Notice how the graph depicting earthquakes is like the graph showing global warming?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Amazing how you do not appear to understand that is precisely what you did above.

No, it's what you did. You ignored all other information in favor of a superficial similarity. Which is very dumb.

 

[Robert W]

No, it's what you did. You ignored all other information in favor of a superficial similarity. Which is very dumb.

You did it again. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You did.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

You're embarrassing yourself.

And you don't understand either graph, which is hilarious.

No, the data and phenomena they resent are nothing alike. Sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You did it again. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't going to work. You made a very stupid thread based on very stupid ideas.

 

[Robert W]

This isn't going to work. You made a very stupid thread based on very stupid ideas.

OK, so you are dumb. That has to be why no matter the topic, no matter who it is, your constant tactic is the slur and the attack.
There is a subject that can be discussed and here the place is to discuss the subject.
However you wish it to be, I am not the topic. EVER!!!

 

[miketx]

On earth, as you walk down level city streets, are you going uphill or downhill?

Dude, if the Earth was flat cats would have already knocked everything off of it.

 

[miketx]

This isn't going to work. You made a very stupid thread based on very stupid ideas.

You saying he's a leftist?

 

[Robert W]

Dude, if the Earth was flat cats would have already knocked everything off of it.

Others report the Earth is flat. Now they may know all about this from your remark about cats.

 

[Robert W]

Since the Paris Climate Accord was concluded, no government has followed through with any serious action. The U.S. pullout is hardly the only problem; India is effectively ignoring the agreement, and France “misses its goals of greenhouse-gas reduction every year,” admits Nicolas Hulot, the French environmental activist and former minister for President Emmanuel Macron. The accord is unenforceable and carries no sanctions—a condition insisted upon by many governments that wouldn’t have signed on otherwise. We continue to live in a contradictory reality: on the one hand, we hear that nothing threatens humanity as much as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; on the other hand, nothing much happens practically to address this allegedly dire threat. Most economists suggest that the only effective incentive to reduce greenhouse-gas levels would be to impose a global carbon tax. No government seems willing to accept such a levy.

Is there an apocalyptic warming crisis, or not? “We’re always being told that we are reaching a point of no return—that, for instance, the melting of the Arctic ice pack is the beginning of the apocalypse,” Curry says. “But this melting, which started decades ago, is not leading to catastrophe.” Polar bears themselves adapt and move elsewhere and have never been more numerous; they’re less threatened by the melting, she says, than by urbanization and economic development in the polar region. Over the last year or so, moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.” According to Curry, the truly dramatic rupture of the ice pack would come not from global-warming-induced melting but from “volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic region that would break up the ice, and these cannot be predicted.” Climatologists don’t talk about such eruptions because their theoretical models can’t account for the unpredictable.

 

[otto105]

It gets hot in the desert in July and August. This was a news event for dunderheads.

The previous record was 18 days.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The previous record was 18 days.

otto you never answered my question....what year did Las Vegas have 10x the amount of consecutive days over 110 degrees?.....

 

[otto105]

otto you never answered my question....what year did Las Vegas have 10x the amount of consecutive days over 110 degrees?.....

2023

 

[Robert W]

otto you never answered my question....what year did Las Vegas have 10x the amount of consecutive days over 110 degrees?.....

That is ordinary the case in Death Valley. So what is his big deal?

Notice now the alerts for Death Valley:


DISMISS

PARK CLOSURES​

• Many roads remain closed due to flood damage​

  Alert 1, Severity closure, Many roads remain closed due to flood damage
  Death Valley partially reopened October 15th. Many roads in the park remain closed due to storm damage. Click 'more' for a detailed map.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Notice how my cell phone is kind of the shape of a credit card??

ILLUMINATI

 

[Harry Dresden]

2023

the record is 10 days set in 1962....this year we had 9 straight days over 110.....how is that 10x the amount?......but we did have 291 straight days below 100.....

 

[jc456]

Looks here…

'Time's finally up': Impending Iceland eruption is part of centuries-long volcanic pulse

Iceland's Reykjanes Peninsula is now in a new era of volcanic eruptions that will last for up to 500 years, and the building magma beneath Sundhnúkur and Grindavík is part of this millenia-long cycle.

www.livescience.com

 

[jc456]

No, it's what you did. You ignored all other information in favor of a superficial similarity. Which is very dumb.

Superficial? Is it similar or not?

 

[abu afak]

You did.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

This is a PLAGIARIZED CURRY PIECE. (and then there is a SECOND one above as well discussing what Curry said.)
NO QUOTE MARKS, NO LINKS.

That is obvious as well for a Second reason.
You say you are a member of the Curry Forum, as if this is something you have to qualify or take credit for.

But in fact you can't discuss, or explain, or refute, anyone except to call them Leftists.
To be concise you Can't/DON'T Discuss anything Topical.
You post Curry and call people leftists who disasgree.

You are 100.0% NON-CONVERSANT on the topic: reason for/mechanics of.. warming.. or Not.
A waste of time Fraud.
`

 

[ding]

This guy ^^^ is illiterate.

 

[abu afak]

You did.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

This is a PLAGIARIZED CURRY PIECE. (and then there is a SECOND one above as well discussing what Curry said.)
NO QUOTE MARKS, NO LINKS.

That is obvious as well for a Second reason.
You say you are a member of the Curry Forum, as if this is something you have to qualify or take credit for.

But in fact you can't discuss, or explain, or refute, anyone except to call them Leftists.
To be concise you Can't/DON'T Discuss anything Topical.
You post Curry and call people leftists who disasgree.

You are 100.0% NON-CONVERSANT on the topic: reason for/mechanics of.. warming.. or Not.
A waste of time Fraud.
`