Some Daytime Temperatures In The Midwest

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

one more time, let me copy and paste my response that you said was not there...

two. Nobody questions that.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

no, they question how many genders there are.

Gender and sex are not the same thing even though they are mistakenly used interchangeably

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

no, they question how many genders there are.

Gender and sex are not the same thing even though they are mistakenly used interchangeably

They're the same damn thing. There are two sexes and two genders, period.

 

[bripat9643]

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

two. Nobody questions that.

Dead wrong. All the SJWs question it.

no, they question how many genders there are.

Gender and sex are not the same thing even though they are mistakenly used interchangeably

They're the same damn thing. There are two sexes and two genders, period.

they are not the same thing at all.,

Sex is biological term and gender is a literary term

 

[Sunsettommy]

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

 

[dudmuck]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

The first model 50 years ago got it right.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

The first model 50 years ago got it right.

People mistake alarmist politicians and celebrities saying dumb shit for models.

None of these people have ever bothered to read any literature on the subject, all they know about it they get from Trump and FoxNews

 

[Oddball]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 243111

^^

The literarary heights of deniers.

Meanwhile, climate scientists are filling libraries with published scientific research.

 

[dudmuck]

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

of course it does.

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

The first model 50 years ago got it right.

People mistake alarmist politicians and celebrities saying dumb shit for models.

None of these people have ever bothered to read any literature on the subject, all they know about it they get from Trump and FoxNews

Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald wrote the model 50 years ago, they are meteorologists.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong. You simply ignore all the evidence that proves AGW is wrong. like the fact that 98% of all the climate models failed to predict the current world ave temperature.

as was stated above, models are not evidence.

The AGW cult believes they are. Otherwise, what evidence to they have?

Data are the evidence.

You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification.

there are probably millions of points of data...historic and current temperatures, historic and current volcanic activity, historic and current CO2 levels, historic and current solar output, historic and current human population levels.

Most of it is open source data that anyone that takes the time can download and run in a program like SPSS or R and do analysis of the data

It is clear you are a confused boy since you have failed to address my point at all.

Here it is again, this time use glasses:

"You are being slippery here, since it is the AGW conjecture that are based on climate models, which run to year 2050,2100 and yes even 3100. That means NO data are being used, and not subject to falsification. "

Your reply was dead on arrival.

 

[Oddball]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

~Kevin Trenberth, Archbishop of the Church of G̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ C̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶C̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ the Great Climactic Googly-Moogly.