question and a good response to that graphic. It DOES illustrate a lot of unusual warmth, but that wasn't the point for which I posted it. It was a direct response to your picture of a snowy Las Vegas.

Can you figure it out now?

 

[jc456]

again, no temperatures. Why can't you post temperatures, this crap means absolutely nothing as a point of argument.

Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean it means nothing to anyone else jc.

funny, you can't provide the temperature sets. That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?

 

[BluePhantom]

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?

Honestly, I don't remember the specifics of his argument. It was several years ago. I seem to recall him mentioning that, in his opinion, the data was being used selectively. He didn't debate the fact that the climate is changing. He simply argued that it was happening due to a natural phase of the planet and the sun and human contributions were absolutely minimal. But again, as I pointed out, it's not his area of expertise. The point is not whether he was/is right or wrong. The point is that he was coerced into showing support and apparently that is pretty common.

 

[Crick]

ROFL Gratz on finding a "day" back in september when the pacific was slighly warmer than normal. ROFL And in other news man rolls craps twice in a row, global warming suspected.

You don't get it either. Maybe I'm just being too subtle.

Frank posts a picture of snow in Las Vegas with the implication, I guess, that this disproves that the world is getting warmer. Now what is causing it to snow in Las Vegas? I think we all know the answer: Rossby Waves in the Polar Vortex. And what do you get with waves? You get highs and lows and highs and lows and so forth. Half of one Rossby wave pulls cold Arctic air into the US. The other half pulls hot tropical air into the Pacific Northwest. And what is the net result of all the waves on global temperatures? Zero. Zilch. Nada fooking thing. And what causes Rossby waves in the Polar Vortex? Exceptionally warm weather in the Arctic.


Any questions? Ian?

 

[Crick]

funny, you can't provide the temperature sets. That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?

Hmm... I could be wrong, but in either case, it means temps in those locations have gone up 3C. Why do you think there's something magical about absolute values? Let me guess, because it's the only thing you understand.

 

[Crick]

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?

Honestly, I don't remember the specifics of his argument. It was several years ago. I seem to recall him mentioning that, in his opinion, the data was being used selectively. He didn't debate the fact that the climate is changing. He simply argued that it was happening due to a natural phase of the planet and the sun and human contributions were absolutely minimal. But again, as I pointed out, it's not his area of expertise. The point is not whether he was/is right or wrong. The point is that he was coerced into showing support and apparently that is pretty common.

Finally, an actual conversation.

Did he consider bringing this to the attention of higher ups or to the media? Did he show you anything that someone else would consider evidence of this coercion?

 

[jc456]

funny, you can't provide the temperature sets. That could be warming of 35-50 degrees F to 38-53 degrees F and what exactly does that even mean?

Hmm... I could be wrong, but in either case, it means temps in those locations have gone up 3C. Why do you think there's something magical about absolute values? Let me guess, because it's the only thing you understand.

so why can't you post the temperatures then?

 

[BluePhantom]

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?

Honestly, I don't remember the specifics of his argument. It was several years ago. I seem to recall him mentioning that, in his opinion, the data was being used selectively. He didn't debate the fact that the climate is changing. He simply argued that it was happening due to a natural phase of the planet and the sun and human contributions were absolutely minimal. But again, as I pointed out, it's not his area of expertise. The point is not whether he was/is right or wrong. The point is that he was coerced into showing support and apparently that is pretty common.

Finally, an actual conversation.

Did he consider bringing this to the attention of higher ups or to the media? Did he show you anything that someone else would consider evidence of this coercion?

If he went above the dean's head he didn't mention it, but if his position that climate change research generates a ton of cash for universities is true, then I doubt he would have found a receptive audience. As for anything else, he wasn't in it to make waves, he just wanted his grant so he could conduct his research.

 

[jc456]

Why did your brother disagree with AGW?

Honestly, I don't remember the specifics of his argument. It was several years ago. I seem to recall him mentioning that, in his opinion, the data was being used selectively. He didn't debate the fact that the climate is changing. He simply argued that it was happening due to a natural phase of the planet and the sun and human contributions were absolutely minimal. But again, as I pointed out, it's not his area of expertise. The point is not whether he was/is right or wrong. The point is that he was coerced into showing support and apparently that is pretty common.

Finally, an actual conversation.

Did he consider bringing this to the attention of higher ups or to the media? Did he show you anything that someone else would consider evidence of this coercion?

If he went above the dean's head he didn't mention it, but if his position that climate change research generates a ton of cash for universities is true, then I doubt he would have found a receptive audience. As for anything else, he wasn't in it to make waves, he just wanted his grant so he could conduct his research.

did he get his grant?