I understand and believe in global warming, but...

[Crick]

Like I said, your English sucks. Stephanie's statement includes the word "you're". Just who do you think that "you" was whizbrain?

 

[SSDD]

Like I said, your English sucks. Stephanie's statement includes the word "you're". Just who do you think that "you" was whizbrain?

It is still a suggestion of a voluntary act vs extermination which you suggested....two entirely different things....one questions whether you have the courage of your convictions...the other suggests bald faced murder....you really must be broken if you can't differentiate between the two...it would seem that your character is on par with bill clintons and his definition of "is".

 

[PredFan]

Whether the planet is warming or cooling is irrelevant. If it is, there isn't a think we can do about it. The REAL question is whether or not humans have any thing to do with it.

 

[PredFan]

I like it and want it to accelerate.

More frequent bad weather events and disasters, it's necessary for nature to smack humans silly. Let this corrupt system be brought down by the weather.

I'm liking the weather I've been having for the last couple of years. Lots of rain, mild temps (for Florida), and a beautiful yard.

 

[SSDD]

I like it and want it to accelerate.

More frequent bad weather events and disasters, it's necessary for nature to smack humans silly. Let this corrupt system be brought down by the weather.

I'm liking the weather I've been having for the last couple of years. Lots of rain, mild temps (for Florida), and a beautiful yard.

I have yet to hear one of these warmer wackos state what they think the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth.

 

[Votto]

If you understood global warming you would realize it is a money making UN scheme. Don't take mt word for it. Take theirs:

Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

It is a redistribution of our wealth scheme.

Just because global warming is a money making scheme and just because their solutions, such as cap and trade, do next to nothing to address it, does not mean it is not a problem.

The lesson here is, if you can't make money off a problem it does not get addressed.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Unless you have a way of controlling solar flares < what determines warming and cooling of earth, then it's a scheme and a scam. They have told you as much. It is redistributing our wealth and resources to whomever wants it, while crippling us.
When the very people redistributing our wealth tells you that all that money we are giving away is a money grab, you need to listen.
For instance, If you think coal is a problem, why are the distributors allowing China to burn it with no controls whatsoever while we are being strangled? Riddle me that.

 

[SSDD]

If you understood global warming you would realize it is a money making UN scheme. Don't take mt word for it. Take theirs:

Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

It is a redistribution of our wealth scheme.

Just because global warming is a money making scheme and just because their solutions, such as cap and trade, do next to nothing to address it, does not mean it is not a problem.

The lesson here is, if you can't make money off a problem it does not get addressed.

Got any evidence that what small bit of warming we have seen is a problem? Got any idea what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is?...warmer?...cooler?...is it perfect right now?...

 

[Votto]

If you understood global warming you would realize it is a money making UN scheme. Don't take mt word for it. Take theirs:

Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

It is a redistribution of our wealth scheme.

Just because global warming is a money making scheme and just because their solutions, such as cap and trade, do next to nothing to address it, does not mean it is not a problem.

The lesson here is, if you can't make money off a problem it does not get addressed.

Got any evidence that what small bit of warming we have seen is a problem? Got any idea what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is?...warmer?...cooler?...is it perfect right now?...

I am no scientist, but it appears that the climate is warming up.

Is it a concern? For many it is. It will continue to be politicized for bureaucratic gain with no real solutions offered.

 

[SSDD]

I am no scientist, but it appears that the climate is warming up.

Is it a concern? For many it is. It will continue to be politicized for bureaucratic gain with no real solutions offered.

"Appears" that the climate is warming up? The global mean has warmed a fraction of 1 degree in the past 100 years...what exactly, do you think that looks like?....climate science talks in temperature anomalies because to speak in actual temperatures would result in them being laughed out of existence. What appearance does this fraction of a degree over a 100 year time span take?...and how much of it is actual temperature rise and how much is the result of data manipulation....and again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?

 

[Crick]

Like I said, your English sucks. Stephanie's statement includes the word "you're". Just who do you think that "you" was whizbrain?

It is still a suggestion of a voluntary act vs extermination which you suggested....two entirely different things....one questions whether you have the courage of your convictions...the other suggests bald faced murder....you really must be broken if you can't differentiate between the two...it would seem that your character is on par with bill clintons and his definition of "is".

Yes, fuckbrain, and it was Stephanie's.

My god are you stupid.

 

[Crick]

I am no scientist, but it appears that the climate is warming up.

Is it a concern? For many it is. It will continue to be politicized for bureaucratic gain with no real solutions offered.

"Appears" that the climate is warming up? The global mean has warmed a fraction of 1 degree in the past 100 years...what exactly, do you think that looks like?....climate science talks in temperature anomalies because to speak in actual temperatures would result in them being laughed out of existence. What appearance does this fraction of a degree over a 100 year time span take?...and how much of it is actual temperature rise and how much is the result of data manipulation....and again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?

I'll tell you what is ideal: not warming at a rate of 1C per century.

 

[SSDD]

Like I said, your English sucks. Stephanie's statement includes the word "you're". Just who do you think that "you" was whizbrain?

It is still a suggestion of a voluntary act vs extermination which you suggested....two entirely different things....one questions whether you have the courage of your convictions...the other suggests bald faced murder....you really must be broken if you can't differentiate between the two...it would seem that your character is on par with bill clintons and his definition of "is".

Yes, fuckbrain, and it was Stephanie's.

My god are you stupid.

Interesting how you must rush around trying to cover up your lies....I posted Stephanies post and yours...she suggests a voluntary act...you suggest mass murder

 

[SSDD]

I am no scientist, but it appears that the climate is warming up.

Is it a concern? For many it is. It will continue to be politicized for bureaucratic gain with no real solutions offered.

"Appears" that the climate is warming up? The global mean has warmed a fraction of 1 degree in the past 100 years...what exactly, do you think that looks like?....climate science talks in temperature anomalies because to speak in actual temperatures would result in them being laughed out of existence. What appearance does this fraction of a degree over a 100 year time span take?...and how much of it is actual temperature rise and how much is the result of data manipulation....and again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?

I'll tell you what is ideal: not warming at a rate of 1C per century.

And how do you know that?...What proxy reconstruction allows you to make such a claim?...none...that's the answer so again..you are just pulling crap out of your ass...hurling it against the wall, hoping to fool someone.

 

[jc456]

I am no scientist, but it appears that the climate is warming up.

Is it a concern? For many it is. It will continue to be politicized for bureaucratic gain with no real solutions offered.

"Appears" that the climate is warming up? The global mean has warmed a fraction of 1 degree in the past 100 years...what exactly, do you think that looks like?....climate science talks in temperature anomalies because to speak in actual temperatures would result in them being laughed out of existence. What appearance does this fraction of a degree over a 100 year time span take?...and how much of it is actual temperature rise and how much is the result of data manipulation....and again...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?

I'll tell you what is ideal: not warming at a rate of 1C per century.

how do you know this? where is that test case at?

 

[Crick]

Right here

 

[SSDD]

Right here

View attachment 92182

And yet again, you demonstrate beyond doubt that you really just don't have a clue....if you really believe that chart allows you to make specific claims regarding 100 year periods, then you even more stupid than I had thought...and I already thought that you were about as stupid as a bag of rocks..

It does go a long way towards explaining why you are so convinced that observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence exists supporting the A in AGW....clearly you don't have a clue as to what actual evidence might look like...

Tell me, was it the bright colors that attracted you to that graph?

 

[Crick]

As I've said before, I don't give a shit what you think of my evidence. You're opinion on anything even resembling an issue of science is demonstrably worthless. The graph stands - it is the best temperature reconstruction of the Holocene available. And it demonstrates the answer to your rhetorical question as well as why it was deceptive and worthless of you to ask it.

 

[SSDD]

As I've said before, I don't give a shit what you think of my evidence. You're opinion on anything even resembling an issue of science is demonstrably worthless. The graph stands - it is the best temperature reconstruction of the Holocene available. And it demonstrates the answer to your rhetorical question as well as why it was deceptive and worthless of you to ask it.

Of course you don't...in your mind it is valid evidence...in your mind, I am sure that you believe it would support 10 year claims....of course it remains a graph that doesn't even come close to supporting even a 500 year claim...but then we all know that graphs aren't really your thing....they make no sense to you and you are unable to extract even the most basic information from them...we all know that it is the bright colors that attract you...so you go on believing crick...like a good little acolyte...wouldn't want you to hurt yourself by thinking for yourself...even once.

 

[Crick]

Do you have a refutation of the work of Shakun or Marcotte on this? Do you have a DEMONSTRABLY BETTER reconstruction? I have to conclude that, no, you don't, or you would have presented it.