Global Warmists Preach Hunger, But Crops Just Grow And Grow

[daveman]

Yea, those scientists. What a bunch of stupid people. They never get anything right. What have they ever done? Nothing important. Right wingers are right not to pay any attention to those dumb ass scientists with all their book learning and science. Nothing ever came of it anyway. Name something they got right. Ever.

So far, almost none of their climate models has been right.

You have heard of irony, haven't you?

I've heard a lot of denialists who can't get their facts right.

And the FACT that NO ONE on your side of this argument has the faintest idea how to BUILD a GCM doesn't incline me to put a lot of faith in your opinion Ms Bag.

I can tell you how you DON'T build one -- you don't build one that tells you it's warming no matter what data is input.

Don't trip on that hockey stick.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Yea, those scientists. What a bunch of stupid people. They never get anything right. What have they ever done? Nothing important. Right wingers are right not to pay any attention to those dumb ass scientists with all their book learning and science. Nothing ever came of it anyway. Name something they got right. Ever.

So far, almost none of their climate models has been right.

You have heard of irony, haven't you?

I've heard a lot of denialists who can't get their facts right.

And the FACT that NO ONE on your side of this argument has the faintest idea how to BUILD a GCM doesn't incline me to put a lot of faith in your opinion Ms Bag.

"Denailists"?

You guys make up words with the same ease that you make up climate statistics.

 

[Abraham3]

So far, almost none of their climate models has been right.

You have heard of irony, haven't you?

I've heard a lot of denialists who can't get their facts right.

And the FACT that NO ONE on your side of this argument has the faintest idea how to BUILD a GCM doesn't incline me to put a lot of faith in your opinion Ms Bag.

"Denailists"?

You guys make up words with the same ease that you make up climate statistics.

Doesn't get you any closer to a GCM model that works without using AGW.

ps: You're the one making up words. Check your spelling.

 

[Kosh]

I've heard a lot of denialists who can't get their facts right.

And the FACT that NO ONE on your side of this argument has the faintest idea how to BUILD a GCM doesn't incline me to put a lot of faith in your opinion Ms Bag.

"Denailists"?

You guys make up words with the same ease that you make up climate statistics.

Doesn't get you any closer to a GCM model that works without using AGW.

Oh my! More proof that he AGW models are designed to show a warming regardless of input.

 

[daveman]

"Denailists"?

You guys make up words with the same ease that you make up climate statistics.

Doesn't get you any closer to a GCM model that works without using AGW.

Oh my! More proof that he AGW models are designed to show a warming regardless of input.

And the funny part is -- he doesn't know what he said.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

 

[Kosh]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

Why? Since CO2 dos NOT drive climate.

Maybe they should figure what does drive climate before make such programs that are worthless.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar flex works within a sine wave and the peak was in the 1950's.
Volcano's aren't increasing or decreasing.
Short term climate patterns like enso, nao, pdo, etc don't increase or decrease the amount of energy within the system. Just sticks the energy somewhere else.

You have 1. solar flex or 2. green house gases that can increase or decrease the amount of energy on earth.

Co2, water vapor, methane fall under 2.

MAYBE slightly the inner-heat of our planet.

 

[Kosh]

Solar flex works within a sine wave and the peak was in the 1950's.
Volcano's aren't increasing or decreasing.
Short term climate patterns like enso, nao, pdo, etc don't increase or decrease the amount of energy within the system. Just sticks the energy somewhere else.

You have 1. solar flex or 2. green house gases that can increase or decrease the amount of energy on earth.

Co2, water vapor, methane fall under 2.

MAYBE slightly the inner-heat of our planet.

And thus shows that there needs to be more known aspects of what drives climate than pointing the finger at one of the smallest GHG like CO2 as the driver of climate.

 

[Mr. H.]

Grain Harvest Sets Record, But Supplies Still Tight | Worldwatch Institute

Grain Harvest Sets Record, But Supplies Still Tight

Product Number:
VST101
Following several years of declining harvests, the world’s farmers reaped a record 2.316 billion tons of grain in 2007.1 (See Figure 1.) Despite this jump of 95 million tons, or about 4 percent, over the previous year, commodity analysts estimate that voracious global demand will consume all of this increase and prevent governments from replenishing cereal stocks that are at their lowest level in 30 years.2

The global grain harvest has nearly tripled since 1961, during a time when world population doubled.3 As a result, the amount of grain produced per person grew from 285 kilograms in 1961 to a peak of 376 kilograms in 1986.4 (See Figure 2.) In recent decades, as the growth in grain production has matched population growth, per capita production has hovered around 350 kilograms.5

But output per person varies dramatically by region. For instance, it stands at roughly 1,230 kilograms per year in the United States, most of which is fed to livestock, compared with 325 kilograms in China and just 90 kilograms in Zimbabwe.6

So why not re-direct the 39 million acres of U.S. Ethanol-bound corn acres to a crop that can actually feed the world?

That answer would lie within the same reasoning that justifies the wholesale slaughter of the avian species in the name of "green" energy.

If you gave a damn about avian species you'd stop the fossil fuels like coal and oil from killing well over a million per year. You'd then tar down the buildings that kill 20-30 times that...

May as well tar down the buildings. They're already getting feathered.

 

[daveman]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

Hey! That's a higher percentage than their claimed certainty that global warming has an anthropogenic cause!

 

[daveman]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

Hey! That's a higher percentage than their claimed certainty that global warming has an anthropogenic cause!

So it's a near-certainty their certainty is utterly wrong.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

I'll also admit it. The science wasn't complete as the ocean heat transport system is a little more complex then we once thought.

 

[Kosh]

Reality has shown a warming of our planet the last 2 hundred years. The model would be off if it didn't

A good model should have the physical equations of forcing of the co2.

Should it not???

The models ARE off -- and the IPCC admits it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/328790-ipcc-admits-97-of-their-models-are-flawed.html

Exactly the AGW promoters do not know what drives climate, but one thing is for sure that is NOT CO2.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Also the sun isn't to blame for this warming

So are you blaming sea dragon farts?

 

[Old Rocks]

This lecture at a American Geophysical Union meeting addresses many of the topics discussed on this thread. Addresses them from the viewpoint of real scientists engaged in active research, not the rantings of politically driven whores.

Richard Alley | Hot Topic

 

[Kosh]

Also the sun isn't to blame for this warming

So are you blaming sea dragon farts?

Actually it is, but I doubt that you would understand in what ways other than AGW programming.

 

[Kosh]

This lecture at a American Geophysical Union meeting addresses many of the topics discussed on this thread. Addresses them from the viewpoint of real scientists engaged in active research, not the rantings of politically driven whores.

Richard Alley | Hot Topic

Now that is no way to talk about the father of AGW James Hansen now is it?

 

[Old Rocks]

This lecture at a American Geophysical Union meeting addresses many of the topics discussed on this thread. Addresses them from the viewpoint of real scientists engaged in active research, not the rantings of politically driven whores.

Richard Alley | Hot Topic

Now that is no way to talk about the father of AGW James Hansen now is it?

Fellow, Hansen's predictions have been spot on. In the meantime, you who practice mindless denial and make fun of the real scientists have missed totally.