Has the United States surrendered to anthropogenic climate change?

[westwall]

You insist on reconfirming that you can't concoct a single climatological study where the empirical data and analysis contradicts the consensus of climatologists regarding anthropogenic climate change.

Your petulance and incivility may arise from your impotence in the matter.

I don't need to "concoct" anything, you doofus. I merely need to present historical facts to support my position that everything that is going on is natural, and normal.

It is YOUR side that needs to present extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

Your heroes have failed to do so. All they have been able to do is write computer derived fiction.

 

[schmidlap]

I don't need to "concoct" anything, you doofus. I merely need to present historical facts to support my position that everything that is going on is natural, and normal.

It is YOUR side that needs to present extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims.

Your heroes have failed to do so. All they have been able to do is write computer derived fiction.

Name one climatological agency anywhere on earth that is in denial of anthropogenic climate change.

Climatologists who compile and analyze data have a far-superior grasp of climate science than ideologues with their dogma.

 

[westwall]

Name one climatological agency anywhere on earth that is in denial of anthropogenic climate change.

Climatologists who compile and analyze data have a far-superior grasp of climate science than ideologues with their dogma.

I don't need to. The scientific method REQUIRES your heroes to support their claims with REAL evidence. Not fiction.

There is a scientific axiom called the Principle of Uniformitarianism.

It holds that processes happening today, are the same processes that happened in the past, and are the same processes that will continue to happen in the future.

That is REAL science, not the hocus pocus you frauds push.

 

[EMH]

scientific studies

The BEAKED BIRDBRAIN will not stop.

Did Einstein ever use "studies?"

LMFAO!!

"Studies" are a sham that allows taxpayer funding to go to politicized liars who fudge data for a specific narrative. Nobody used "studies" in anything prior to CO2 FRAUD. "Studies" bilk the taxpayer. Many "studies" have been found to have FUDGED DATA.

"Studies" are la la land BULLSHIT.


WE WENT TO COURT IN 2007

COURT doesn't care about "studies," COURT cares about TRUTH and DATA, and your side NEVER HAD ANY....

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

THAT IS 90% of EARTH ICE INCREASING... a big clue as to why your beaked birdbrain cannot find one single photo of ocean rise....


How is "the ice melting" when 90% is INCREASING????

 

[EMH]

Name one climatological agency

Somehow a parrot likes numbers. 500 is better than 50...

Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

Your side has pushed a treasonous fraud because everyone "climate certified" passed the "Eric Holder Test," ie totally corrupt, totally incompetent, and totally partisan to the Democrats. All of those "climatological agencies" cannot document

1. any ACTUAL DATA showing warming in the atmosphere
2. any ACTUAL DATA showing hurricanes are increasing
3. any visual evidence of ocean rise


and if hurricanes are not increasing, oceans are not warming.

and if oceans are not rising, there is NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT, and you do not need 50 "studies" for any of that...


The prosecution in the Algore case had NO STUDIES, never mind THEY WON EVERY POINT AND YOUR SIDE NEVER APPEALED....

 

[schmidlap]

Somehow a parrot likes numbers. 500 is better than 50...

Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

Your side has pushed a treasonous fraud because everyone "climate certified" passed the "Eric Holder Test," ie totally corrupt, totally incompetent, and totally partisan to the Democrats. All of those "climatological agencies" cannot document

1. any ACTUAL DATA showing warming in the atmosphere
2. any ACTUAL DATA showing hurricanes are increasing
3. any visual evidence of ocean rise


and if hurricanes are not increasing, oceans are not warming.

and if oceans are not rising, there is NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT, and you do not need 50 "studies" for any of that...


The prosecution in the Algore case had NO STUDIES, never mind THEY WON EVERY POINT AND YOUR SIDE NEVER APPEALED....

Of course, you cannot cite any climatological studies that refute anthropogenic climate change.

The ideological dogma you parrot is not scientific.

 

[westwall]

Of course, you cannot cite any climatological studies that refute anthropogenic climate change.

The ideological dogma you parrot is not scientific.

Of course you cannot cite any climatology "study" that refutes the well known paleoclimate history, which absolutely refutes your fraudulent claims.

That's why you lost the argument, dood. No one is enacting carbon credits anymore. They are as worthless as the tulips became in Holland.

 

[schmidlap]

Of course you cannot cite any climatology "study" that refutes the well known paleoclimate history, which absolutely refutes your fraudulent claims.

That's why you lost the argument, dood. No one is enacting carbon credits anymore. They are as worthless as the tulips became in Holland.

Pretending that climatologists - who overwhelmingly concur regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change - are, inexplicably unaware their own paleoclimate analysis, or refuse to take their data into account, is crackpot stuff.

Ideological dogma is a feeble substitute for science.

This may help the science deniers:

The Science of Climate Change Explained​

 

[westwall]

Pretending that climatologists - who overwhelmingly concur regarding the reality of anthropogenic climate change - are, inexplicably unaware their own paleoclimate analysis, or refuse to take their data into account, is crackpot stuff.

Ideological dogma is a feeble substitute for science.

This may help the science deniers:

The Science of Climate Change Explained​

Supporting climatologists committing data fraud, and their desperate attempts to prop up their failed theory of AGW is the true stuff of crackpot.

Their computer derived fiction isn't evidence of anything.

It is FICTION.

 

[EMH]

Of course, you cannot cite any climatological studies that refute anthropogenic climate change.

The ideological dogma you parrot is not scientific.

Wake up and smell the truth you and your FUDGEBAKING heroes cannot refute.

5 studies...

Thread 'The "climate studies" that support "President Trump's position" on climate change'

Jul 13, 2025

A "study" is an amorphous pile of wiggle room...

From Google

Climate studies, also known as climatology, is the scientific study of Earth's climate system, encompassing long-term weather patterns and the natural and human-caused factors that influence them. It involves analyzing atmospheric, oceanic, and land surface interactions to understand how climates are formed and how they change over time


apparently that "Definition" has "evolved" to mean

a taxpayer funded $$$ crusade to fudge data and claim "warming" that never existed in the actual data, each act of doing so counting as a...

• EMH
• Replies: 91
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

 

[EMH]

climatologists

All of those people used to work in other areas of science and FLOPPED. They aren't good at science. They are just politicized hacks, which is why none of them have the courage to answer 5 basic climate questions, and NONE of them can refute one word of the 5 studies linked above...

 

[ding]

It obviously is not a hoax since we clearly have doubled the CO2 concentration.

Look it up.
CO2 is opaque to infrared heat that would otherwise have left the planet and radiated out into space.
CO2 converts infrared photonic energy into vibratory heat energy that can't conduct out into space.

Doubling the CO2 would be at 560 ppm.

And would result in an incremental 1C of surface warming. No big deal.

 

[Kilroy2]

Trump words now do say things different from in the past.

He is like a fish out of water. Flip Flop Flip Flop

So basically he is the liar and chief and will say what he feels gets him the most points.

 

[schmidlap]

The residue of science deniers, whether those that reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, those that insist the world was created in 4004 bc, or those that insist our planet is flat, are impervious to rational, data-based explanations. Their dogma is unshakable.

The WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update (2025–2029) projects that global temperatures are expected to continue at or near record levels in the next five years, increasing climate risks and impacts on societies, economies and sustainable development.​

The report forecasts that the annually averaged global mean near-surface temperature for each year between 2025 and 2029 is predicted to be between 1.2°C and 1.9°C higher than the average over the years 1850-1900. There is an 80% chance that at least one year between 2025 and 2029 will be warmer than the warmest year on record (currently 2024). And there is an 86% chance that at least one year will be more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level. The report does not give global predictions for individual years.​

​

There is a forecast 70% chance that the five-year average warming for 2025-2029 will be more than 1.5°C, according to the report. This is up from 47% in last year’s report (for the 2024-2028 period) and up from 32% in the 2023 report for the 2023-2027 period. Every additional fraction of a degree of warming drives more harmful heatwaves, extreme rainfall events, intense droughts, melting of ice sheets, sea ice, and glaciers, heating of the ocean, and rising sea levels.​

​

WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update (2025-2029)

wmo.int

​

 

[westwall]

The residue of science deniers, whether those that reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, those that insist the world was created in 4004 bc, or those that insist our planet is flat, are impervious to rational, data-based explanations. Their dogma is unshakable.

The WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update (2025–2029) projects that global temperatures are expected to continue at or near record levels in the next five years, increasing climate risks and impacts on societies, economies and sustainable development.​

The report forecasts that the annually averaged global mean near-surface temperature for each year between 2025 and 2029 is predicted to be between 1.2°C and 1.9°C higher than the average over the years 1850-1900. There is an 80% chance that at least one year between 2025 and 2029 will be warmer than the warmest year on record (currently 2024). And there is an 86% chance that at least one year will be more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level. The report does not give global predictions for individual years.​

​

There is a forecast 70% chance that the five-year average warming for 2025-2029 will be more than 1.5°C, according to the report. This is up from 47% in last year’s report (for the 2024-2028 period) and up from 32% in the 2023 report for the 2023-2027 period. Every additional fraction of a degree of warming drives more harmful heatwaves, extreme rainfall events, intense droughts, melting of ice sheets, sea ice, and glaciers, heating of the ocean, and rising sea levels.​

​

WMO Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update (2025-2029)

wmo.int

​

Pot, meet kettle. Thou dost project too much, methinks.

 

[EMH]

The residue of science deniers, whether those that reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, those that insist the world was created in 4004 bc, or those that insist our planet is flat, are impervious to rational, data-based explanations. Their dogma is unshakable.

Science starts with theory, which is then either validated or rejected.

YOUR SIDE CANNOT REFUTE ONE WORD OF WHAT EMH POSTS...

YOU have been asked to find a "climatologist" who can

1. answer 5 basic climate questions
2. refute any of the EMH climate studies


and YOU CANNOT DO THAT, because TRUTH CANNOT BE REFUTED...



Your side's entire theory, that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes "warming," is based entirely on ONE RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS FUDGE JOB of ACTUAL DATA THAT REFUTED THE THEORY...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

THERE IS NO ACTUAL DATA FROM INSTRUMENTS THAT INDICATES THE ATMOSPHERE IS WARMING, JUST FUDGED FRAUD....

 

[schmidlap]

I hear the yammering from those who are incapable of handling the science.

If they can't yet, they probably never will.

World likely to breach 1.5°C limit in next five years​

 

[EMH]

I hear the yammering from those who are incapable of handling the science.

If they can't yet, they probably never will.

World likely to breach 1.5°C limit in next five years​

Another dodge.

You were asked to answer 5 basic climate questions, and you chickened out.

You were asked to find one of your "climatologists" who could answer those questions, and you cannot do that.

You have been shown 6 climate studies, each refuting CO2 FRAUD, and you cannot refute any of them.

The atmospheric temp data completely refutes CO2 FRAUD, and you try to ignore that. The hurricane data refutes CO2 FRAUD, and you ignore that.

You were asked to find one single photo of "ocean rise" and YOU CANNOT DO THAT...



All you are is a BEAKED BIRDBRAIN PARROT OF TREASONOUS LIES... and an ABSOLUTE COWARD.

 

[schmidlap]

Another dodge.

You were asked to answer 5 basic climate questions, and you chickened out.

You were asked to find one of your "climatologists" who could answer those questions, and you cannot do that.

You have been shown 6 climate studies, each refuting CO2 FRAUD, and you cannot refute any of them.

The atmospheric temp data completely refutes CO2 FRAUD, and you try to ignore that. The hurricane data refutes CO2 FRAUD, and you ignore that.

You were asked to find one single photo of "ocean rise" and YOU CANNOT DO THAT...



All you are is a BEAKED BIRDBRAIN PARROT OF TREASONOUS LIES... and an ABSOLUTE COWARD.

There is not a vast, global conspiracy by climatologists who have confirmed that spewing millions of tonnes of industrial emissions into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.

Paranoia is a requisite for the residue of science deniers.

Dogmatic ideologues do not know more about climate science than climatologists.

 

[EMH]

There is not a vast, global conspiracy by climatologists

LOL!!!

.... because your beaked birdbrain says so??

LOL!!!

who have confirmed that spewing millions of tonnes of industrial emissions into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.

Notice the verbiage change here... "impacts the atmosphere..." not WARMING...

LOL!!!

YOUR THEORY IS THAT INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS WARMING ATMOSPHERE. YOUR SIDE HAS ZERO, NO DATA AT ALL, FROM ACTUAL INSTRUMENTS TO BACK UP THAT CLAIM. ALL IT HAS IS FUDGED FRAUD.

Paranoia is a requisite for the residue of science deniers

YOU ARE THE ONE IN DENIAL HERE. You cannot answer basic climate questions, you "denied" your right to respond like the intellectual COWARD you are. You cannot refute the NBC article documenting the FUDGING of the atmospheric temp readings. You cannot refute that Earth's surface air pressure ACTUAL DATA proves EARTH IS NEITHER WARMING NOR EXPERIENCING AN ONGOING NET ICE MELT. You cannot refute that the ACTUAL HURRICANE DATA shows NO INCREASE. You cannot find us ONE SINGLE PHOTO OF OCEAN RISE...



"paranoia" isn't required. An IQ over 5 and a molecule of patriotism to America is, and YOU HAVE NEITHER.

WE are out $20 trillion over this bullshit...