LOL.....Gore now says climate change triggering "flying rivers"!!!

[westwall]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I will attack anyone who demands that an opposing voice be silenced. The only people who demand that no other voice be heard are those who have no legitimate argument. The ONLY people demanding that no debate be heard are the AGW pushers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just for a ******* dummy like you...

Dumb ****...

I see no problem with labeling someone correctly.

 

[Old Rocks]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I will attack anyone who demands that an opposing voice be silenced. The only people who demand that no other voice be heard are those who have no legitimate argument. The ONLY people demanding that no debate be heard are the AGW pushers.

Again you lie, Mr. Westwall. Cuccenelli tried to convict Dr. Mann of a felony simply because he published a scientific article.

 

[westwall]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I will attack anyone who demands that an opposing voice be silenced. The only people who demand that no other voice be heard are those who have no legitimate argument. The ONLY people demanding that no debate be heard are the AGW pushers.

Again you lie, Mr. Westwall. Cuccenelli tried to convict Dr. Mann of a felony simply because he published a scientific article.

No, he wanted to try him for scientific fraud and theft of TAXPAYERS money you twit.

 

[Sunsettommy]

? Yes, but the data shows that CO2 reinforces climate change. It does not drive it.

Shameles lie. All the data clearly shows that increased CO2 does, in fact, drive climate change. While at times a different mechanism may start the planet warming, increased CO2 always drives warming. It's a simple fact.

Yours is the shameless lie dude. The Vostock ice core data is very clear, CO2 levels rise AFTER the Earth warms. By hundreds of years. Go peddle your lies elsewhere.

Agree that they are LYING, since there are papers publishing that shows every time that CO2 lags behind temperature changes, with centuries of lagging recorded.

 

[ding]

Just for a ******* dummy like you...

Dumb ****...

I see no problem with labeling someone correctly.

This is you rationalizing your behavior as good and just. You are truly doing God's work here.

 

[skookerasbil]

The part I dispute is the rate of change argument. Specifically that there is no other known precedent from the past. Why? Because there isn't that kind of resolution in the data.

It seems to me to be a disingenuous argument.

So we attack and ridicule the people doing the research? Seems to me people don't want an answer if it might offend their ideology. I'd say it is analogous to those who don't believe in evolution because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible.

I will attack anyone who demands that an opposing voice be silenced. The only people who demand that no other voice be heard are those who have no legitimate argument. The ONLY people demanding that no debate be heard are the AGW pushers.

Again you lie, Mr. Westwall. Cuccenelli tried to convict Dr. Mann of a felony simply because he published a scientific article.

No, he wanted to try him for scientific fraud and theft of TAXPAYERS money you twit.

Yep... spot on. But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Who's not winning?

 

[skookerasbil]

Just for a ******* dummy like you...

Dumb ****...

I see no problem with labeling someone correctly.

This is you rationalizing your behavior as good and just. You are truly doing God's work here.

Actually it's a condition known as human racism@!! I'm not even kidding.... Google it

 

[alang1216]

[But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Is that long term costs or short term costs?

 

[westwall]

[But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Is that long term costs or short term costs?

You can't show any real, observed, data that supports your claim. Why on Earth should the world expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that we can lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years. What part of that ridiculous plan seems to escape you?

 

[Sunsettommy]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

The chart you posted actually destroys the AGW conjecture because it warmed at half the predicted/projected rate that the conjecture states it should.



What point were you trying to make?

 

[skookerasbil]

[But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Is that long term costs or short term costs?

You can't show any real, observed, data that supports your claim. Why on Earth should the world expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that we can lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years. What part of that ridiculous plan seems to escape you?

West...this new guy isn't quite able to connect the dots on this stuff. He'd probably be all for a 150 trillion expenditure because "we have to do something!"

 

[Sunsettommy]

Old Rocks goes into hyperbole with this unsupported nonsense, from post 86.

"No, they are not. But they are built from data. And the data says that we are rapidly warming, the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations, not models. We are seeing more No, they are not. But they are built from data. And the data says that we are rapidly warming, the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations, not models. We are seeing more extreme weather events worldwide, again, observations, not models. But the models do say we are going to see an increase in both processes. , again, observations, not models. But the models do say we are going to see an increase in both processes."

You presented the satellite data on page 5 that clearly shows it is NOT rapidly warming.

the glaciers and continental ice caps are melting, observations. Greenland shows cycling warming cooling cycles.

Continental ice caps were largely borne or greatly expanded during the LIA time frame with a warming trend of around 300 year it is not surprising they are melting back towards pre LIA levels. Continental ice doesn't effect sea levels much.

Extreme weather events are NOT increasing as there are FEWER Tornadoes in last 15 years while Tropical storms and Hurricanes energy and numbers are about flat in the last decade. There was a 12 year drought in land falling hurricanes for America that finally ended last year, by far the longest on record dating back to the late 1800's.

You made all your claims without evidence.

 

[alang1216]

[But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Is that long term costs or short term costs?

You can't show any real, observed, data that supports your claim. Why on Earth should the world expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that we can lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years. What part of that ridiculous plan seems to escape you?

What plan are you talking about and where does the 76 trillion number come from? I'm sure there are plenty of plans that have been proposed, don't assume everyone concerned with climate change buys into every plan.

 

[westwall]

[But here's the thing.... progressives don't give a rat's ass about costs. You see it 24/7 in these forums wherever you look. Thankfully most of the country does consider costs..
... which is exactly why we've had zero climate legislation in this country for the past 10 years.

Is that long term costs or short term costs?

You can't show any real, observed, data that supports your claim. Why on Earth should the world expend 76 trillion dollars in the vain hope that we can lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years. What part of that ridiculous plan seems to escape you?

What plan are you talking about and where does the 76 trillion number come from? I'm sure there are plenty of plans that have been proposed, don't assume everyone concerned with climate change buys into every plan.

Here you go,. This is the actual UN paper that the AGW mafia are trying to implement. Educate yourself...

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[skookerasbil]

So anything st00pid from Al this week?