Climate research too "woke" for Trump!

[DukeU]

Climate science has been very accurate in their predictions unlike anthropegenic climate change deniers.

Why the name change from global warming to CC?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump administration moves to dissolve national climate research lab in Colorado

The Trump administration is moving to dissolve the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

apnews.com

Not that Trump or his Republican members give a rats ass, but their efforts to destroy as much of the planet as they can will impact their grand kids much more than themselves. It's just amazing how these morons oppose anything that benefits people, because they consider it backed by Democrats.

History, that they cannot change, will not be kind to these fools!

Bigly!!!

Trump is doing what he has been ordered to do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why the name change from global warming to CC?

The same as the 100 other times you asked the same question.

Dont feed the sealions.

 

[DukeU]

The same as the 100 other times you asked the same question.

Dont feed the sealions.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Climate science has been very accurate in their predictions unlike anthropegenic climate change deniers.

If this were true, the rich would be moving away from the coast.

Sea levels haven't budged

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If this were true, the rich would be moving away from the coast.

A dumb talking point, as sea level rise is slow.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

A dumb talking point, as sea level rise is slow.

How long will it take to raise the sea level 1 foot?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How long will it take to raise the sea level 1 foot?

Great question! Go look that up and let us know.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Is Florida underwater yet?

Did consensus science predict that Florida would be underwater right now? What science predicted that exactly? Post your sources. OR GTFO

 

[elektra]

Climate science has been very accurate in their predictions unlike anthropegenic climate change deniers.

Other than everything they stated being the opposite of the truth

 

[elektra]

So you think that world wide, people that enter the field of climate science are just corrupted, like that?

Do you even realize that not all countries even pay that well for these scientific fields? But yet, they are all just going along with it anyway?

Often, climate scientists could use their skills (beause the things that they learn in education are transferrable to other fields) to be paid more in other fields, but they choose this specific field for the love of science? But yet, you think that they've actually been able to co-ordinate a world wide scientific consensus that is fraudelent despite this? You think that despite being able to earn more in other fields, they are choosing to earn less in this field, but then also co-ordinate globally to lie about it?

And that it's just chance, that the vast majority of anthropogenic climate change denying scientists are funded by oil companies?

Give me your best climate denying scientists that you like to reference.

Hahaha, such vague comments about people you know nothing of. Rant some more, you have a great imagination.

You cant prove anything you say, you are just imagining and ranting.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

If this were true, the rich would be moving away from the coast.

Sea levels haven't budged

Sea levels have risen about 20–23 cm since 1900, and the rate has tripled since the 1990s. This is measured by tide gauges and satellites, not photos or anecdotes.

Do you understand how long natural changes are supposed to occur over? Do you understand the concept of how long a million years is?

The wealthy aren’t moving away because sea-level rise is gradual, uneven, and currently mitigated by insurance, seawalls, and government-backed flood programs. Wealth delays impact; it doesn’t negate physics.

Miami, New Orleans, Venice, and other parts of the WORLD are already spending billions on flood mitigation because sea levels have risen. That’s adaptation, not denial.

Why is Florida, a state that claims not to believe in climate change, investing billions to address climate change?

Isn't that strange? What's up with that? Around the world they are, and have been, investing in flood defenses, seawalls, and other adaptation infrastructure.

The only misconception that exists in this forum, is that you guys won't be remembered terribly in history. Well done.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Hahaha, such vague comments about people you know nothing of. Rant some more, you have a great imagination.

You cant prove anything you say, you are just imagining and ranting.

Wait a second. So what do you think about what consensus science has found? Do you think that educated world wide science in this field has landed on a consensus or not? And what do you think that consensus is? Do you think that there isn't a consensus in science?

Evidence - NASA Science

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of

science.nasa.gov

How about this:

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

This is a study of 88125 climate related papers published since 2012. They define keywords that can suggest whether each paper was 'for' or 'against' anthropogenic climate change. They also include the full dataset and which study relates to what outcome.

 

[elektra]

Wait a second. So what do you think about what consensus science has found? Do you think that educated world wide science in this field has landed on a consensus or not?

You are assuming there is a consensus because you are told there is. The consensus is a forced fabricated study, the idea of one man who made a very narrow set og conditions that if met he stated there was a consensus.

A majority of scientist never were asked, never agreed, with the "consensus." One man literally put words on their mouth. This is debated to death with links and hours of commentary, here on usmb

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

You are assuming there is a consensus because you are told there is. The consensus is a forced fabricated study, the idea of one man who made a very narrow set og conditions that if met he stated there was a consensus.

A majority of scientist never were asked, never agreed, with the "consensus." One man literally put words on their mouth. This is debated to death with links and hours of commentary, here on usmb

No, that's entirely untrue. When we speak of 'consensus' we simply mean 'what does the vast majority of educated people in this topic think'. The vast majority of people that are educated on this subject think anthropogenic climate change is real.

For you to try to say that a majority of scientists were never asked....then go post on those scientific forums and see what they think and see and post here what you encounter? Seriously, why don't you do that if you think that there isn't a scientific consensus? What gives you the right to question me, when you won't even go on scientific forums and challenge these people that you think might be on your side?

 

[elektra]

No, that's entirely untrue. When we speak of 'consensus' we simply mean 'what does the vast majority of educated people think on this topic'. The vast majority of people that are educated on this subject think anthropogenic climate change is real.

There is no consensus, period. The vast majority of people making claims, such as yourself are not educated on this subject.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Other than everything they stated being the opposite of the truth

No, that's entirely untrue. When we speak of 'consensus' we simply mean 'what does the vast majority of educated people think on this topic'. The vast majority of people that are educated on this subject think anthropogenic climate change is real.

For you to try to say that a majority of scientists were never asked....then go post on those scientific forums and see what they think and see what you encounter? Seriously, why don't you do that if you think that there isn't a scientific consensus? What gives you the right to question me, when you won't even go on scientific forums and challenge these people that you think might be on your side?

And the consensus arises from a consensus of the evidence. The consensus of the scientists is a symptom of the consensus of the evidence.

 

[elektra]

And the consensus arises from a consensus of the evidence. The consensus of the scientists is a symptom of the consensus of the evidence.

The consensus is one man's opinion, sold as something it is not

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The consensus is one man's opinion, sold as something it is not

No, that's embarrassingly stupid. And i gotta say, you definitely make the dumbest posts of anyone on this board.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

There is no consensus, period. The vast majority of people making claims, such as yourself are not educated on this subject.

There is no consensus, but yet, you won't go on popular scientific forums because what? If there is no conensus, then why would scientific forums disagree with you? You can post there, get a response that agrees with you, and then come back here and post that they agree with you?