U.S braces itself for coldest month of the century

There is a difference between climate and weather. Several years ago in Washington, DC people were walking around in shirt sleeves on Christmas Day.

And the warmist cultists all howled that it was due to AGW.
 
No. Even if the sun goes Maunder Minimum, that just means we don't heat up as fast. Delays things by around 5 years.


You say that as if you actually knew it to be true...we are finding that Maunder doesn't tell the whole story...it is a piece in a puzzle with most of the pieces still missing. To bad you can't admit that at present, climate science is mostly composed of uncertainty. At this point, they aren't even sure what they don't know.
 
There is a difference between climate and weather. Several years ago in Washington, DC people were walking around in shirt sleeves on Christmas Day.

And the warmist cultists all howled that it was due to AGW.

No they didn't. We are not like you. Not being 'tards, we don't confuse weather with climate.

We know why you say that, of course. It allows you to justify confusing weather with climate. And trying to confuse the issue is the best you can do at this point.
 
Last edited:
You say that as if you actually knew it to be true...we are finding that Maunder doesn't tell the whole story...it is a piece in a puzzle with most of the pieces still missing. To bad you can't admit that at present, climate science is mostly composed of uncertainty. At this point, they aren't even sure what they don't know.

Occam's failure. A simple explanation fits all the known data, but you declare a more complicated explanation has to be the solution.
 
Did the ship of "fools" ever get out of artic ice?? Roflmao!!!!

Yes, but what an adventure it is. Give the warmist wackos a season or two and they will have spun that tale into a ship that went down there and proved that the ice was just about gone.
 
No they didn't. We are not like you. Not being 'tards, we don't confuse weather with climate.

You are a liar....unlike me. You guys yowled about the warm weather proving that CAGW was upon us. Here is rocks regarding 90 degree weather in New York in April.

old rocks said:
Well, dingleberry, we had precipitation events this winter, not a cold winter.

And one of the predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall warming. Exactly what we have been seeing.

And one could produce literally hundreds of comments by warmist wackos equating unseasonably warm weather to AGW



know why you say that, of course. It allows you to justify confusing weather with climate. And trying to confuse the issue is the best you can do at this point.

What we know is that you wackos routinely equate warm weather with proof of AGW and claim that cold weather is just cold...even when cold records outnumber warm records hundreds to one.
 
One of the reasons humans may of climbed out of the tree is climate change. The area of Africa just dried out and the forest thinned out.

Understand that a warmer world or a colder world shifts and changes climate of areas on this planet...Who's to say that the polar vortex isn't more likely to move southward because of a weaker jet stream more often? This weaker jet stream because of a "slightly" weaker temperature gradient.






No, the reason why man got out of the trees is because it is more efficient to walk bipedal.
I just find it amusing that you guys claim EVERYTHING on this damned planet is the fault of climate change. It's hilarious.

There is one facet of climate change that does contribute to evolution however, and that pertains to where on the planet you live. At the poles little to no evolution. At the equator, the same. Where evolution occurs like gangbusters is in the temperate zones where the climate changes from cold to warm to cold in endless cycles.

It is those cycles that allow the various advantages that certain creatures have to shine.
 
No. Even if the sun goes Maunder Minimum, that just means we don't heat up as fast. Delays things by around 5 years.






:lol: Yeah, you run with that one! Delusion thy name is mammoth!
 
True it is more efficient to walk bipedal but one of the theories for doing so was that area of Africa was drying out. Has nothing to do with current climate change.

I find it funny how some people believe that a change in climate can't change the weather patterns. Rather it is nature or human induced it really doesn't matter as both will cause changes within the yearly weather patterns over time.
 
One of the reasons humans may of climbed out of the tree is climate change. The area of Africa just dried out and the forest thinned out.

Understand that a warmer world or a colder world shifts and changes climate of areas on this planet...Who's to say that the polar vortex isn't more likely to move southward because of a weaker jet stream more often? This weaker jet stream because of a "slightly" weaker temperature gradient.

No, the reason why man got out of the trees is because it is more efficient to walk bipedal.
I just find it amusing that you guys claim EVERYTHING on this damned planet is the fault of climate change. It's hilarious.

There is one facet of climate change that does contribute to evolution however, and that pertains to where on the planet you live. At the poles little to no evolution. At the equator, the same. Where evolution occurs like gangbusters is in the temperate zones where the climate changes from cold to warm to cold in endless cycles.

It is those cycles that allow the various advantages that certain creatures have to shine.

Matthew is correct. The rise of the east African ridge altered weather patterns and the area to the east of the ridge, where early arboreal hominids lived, shifted from a heavily forested jungle to grassy savannas. Standing and walking upright became necessary to see over the grass. A theory I like contends that it was at this time women developed an attraction to tall males. In the savannas, height gave significant advantage at finding food and avoiding predators and competitors.

I don't buy that bit about no evolution at the poles or the equator. Temperature cycles are NOT the only challenge species face. How did polar bears become white? How did equatorial varieties of widespread genera get modifications for higher temperatures.
 
Last edited:
You say that as if you actually knew it to be true...we are finding that Maunder doesn't tell the whole story...it is a piece in a puzzle with most of the pieces still missing. To bad you can't admit that at present, climate science is mostly composed of uncertainty. At this point, they aren't even sure what they don't know.

Occam's failure. A simple explanation fits all the known data, but you declare a more complicated explanation has to be the solution.

You better put that razor down before you hurt yourself. You clearly don't know how to use it correctly. :lol:
 
Occam's failure. A simple explanation fits all the known data, but you declare a more complicated explanation has to be the solution.

You better put that razor down before you hurt yourself. You clearly don't know how to use it correctly.

This is your specialty: insults with no content. Why don't you explain to us why you believe Mamooth misused Occam and then give us an example of proper usage? Eh?
 
Occam's failure. A simple explanation fits all the known data, but you declare a more complicated explanation has to be the solution.

You better put that razor down before you hurt yourself. You clearly don't know how to use it correctly.

This is your specialty: insults with no content. Why don't you explain to us why you believe Mamooth misused Occam and then give us an example of proper usage? Eh?

As my co-worker Danielle always says: You can't fix stupid.

I've already discussed Occam's Razor, very recently in fact.
 
There is a difference between climate and weather. Several years ago in Washington, DC people were walking around in shirt sleeves on Christmas Day.

And the warmist cultists all howled that it was due to AGW.

No they didn't. We are not like you. Not being 'tards, we don't confuse weather with climate.

We know why you say that, of course. It allows you to justify confusing weather with climate. And trying to confuse the issue is the best you can do at this point.

mamooth said:
It has to be humiliating to declare 2013 as a benchmark ... when it's still 2013. How'd 2012 turn out? What's that, horrific drought across the nation, on par with the dust bowl? At my house, in freakin' Indiana, 60 days of 100F temps and zero rain. Everything that wasn't watered died. That had never happened before in anyone's lifetime there.

link

Looks like you used weather to justify a position on climate change.

Here's another poster who used weather from one year to justify a position on climate change.

Then you used data from one day in one place.

A whole thread started about record temperatures (weather):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/160278-more-record-temps.html


Are you going to call those posters "'tards?"
 
Funny...

590x375_02012255_screen-shot-2013-02-01-at-5.58.35-pm.png


but it doesn't show.
 
I've already discussed Occam's Razor, very recently in fact.

Then you should know how much your kook rambling disagrees with Occam's.

One way of stating Occam's Razor is to say the simplest theory that explains all the data is most like the correct one.

Global warming is the simplest theory that explains all the data. Hence, the sensible people invoke Occam's and regard it as the most likely explanation.

Denialist kooks, however, declare that since we haven't ruled out every single magical unexplained more complicated possibility, Global Warming must be wrong.

Occam's Razor says those denialists are 'tards.
 
Looks like you used weather to justify a position on climate change.

Nope. That was a refutation of Skook's BS that we didn't really have a drought. Not very honest of you to claim I presented it as proof of global warming.

But keep trying. The kooks here really hate me, and you'll get big brownie points from them if you can be the first person here to ever find me being inconsistent or dishonest in any way.
 

Forum List

Back
Top