Glacier National Park.....climate scientists wrong AGAIN!!

[Old Rocks]

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

IOW, the establishment says we need a global world wide communist police state, and you swallow it, hook line and sinker.

Nice.

Weird how the "solutions" make it to where only the rich can afford meat, transportation and children.
They dont have any solutions to NATURAL earth evolution.
What a bunch of hucksters..

So why the lies? No, many proposals on how to cut the GHG emissions.

"Fossil Fuels"


Endless Oil?
Endless Oil?

"In the 1980s, he convinced the Swedish government and investors to drill four miles through solid granite in central Sweden. They eventually recovered 84 barrels of oil. Gold considered it a scientific success, even though the project was a commercial failure.


To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth’s mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components."

LOL So, they drilled granite where the abiotic oil had millions, possibly billions, of years to accumulate, and got all of 84 barrels. Hunting whales would have yielded a better return. In the meantime, the people that explore for oil using the model based on life producing the oil count their finds in billions of barrels of oil.

 

[MisterBeale]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

IOW, the establishment says we need a global world wide communist police state, and you swallow it, hook line and sinker.

Nice.

Weird how the "solutions" make it to where only the rich can afford meat, transportation and children.
They dont have any solutions to NATURAL earth evolution.
What a bunch of hucksters..

So why the lies? No, many proposals on how to cut the GHG emissions.

"Fossil Fuels"


Endless Oil?
Endless Oil?

"In the 1980s, he convinced the Swedish government and investors to drill four miles through solid granite in central Sweden. They eventually recovered 84 barrels of oil. Gold considered it a scientific success, even though the project was a commercial failure.


To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth’s mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components."

LOL So, they drilled granite where the abiotic oil had millions, possibly billions, of years to accumulate, and got all of 84 barrels. Hunting whales would have yielded a better return. In the meantime, the people that explore for oil using the model based on life producing the oil count their finds in billions of barrels of oil.

You should start writing fiction as a way to escape from reality.

Perhaps you could write about dinosaur farts causing the lakes of Titan, Saturn's largest moon, which are bodies of liquid ethane and methane.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ethane and methane are not oil.

 

[mamooth]

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

Deniers keep reinforcing one of my points, which is that the same retardation which causes people to fall for the denier scam also causes them to fall for a whole bunch of other hilariously stupid conspiracy theory scams.

Why? If someone has common sense, they see right through the denier scam. All people with common sense are prevented from joining the denier cult, hence the denier cult is composed only of people who lack common sense.

So, let's get back to the OP.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

Glaciers retreated from the park.

Scientists were proven right, again, hence deniers are rage-weeping, again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

Deniers keep reinforcing one of my points, which is that the same retardation which causes people to fall for the denier scam also causes them to fall for a whole bunch of other hilariously stupid conspiracy theory scams.

Why? If someone has common sense, they see right through the denier scam. All people with common sense are prevented from joining the denier cult, hence the denier cult is composed only of people who lack common sense.

So, let's get back to the OP.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

Glaciers retreated from the park.

Scientists were proven right, again, hence deniers are rage-weeping, again.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

How much less would they have retreated if we remained in the Paris Accord?

How much less would they have retreated if we spent another $2 trillion on windmills?

 

[jc456]

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

 

[jc456]

The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?

Sure I'll give you evidence
There is a sharp increase in CO2 levels.
View attachment 148822
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat
View attachment 148823
The planet is heating up
View attachment 148824
Cause and effect clear as day.

So, CO2 increases, along with temp, are a new thing?
What about our ice age? Does that not have anything to do with it?
Do you understand how long Earths history is? Of course not. We cant fathom that shit. But we can certainly fill in holes with assumption, cant we?

Actually it's not a new thing. I even pointed out a place in history it happened before. The Permian extinction. The greenhouse gas was the same too CO2. The delivery method was the Siberian Traps Siberian Traps - Wikipedia.
And no, the ice age has to do with the tilt of the earth which wobbles over time.Why do Ice Ages Occur?
And yes I understand how long the earths history is, what I don't understand how it has any bearing on this conversation.

Who in the hell are you to say the climate today is the optimum climate?

Most prolific period of life on earth was when palm trees grew in the arctic circle.

I never claimed today was the optimal climate. That's relative to begin with. I'm claiming that a sudden climate shift and everything that entails has massive repercussions for all species. Including humans. And trying to slow that rate down, when everybody but a few deniers agree, that the human race is the cause and has means to slow it down, is a moral not to mention pragmatic duty.

what caused the ice age that took out the dinosaurs? was it due to humans?

 

[jc456]

Because people base this malarkey off of records that are equal to a burp in a human lifetime.
Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere
So, interglacial periods warm the planet, but it has no effect on the planet warming?
Well, that just makes a ton of sense. Thanks!

Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles

Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.

Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.

The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.

What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.

I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.

I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

you haven't answered, you didn't state what will happen if they cut their carbon? what happens? will plants die? if plants die, the earth dies. do you know this? so your solution will kill all life.

 

[forkup]

Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles

Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.

Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.

The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.

What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.

I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.

I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

you haven't answered, you didn't state what will happen if they cut their carbon? what happens? will plants die? if plants die, the earth dies. do you know this? so your solution will kill all life.

Someone who hears

Is not worth answering sorry.

 

[jc456]

Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.

Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.

The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.

What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.

I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.

I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

you haven't answered, you didn't state what will happen if they cut their carbon? what happens? will plants die? if plants die, the earth dies. do you know this? so your solution will kill all life.

Someone who hears

Is not worth answering sorry.

someone who just spews adds no value to any discussion. I can see why you'd pull out. you don't have anything of value to say.

 

[Weatherman2020]

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

Deniers keep reinforcing one of my points, which is that the same retardation which causes people to fall for the denier scam also causes them to fall for a whole bunch of other hilariously stupid conspiracy theory scams.

Why? If someone has common sense, they see right through the denier scam. All people with common sense are prevented from joining the denier cult, hence the denier cult is composed only of people who lack common sense.

So, let's get back to the OP.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

Glaciers retreated from the park.

Scientists were proven right, again, hence deniers are rage-weeping, again.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

How much less would they have retreated if we remained in the Paris Accord?

How much less would they have retreated if we spent another $2 trillion on windmills?

Polar ice caps disappeared 5 years ago as predicted, what more could you want as evidence?

Oh wait....

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate

Never mind.

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate · Guardian Liberty Voice

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

When has that vacuum between your ears ever heard anything else? 56" of rain in Houston, the third year that Houston has had an extreme precipitation event, doesn't even register with you. Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row? Actually, this years event was closer to a thousand year event.

 

[Old Rocks]

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

Deniers keep reinforcing one of my points, which is that the same retardation which causes people to fall for the denier scam also causes them to fall for a whole bunch of other hilariously stupid conspiracy theory scams.

Why? If someone has common sense, they see right through the denier scam. All people with common sense are prevented from joining the denier cult, hence the denier cult is composed only of people who lack common sense.

So, let's get back to the OP.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

Glaciers retreated from the park.

Scientists were proven right, again, hence deniers are rage-weeping, again.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

How much less would they have retreated if we remained in the Paris Accord?

How much less would they have retreated if we spent another $2 trillion on windmills?

Polar ice caps disappeared 5 years ago as predicted, what more could you want as evidence?

Oh wait....

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate

Never mind.

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate · Guardian Liberty Voice

Sure, dumb fuck.

Image 3 of 6 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[GreenBean]

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.

This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

There is no consensus - that's a false narrative

 

[GreenBean]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

When has that vacuum between your ears ever heard anything else? 56" of rain in Houston, the third year that Houston has had an extreme precipitation event, doesn't even register with you. Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row? Actually, this years event was closer to a thousand year event.

There always have been and always will be regional variations that defy the norm, that are abnormal for that particular region. Texas over the past several years has experienced above average rainfall will California has recently gone through below average. By the climate change liberal logic every-time some factor in the climate excels or falls short of expectations it's due to Global Warming Ooops I mean "Climate Change"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES!

Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

When has that vacuum between your ears ever heard anything else? 56" of rain in Houston, the third year that Houston has had an extreme precipitation event, doesn't even register with you. Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row? Actually, this years event was closer to a thousand year event.

Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row?

It would be 0.2% the first year. 0.2% the second year. 0.2% the third year.

 

[Old Rocks]

You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

When has that vacuum between your ears ever heard anything else? 56" of rain in Houston, the third year that Houston has had an extreme precipitation event, doesn't even register with you. Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row? Actually, this years event was closer to a thousand year event.

Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row?

It would be 0.2% the first year. 0.2% the second year. 0.2% the third year.

Smart ass. That would be the fact if you figure for each year, individually. However, the statement concerns three 500 year events in a row. So, that is 0.2% X O.2% X O.2%. Try that again on someone not as stupid as you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

Deniers keep reinforcing one of my points, which is that the same retardation which causes people to fall for the denier scam also causes them to fall for a whole bunch of other hilariously stupid conspiracy theory scams.

Why? If someone has common sense, they see right through the denier scam. All people with common sense are prevented from joining the denier cult, hence the denier cult is composed only of people who lack common sense.

So, let's get back to the OP.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

Glaciers retreated from the park.

Scientists were proven right, again, hence deniers are rage-weeping, again.

Scientists predicted glaciers would retreat from Glacier National Park.

How much less would they have retreated if we remained in the Paris Accord?

How much less would they have retreated if we spent another $2 trillion on windmills?

Polar ice caps disappeared 5 years ago as predicted, what more could you want as evidence?

Oh wait....

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate

Never mind.

Arctic Ice Cap Growing at Tremendous Rate · Guardian Liberty Voice

Sure, dumb fuck.

Image 3 of 6 (play slideshow) Download

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Still using the flawed data plot... too funny

Here is the corrected one for you old fraud...

The calibrations are now finished and the corrected algorithms applied to the replacement satellite making it fully functional. The data has been replotted with corrections.

Now we are very close to empirically observed evidence..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.

So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.

I read this and in my mind I heard.

When has that vacuum between your ears ever heard anything else? 56" of rain in Houston, the third year that Houston has had an extreme precipitation event, doesn't even register with you. Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row? Actually, this years event was closer to a thousand year event.

Have you any idea of how you figure the chances of three 500 year events in a row?

It would be 0.2% the first year. 0.2% the second year. 0.2% the third year.

Smart ass. That would be the fact if you figure for each year, individually. However, the statement concerns three 500 year events in a row. So, that is 0.2% X O.2% X O.2%. Try that again on someone not as stupid as you.

That would be the fact if you figure for each year, individually.

And since that's how each year occurs, individually, that's what you do.

However, the statement concerns three 500 year events in a row.

You think it's like rolling a 500 sided die? LOL!
Fucktard.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, you flip a coin. 50% chance it will be heads. You flip it again, 50% chance it will be heads, however, only a 25% chance it will be heads twice in a row. Flip it again, 50% chance it will be heads, but only a 12.5% chance it will be heads three times in a row. And so on. But then, I really don't expect you to be able to make heads nor tails of this. For some people statistics is not only a dismal science it is well beyond their intellect.