GW causing tidal flooding in Florida...no worries.

[jc456]

You're like the 5th guy who says it yet cannot prove this.

Not necessary.

When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?

Again, like many posts previous, the burden is on you. so please release those experimental verification videos that confirm the peer papers you wipe with. The onus is on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

 

[jc456]

You're like the 5th guy who says it yet cannot prove this.

Not necessary.

When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?

So the IPCC AR5 report is our evidence. Go read it. Now once again in big boy language, where are the experimental verification videos confirming your stated thesis? Ah, you don't have any, you have peer paper, which is only good for one thing, so don't forget to w.....

 

[ClosedCaption]

The proof of what? What is it that you didn't understand from six people now. That tells me your missing something.

CC is attempting to deflect the thread in a direction he needs it to go because he has no valid rebuttal to counter the fact that the Earth's climate is cyclical and that the presence of Man cannot change those cycles.

Oh we can change the cycles, it just comes down to how much time, blood, and resource we are willing to devote to making changes.

Ok for some reason you guys keep usign the word "control". Control the cycles, Control the climate and not one person is saying anyone of use can control it.

What I've said is we can do things to slow the destruction. For example. Are there was to **** up the earth more? Everyone would agree yes.

Will ******* it up effect the environment? Everyone would agree yes.

If everyone on earth didnt recycle, littered without regard, shit in the streams, dump their oil down the gutter those actions would impact the environment. Maybe the fish will die, maybe water will be effected etc.

But all it takes is for someone to say Al Gore and suddenly everyone goes "WE DONT AND CANT EFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT!!"

 

[ClosedCaption]

There is science...and then there is climate pseudoscience.

No, just because you call it a dog doesnt mean its gonna fetch. You call is pseudo science but have no proof, evidence, etc.



Since both are theories and science uses the same methods to determine outcomes why do you believe what science says about earths climate millions of years ago and refuse to believe those same individuals just turn into **** ups when it comes to determining possible future outcomes?

In real science, one failure of a hypothesis is just grounds to scrap it and go back to the drawing board....in climate pseudoscience, no number of failed predictions of the hypothesis are grounds to wonder if perhaps they got it wrong.

And that is why the peer reviewed papers were reviewed by others to ensure they have the most likely conclusion based on the information. Its fine if you say one guy is wrong but when you start talking about some mass conspiracy based on nothing more than your squawking where hundreds of scientists all agree on something because really they KNEW they would get govt funding (apparently they are psychic too) is like...too many people, too many moving parts all for a POSSIBLE outcome (funding) with an unknown price tag.

That makes no ******* sense

Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.

Its in the research....Are you slow?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Not necessary.

When you cant prove it you just deem it unnecessary. So you cant even tell how you come to that conclusion and you want me to what? Suspend logic and disbelief to go with your gut feeling?

Again, like many posts previous, the burden is on you. so please release those experimental verification videos that confirm the peer papers you wipe with. The onus is on youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

No, when someone says the science isnt real which they are presenting as a fact the burden is not on me to make their argument for them Shaggy

 

[jc456]

No, just because you call it a dog doesnt mean its gonna fetch. You call is pseudo science but have no proof, evidence, etc.



Since both are theories and science uses the same methods to determine outcomes why do you believe what science says about earths climate millions of years ago and refuse to believe those same individuals just turn into **** ups when it comes to determining possible future outcomes?



And that is why the peer reviewed papers were reviewed by others to ensure they have the most likely conclusion based on the information. Its fine if you say one guy is wrong but when you start talking about some mass conspiracy based on nothing more than your squawking where hundreds of scientists all agree on something because really they KNEW they would get govt funding (apparently they are psychic too) is like...too many people, too many moving parts all for a POSSIBLE outcome (funding) with an unknown price tag.

That makes no ******* sense

Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.

Its in the research....Are you slow?

Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,

 

[Stephanie]

We should be very afraid that people can fall for this type of (voodoo science)... because they also, VOTE

help us all

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hahahaha, lamo, where is that experimental verification of those peer reviewed papers you use to wipe with? You got squat.

Its in the research....Are you slow?

Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,

Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?

Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.

 

[jc456]

Its in the research....Are you slow?

Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,

Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?

Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.

The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point. Yet, there is no effort being made to go back to the models and understand why that happened. The IPCC AR5 report makes that point. Yet fail to do anything. so to continue to argue a point that is unproven is sort of pointless. But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature, then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Research is not verification, dude. Dah..... you see when the observed doesn't match the therotical, one needs to understand why that is. Not to ignore it. Now, again, there is no, none, nadda evidence to support your research. So, as a mattter of science please go test your research and come back with your results and then we can talk,

Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?

Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.

The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.

And when I ask you how this is when you say you dont need to explain it right?

Yet, there is no effort being made to go back to the models and understand why that happened. The IPCC AR5 report makes that point. Yet fail to do anything. so to continue to argue a point that is unproven is sort of pointless.

Yet thats exactly what you are doing. Except your unproven points dont need to be proven for some reason and you are dismissing scientists and their research. For example: You keep saying this IPCC AR5 report says this and that yet you link to nothing? Why not? I just googled the report and wondering which portion are you referring too that shows the errors?

What you stated is false. Heres how they deal with errors: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf

But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature,

Why do you keep saying this? Show me where I said that even ONE time! So stop

then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.

You put words in my mouth and expect me to defend it again and again. Quote me where I said that and I will defend it. You cant.

 

[jc456]

Wait are you asking for proof and saying the research isnt proof? What proof are you looking for then? A time machine to show you the future?

Its not my proof, this isnt me against you. This is you against science and you cant explain why.

The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.

And when I ask you how this is when you say you dont need to explain it right?



Yet thats exactly what you are doing. Except your unproven points dont need to be proven for some reason and you are dismissing scientists and their research. For example: You keep saying this IPCC AR5 report says this and that yet you link to nothing? Why not? I just googled the report and wondering which portion are you referring too that shows the errors?

What you stated is false. Heres how they deal with errors: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf

But if you truly believe CO2 caused an increase in temperature,

Why do you keep saying this? Show me where I said that even ONE time! So stop

then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.

You put words in my mouth and expect me to defend it again and again. Quote me where I said that and I will defend it. You cant.

What, you can't go pull open th AR5 report and read their conclussion? You need a link when I give you the report name? Wow.

If you go to the summary report for policy makers you will see in sections B-1:
"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

and from D-1:
"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012,
is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend
in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar
cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced
warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the
difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural
internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4,
Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}"

 

[ClosedCaption]

The research didn't line up with the models, so the research failed your point.

And when I ask you how this is when you say you dont need to explain it right?



Yet thats exactly what you are doing. Except your unproven points dont need to be proven for some reason and you are dismissing scientists and their research. For example: You keep saying this IPCC AR5 report says this and that yet you link to nothing? Why not? I just googled the report and wondering which portion are you referring too that shows the errors?

What you stated is false. Heres how they deal with errors: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_deals_errors.pdf



Why do you keep saying this? Show me where I said that even ONE time! So stop

then producing that evidence with experimental data confirming that is needed. So you have no correlation with the research. So research doesn't validate your claim.

You put words in my mouth and expect me to defend it again and again. Quote me where I said that and I will defend it. You cant.

What, you can't go pull open th AR5 report and read their conclussion? You need a link when I give you the report name? Wow.

If you go to the summary report for policy makers you will see in sections B-1:
"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and
interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to
the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming
over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller
than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

Am I reading this right? This says that trends based on short records do not in general reflect long term climate trends. Right?

Now what is funny is that you've been saying that their models were wrong wrong wrong. The IPCC uses softer language. Here is the IPCC saying that short term models in general do not reflect long term trends.

Do you believe the IPCC that they are right? While not believeing the IPCC in general?

and from D-1:
"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012,
is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal
variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend
in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar
cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced
warming trend. There is medium confidence that natural internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the
difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of natural
internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). {9.4,
Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}"

Some models are wrong. This is waaay different then your contention that Global warming isnt real. And they even say that the models arent expected to reproduce the timing.

If this is it then I want my money and time back. This is waaaaay softer language than what you were leading on about

 

[Harry Dresden]

i knew a person like this.....i thought she was joking at first....but as it turned out she was serious......what ya gonna do?....they are out there....

If they do, why do leftists need to make this shit up?

Let me ask you, how does Landover Baptist Church - a site run by Atheist Bolsheviks, dedicated to libel and slander against Christians, differ from the Klan putting up a site claiming to be black people eating watermelon and looking for others to be shiftless and lazy?

Do you really think demagoguery is clever?

ask a leftist.....ask Dean....im sure he will have an answer with links no less.....

 

[RKMBrown]

CC is attempting to deflect the thread in a direction he needs it to go because he has no valid rebuttal to counter the fact that the Earth's climate is cyclical and that the presence of Man cannot change those cycles.

Oh we can change the cycles, it just comes down to how much time, blood, and resource we are willing to devote to making changes.

Ok for some reason you guys keep usign the word "control". Control the cycles, Control the climate and not one person is saying anyone of use can control it.

What I've said is we can do things to slow the destruction. For example. Are there was to **** up the earth more? Everyone would agree yes.

Will ******* it up effect the environment? Everyone would agree yes.

If everyone on earth didnt recycle, littered without regard, shit in the streams, dump their oil down the gutter those actions would impact the environment. Maybe the fish will die, maybe water will be effected etc.

But all it takes is for someone to say Al Gore and suddenly everyone goes "WE DONT AND CANT EFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT!!"

Your paranoia is unwarranted.

 

[depotoo]

And some relevant quotes from that article:“We usually get flooding when there are high tides,” she said, “but this year it seems particularly bad.”And …“We try to do the best we can to alleviate the problems, but in some areas it’s really difficult,” Aymonin said. “Parts of Miami Beach have settled six inches, and there are those who say the ocean water is rising, anyway.”

from 1973

 

[RKMBrown]

Ayup... been like that since forever. Built on a swamp... duh. Reminds me of the NO folks living in the sinking bowl. But oh no it can't be the ground compressing down under the weight being put on it, it must be "climate change." ROFL

 

[depotoo]

 

[mamooth]

Common sense really, really offends deniers.

Look at them all here, going amusingly off-the-rails and posting all their usual forged data and crazy myth deflections, simply because it was pointed out that rising sea levels make tidal flooding more common. Deniers just can't handle it when their religious beliefs are questioned.

 

[depotoo]

Really?
The Miami News - Google News Archive Search

Common sense really, really offends deniers.

Look at them all here, going amusingly off-the-rails and posting all their usual forged data and crazy myth deflections, simply because it was pointed out that rising sea levels make tidal flooding more common. Deniers just can't handle it when their religious beliefs are questioned.

 

[Desperado]

Really?
The Miami News - Google News Archive Search

Common sense really, really offends deniers.

Look at them all here, going amusingly off-the-rails and posting all their usual forged data and crazy myth deflections, simply because it was pointed out that rising sea levels make tidal flooding more common. Deniers just can't handle it when their religious beliefs are questioned.

Again this is nothing new to Miami, it has been going on for a very long time, way before Global warming become a religion.