Some Daytime Temperatures In The Midwest

[JGalt]

Your way is the hard way. It involves taking huge amounts of money out of your pocket.

That's already being done thanks.

It's been done in Germany. That's why they can't afford to heat their homes.

Love to see your data. Are they starting a war with Venezuela over oil reserves too?

98% of the oil Germany uses is imported, with Russia being the primary source. We are now a net exporter of oil, so our beef with Venezuela has nothing to do with our need for oil. What it does have to do with is Russia's and China's trying to establish a foothold in Venezuela.

I would think that someone like yourself who sincerely believes Russia changed the results of an American election, would have a problem with that. Or don't you?

It's been done in Germany. That's why they can't afford to heat their homes.

Love to see your data. Are they starting a war with Venezuela over oil reserves too?

98% of the oil Germany uses is imported, with Russia being the primary source. We are now a net exporter of oil, so our beef with Venezuela has nothing to do with our need for oil. What it does have to do with is Russia's and China's trying to establish a foothold in Venezuela.

I would think that someone like yourself who sincerely believes Russia changed the results of an American election, would have a problem with that. Or don't you?

John Bolton said so on TV pard, just came right out and said it, catch up.

No, you catch up. What he said was the administration had the goal of putting U.S. companies in charge of Venezuela's oil production. Evidently you'd rather have Russian or Chinese companies in charge of them though, am I right?

I'm sorry, are you making MY point?

And? Monroe Doctrine, bitch. We have every right to keep an eye on what happening in our latitude, it's our "manifest destiny". And anyone trying to horn in on our action is going to get a good ass-kicking, be they Russians or Chinese.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I couldn't imagine being dumb enough to not realize that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

Actually modeling of the warming has been quite predictive.

You however, seem to be missing that.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

 

[dudmuck]

I couldn't imagine being dumb enough to not realize that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

yea, howbout opening that bible!

 

[OnePercenter]

It's -17 here in Milwaukee where I live. It was -22 last night about 1:00 AM when I checked. We also have about 18 inches of snow on the ground. Watch the AGW cult claim this is proof of global warming:

Pembina ND (on the Canadian border) -25 air temp/-25 wind chill

Minneapolis MN -18 air temp/-38 wind chill

Sioux Falls SD -12 air temp/-27 wind chill

Mason City IA -19 air temp/-44 wind chill

Solon Springs WI (northwest WI) -17 air temp/-32 wind chill​

Right now it's a chilly (above normal) 67° in Vegas. I LOVE global warming!

Since you're Canadian and claim you live in Milwaukee, are you here legally?

Northern aliens: Around 100,000 Canadians live under the radar in U.S. as illegal immigrants

 

[Timmy]

Hold on. You take examples of extreme weather as proof there’s NO climate change !?

You realize that makes no sense .

 

[OnePercenter]

Hold on. You take examples of extreme weather as proof there’s NO climate change !?

You realize that makes no sense .

They're parroting tRumps toilet tweet.

 

[Oddball]

I couldn't imagine being dumb enough to not realize that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

yea, howbout opening that bible!

 

[Oddball]

I couldn't imagine being dumb enough to not realize that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

Actually modeling of the warming has been quite predictive.

You however, seem to be missing that.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

 

[boedicca]

Lolberals conflate weather with climate every time a hurricane makes landfall....Sauce for the goose, Scooter.

I remember when this whole con game first started. Every time we had a heat wave it was proof of global warming. then we had a series of horrendous winters where it snowed in places like the Sahara desert, and they changed the name to climate change.

My cousins in ND are living with MINUS 60+ windchill. Needless to say, they "have no truck " with Global Warming.

See post 31.

Also this:

The time sequence ends 3 years ago. And see post #66 for some PERSPECTIVE.

So on the one hand you pretend the climate is not getting warmer, and then in the same breath claim getting warmer is normal.

Positively schizophrenic!

By the way, your graphic in post 66 actually makes the case for AGW, dipshit.

The data you are presenting is highly suspect based on the well publicized data grooming and manipulation by those with AGW agendas.

And post #66 does not make the case for AGW, you silly kniggit. It makes the case for Solar Activity and Volcanoes being the main variables that affect our climate. Try learning to read.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I couldn't imagine being dumb enough to not realize that weather and climate aren't the same thing.

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

Actually modeling of the warming has been quite predictive.

You however, seem to be missing that.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The AGW cult is in such a tizzie. When you live by hysteria, you die by hysteria.

That's all you have, retard?

"Science schmience, bah!"

It's -17 here in Milwaukee where I live. It was -22 last night about 1:00 AM when I checked. We also have about 18 inches of snow on the ground.

Pembina ND (on the Canadian border) -25 air temp/-25 wind chill

Minneapolis MN -18 air temp/-38 wind chill

Sioux Falls SD -12 air temp/-27 wind chill

Mason City IA -19 air temp/-44 wind chill

Solon Springs WI (northwest WI) -17 air temp/-32 wind chill

This is the equivalent of saying "I still have checks, how can i be out of money in the bank"

 

[Oddball]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's 67 here in Vegas right now.

 

[JGalt]

I can't imagine still being so dumb to buy into the anthropogenic climate googly-moogly, when none of their models have ever been predictive.

Actually modeling of the warming has been quite predictive.

You however, seem to be missing that.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually modeling of the warming has been quite predictive.

You however, seem to be missing that.

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

You can hope in one hand and shit in the other, which one fills up first?

Fact is that the warmers have completely abandoned science, reason, and even good sense, in favor of scare tactics and defaming of all who question their alarmist dogma....And don't give me any of that "peer review" and/or "consensus" shit...That's not science either.

you would not know science if it was biting you on your ass.

How many sexes are there?

 

[bripat9643]

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Big fat lie. The evidence does not support the AGW con.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

The whole quote...since you are too dishonest to post it all..


On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Yeah, and?....It still reads the same.

Of course it does to you, you have the open mind of a steel bear trap...

Those with minds as open as yours is, will believe anything anyone wants to stuff in there.. I guess the old saying is true:

"When you don't have anything to believe in, you'll believe anything..."

I go where the evidence leads, I do not discount things because my party masters told me or because the savior in the White House said so.

Climate Models are NOT evidence...………...