If deniers are arguing facts, why would they change their focus?

[Oddball]

Is this better?
View attachment 892524

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or how about this:

View attachment 892527

Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Heat | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in the amount of heat stored in the world’s oceans.

www.epa.gov

How much energy do you think that is? 18 e22 joules? That is equivalent to 43,020,000 MTons (43.02 terratons), 860,400 TIMES as powerful as the largest nuclear explosion ever set off (Tsar Bomba, 50 MT)

And that is not the ocean's total heat content. That is only the anomaly global warming has produced above the 1971-2000 average.

1) Mann's absurd hockey schtick has been deboonked eight ways from Sunday.

2) Climate history didn't begin in 1955.

Not better by any measure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fixing the world will be on your behalf as well. You don't get to skate out of the bill, asshole

Chinese is skating out of the bill.

 

[Seymour Flops]

See the OP

See AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Not obviously. It simply requires that each domain display its error margins.

They dont' like to do that, because inevitibly, the "huge differences" are well within the margins for error.

You reject the observed warming. That makes you a liar or an idiot.

IPCC? Is that organization paid money to promote the AGW theory?

No, it is not.

That's a lie.

The IPCC receives funding through a dedicated trust fund. UNEP and the WMO established the fund in 1989. The trust fund receives annual financial contributions from member governments. The WMO, UNEP and other organizations also contribute. Payments are voluntary and there is no set amount required. The WMO covers the operating costs of the secretariat. It also sets the IPCC's financial regulations and rules.[32] The Panel sets the annual budget.

In 2021, the IPCC's annual budget amounts to approximately six million euros, financed by the 195 UN Member states, who contribute "independently and voluntarily".[33][34] In 2021, the countries giving the most money include the United States, Japan, France, Germany and Norway.[33] Other countries, often developing ones, give an "in-kind contribution, by hosting IPCC meetings".[33] In 2022, this budget was a little less than eight million euros.[33]

Seriously, you thought that they cranked out that nonsense without a financial motive?

Fixing the world will be on your behalf as well. You don't get to skate out of the bill, asshole

I don't need you to "fix the world," because you have not shown evidence that:

a) The world is "broken."
b) It can be "fixed" if people are only taxed at higher rates, nor
c) How much it will cost for you to "fix the world."

Even thought of what a bizarre savior complex it takes to even think that way?

Lets talk about c). Well? How much?

How much to reverse global warming and by how many degrees will that money reverse it?

Right now, the climate alarmists are not providing such figures, so I don't expect you to be able to. Instead the idea is "trust us, and give us your money, or we will insult you!"

But if you have the answers, please provide them.

Well, you just go right ahead and insult me. You do realize that under Biden U.S. Oil production is higher than under Trump? My questions are since Biden ran on the bizarre promise of stopping the climate from changing (!), why is he bragging about those horrible fossil fuels he is leading the nation to produce. Also, how can you AGW alarmists vote for him in November?

If Biden is producing more oil than Trump, then by the math, Trump produced less oil than Biden (think about it), so Trump is your man!

It's not a matter of being impressed. Its a matter of your understanding basic science. You don't and thus your opinion on the matter is worthless. And whether you understand it or not, you will benefit from such efforts and thus you get to pay the bills just like all the rest of us.

If you understood the basic science, you would have posted the parts of your links that show you are correct. Instead you give a link and insist I read it. If I did and it did not show what you claim, how would you respond?

You'd say "read it again, and try to understand it!" or some other condescending nonsense that Democrats think is a persuasive argument.

 

[jc456]

Is this better?
View attachment 892524

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or how about this:

View attachment 892527

Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Heat | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in the amount of heat stored in the world’s oceans.

www.epa.gov

How much energy do you think that is? 18 e22 joules? That is equivalent to 43,020,000 MTons (43.02 terratons), 860,400 TIMES as powerful as the largest nuclear explosion ever set off (Tsar Bomba, 50 MT)

And that is not the ocean's total heat content. That is only the anomaly global warming has produced above the 1971-2000 average.

Still no datasets

 

[jc456]

See the OP

See AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Not obviously. It simply requires that each domain display its error margins.

You reject the observed warming. That makes you a liar or an idiot.

No, it is not.

Fixing the world will be on your behalf as well. You don't get to skate out of the bill, asshole

It's not a matter of being impressed. Its a matter of your understanding basic science. You don't and thus your opinion on the matter is worthless. And whether you understand it or not, you will benefit from such efforts and thus you get to pay the bills just like all the rest of us.

IPCC is junk politics

 

[IM2]

"Climate change" hardly even moves the needle in the list of most important problems facing Americans. It ranks below guns, education, abortion, and ten other non-economic problems.

Most Important Problem

Nobody really gives a fuck about "climate change."

Climate change is our number 1 problem..

 

[jc456]

Climate change is our number 1 problem..

What is that problem?

 

[IM2]

IPCC is junk politics

Idiocy.

 

[IM2]

What is that problem?

How stupid are you? None of the things you talk about exists if we can't live on this planet.

 

[jc456]

Idiocy.

It is

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How stupid are you? None of the things you talk about exists if we can't live on this planet.

You can't live if it gets a few degrees warmer?
Aren't you the delicate flower?

 

[jc456]

How stupid are you? None of the things you talk about exists if we can't live on this planet.

So you don’t know the problem? How is it you know of something that doesn’t exist?

 

[IM2]

You can't live if it gets a few degrees warmer?
Aren't you the delicate flower?

That's not what is going on.

 

[IM2]

So you don’t know the problem? How is it you know of something that doesn’t exist?

You are the one who doesn't know the problem.

 

[Crick]

They dont' like to do that, because inevitibly, the "huge differences" are well within the margins for error.

They DO do that because they're real scientists doing actual science.

That's a lie.

The IPCC receives funding through a dedicated trust fund. UNEP and the WMO established the fund in 1989. The trust fund receives annual financial contributions from member governments. The WMO, UNEP and other organizations also contribute. Payments are voluntary and there is no set amount required. The WMO covers the operating costs of the secretariat. It also sets the IPCC's financial regulations and rules.[32] The Panel sets the annual budget.

In 2021, the IPCC's annual budget amounts to approximately six million euros, financed by the 195 UN Member states, who contribute "independently and voluntarily".[33][34] In 2021, the countries giving the most money include the United States, Japan, France, Germany and Norway.[33] Other countries, often developing ones, give an "in-kind contribution, by hosting IPCC meetings".[33] In 2022, this budget was a little less than eight million euros.[33]

Seriously, you thought that they cranked out that nonsense without a financial motive?

Are you actually that fucking stupid? That money pays for their WORK, the assessment of thousands of published studies and the composition of their reports. BY THEIR CHARTER, THEY FUND NO SCIENCE. NONE

I don't need you to "fix the world," because you have not shown evidence that:

a) The world is "broken."
b) It can be "fixed" if people are only taxed at higher rates, nor
c) How much it will cost for you to "fix the world."

The conversation here concerns anthropogenic global warming. There is no such thing as a free lunch and so I have never suggested that this will resolve itself for free but I'm no economist and have never argued the detailed economics of this problem here. What I HAVE argued is that putting off dealing with this problem, as putting off dealing with almost ANY problem, will dramatically increase its cost. Your mommy likely told you that when you were quite young and she was correct.

Even thought of what a bizarre savior complex it takes to even think that way?

I have no fucking idea what you're talking about, but then, neither do you.

Lets talk about c). Well? How much?

A lot. The world is a big place and we've been fucking it up for a long time.

How much to reverse global warming and by how many degrees will that money reverse it?

That is the task of the IPCC's Working Group III. Here is their section of AR6: AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

Right now, the climate alarmists are not providing such figures,

That information was published with AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 and now AR6 you fucking ignorant fool.

so I don't expect you to be able to. Instead the idea is "trust us, and give us your money, or we will insult you!"

That information was published with AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 and now AR6 you fucking ignorant fool.

But if you have the answers, please provide them.

That information was published with AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 and now AR6 you fucking ignorant fool.

Well, you just go right ahead and insult me.

You're an ignorant fool.

You do realize that under Biden U.S. Oil production is higher than under Trump?

I am aware of that.

My questions are since Biden ran on the bizarre promise of stopping the climate from changing (!)

He said no such thing.

, why is he bragging about those horrible fossil fuels he is leading the nation to produce.

I have not heard him bragging about it, but since, despite his warning to the nation that our policies vis-a-vis Ukraine and Russia were going to run up oil prices, you've all been blaming him for raising oil prices. That would make me think that you might be glad US oil production has risen to the occasion. However, as a portion of our consumption, wind and solar are still growing while fossil fuel use is still shrinking. We are meeting that demand AND moving away from fossil fuel. So what exactly is your problem?

Also, how can you AGW alarmists vote for him in November?

Real, real, real, REAL easily.

If Biden is producing more oil than Trump, then by the math, Trump produced less oil than Biden (think about it), so Trump is your man!

So, Trump was a complete failure - the worst president in US history by a large margin - and he sure the fuck hasn't gotten any better.

If you understood the basic science, you would have posted the parts of your links that show you are correct. Instead you give a link and insist I read it. If I did and it did not show what you claim, how would you respond?

Since you understand these things so much better than do I, why don't you show us how to provide a link to a few sentences within a multi-page article.

And if you think a link I've provided countered what I'd provided it to support, identify the link instead of pretending that was the case.

You'd say "read it again, and try to understand it!" or some other condescending nonsense that Democrats think is a persuasive argument.

I'm terribly sorry I'm forced to be as condescending towards you as I am, but that's the consequences when you failed to do what it was you were supposed to do when your parents sent you away to get an education. They did send you somewhere to get an education didn't they? I hope you've apologized to them for the way things turned out.

 

[Crick]

1) Mann's absurd hockey schtick has been deboonked eight ways from Sunday.

Give us ONE link to MBH 1999 being debunked.

2) Climate history didn't begin in 1955.

I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you mean by "climate history".

Not better by any measure.

You aren't but there are things you could do to improve your situation. An education, for a starter.

 

[Crick]

Logic triggers your dumb ass every time, Crock 'o shite.

I presented five different links supporting my position. You came up with ZERO links supporting yours. Guess what that tells us all?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you actually that fucking stupid? That money pays for their WORK, the assessment of thousands of published studies and the compositions of their reports. BY THEIR CHARTER THEY FUND NO SCIENCE. NONE

Right, they just assess studies and use them to promote the AGW theory.

As they are paid millions to do.

So, you're a liar.

The conversation here concerns anthropogenic global warming. There is no such thing as a free lunch and so I have never suggested that this will resolve itself for free but I'm no economist and have never argued the detailed economics of this problem here.

Then you have no clue if the costs you propose will be worth the benefits.

What I HAVE argued is that putting off dealing with this problem, as putting off dealing with almost ANY problem, will dramatically increase the cost.

So, by definition you are guessing what you HAVE argued: that the costs of not doing whatever unnamed thing you want done with all my money being more than the costs of NOT doing whatever it is.

Your mommy likely told you that when you were quite young and she was correct.

You're a child to bring my mother into it.

Thanks for playing.

I have not hear him bragging about it, but since despite his warning to the nation that our policy vis-a-vis Ukraine and Russia was going to run up oil prices, you've all been blaming him for raising oil prices. That would make me think that you might be glad US oil production has risen to the occasion. However, as a portion of our consumption, wind and solar are still growing while fossil fuel use is still shrinking. We are meeting that demand AND moving away from fossil fuel. So what exactly is your problem?

I'm asking if YOU have a problem with Biden increasing fossil fuel production. Apparently it's "kewl" when a Democrat does it?

Real, real, real, REAL easily.

So Trump was a failure - the worst president in US history by a large margin - and he sure the fuck hasn't gotten any better.

Since you understand these things so much better than do I, why don't you show us how to provide a link to a few sentences within a multi-page article. If you think a link I've provided countered what I'd provided it to support, identify the link.

I have no idea about your links, because you did not post the relevent parts of the article. Which means that you did not read the articles, but are hoping to seem smart by posting links to them.

Pretty pathetic, but not uncommon among AGW alarmists.

I'm terribly sorry I'm forced to be as condescending towards you as I am, but that's the consequences when you failed to do what it was you were supposed to do when your parents sent you away to get an education. They did send you somewhere to get an education didn't they? I hope you've apologized to them for the way things came out.

Actually, I paid for my own education, including two masters degrees. So your condescencion only makes me laugh.

The generation that treated college as a four to six year vacation, funded by parents or student loan, are the ones that think their "interdisciplinary studies" degrees make them qualified to pretend to understand climate change.

So, again I ask, and you are welcome to look it up since you don't know, what will be the cost to lower the planet's temperature, or to make it stable, neither rising nor falling? I would have to think it would be enormous, if ever it could be done, since the planet's temperature has never been stable.

Give me a dollar per degree ratio, since that kind of cost-benefit analysis is how intelligent people make decisions.

 

[Crick]

CO2 is at a historic low, dangerously low.

CO2 is higher than it has been in over 2 million years YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Your idea that this caused the earth to warm is false.

My idea? The Greenhouse Effect by Poster Crick. Are you actually rejecting the greenhouse effect? What's your position on evolution? Abiogenesis? Unformatarianism? The supernatural?

 

[Seymour Flops]

CO2 is higher than it has been in over 2 million years YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

My idea? The Greenhouse Effect by Poster Crick. Are you actually rejecting the greenhouse effect? What's your position on evolution? Abiogenesis? Unformatarianism? The supernatural?

I think it's past your bedtime, youngster.

You're much more upset than a grownup would about people disagreeing with you on the internets.