Someone please explain the "science" behind blaming every hurricane, tornado and forest fire on...



I did find an anti-CO2 experiment going on by Bill Gates and three oil cos. CO2 help plants thrive and in turn they help us thrive. This could be win-win as it reduces air pollution.
 
There is no observable data that proves the small amount of global warming attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuel thus far has altered any weather patterns.
That's a shameless lie. In fact, you just made it up on the spot.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/06/extreme-weather-Appendix-A2.pdf

I didn't say it hasn't shown up by exacerbating extreme events like your link shows. It is showing up in other ways to like the melting of the Glaciers and the Ice caps. It hasn't reached the point of altering weather patterns yet. I'm not saying it wont either.
 


I did find an anti-CO2 experiment going on by Bill Gates and three oil cos. CO2 help plants thrive and in turn they help us thrive. This could be win-win as it reduces air pollution.

CO2 isn’t air pollution. It’s a vital component of the carbon life cycle that all life depends upon.
 
The NY hurricane in 1938 was so severe it killed hundreds and turned Montauk into an island cut off from the rest of Long Island.

If AGW was "real" shouldn't we have had worse over the subsequent 80 years?

Hmmm?
What about EVERY tornado and forest fire?

Forest fires? Really? Can you explain how CO2 sparks forest fires? Was Smokey the Bear wrong?
I'm asking about the OP's claim that someone is blaming EVERY hurricane, tornado, and forest fire on global warming. Still haven't had anyone give evidence of anyone doing that. Could the OP just be another lying CRC?
 


I did find an anti-CO2 experiment going on by Bill Gates and three oil cos. CO2 help plants thrive and in turn they help us thrive. This could be win-win as it reduces air pollution.

CO2 isn’t air pollution. It’s a vital component of the carbon life cycle that all life depends upon.


Who ever said CO2 was considered air pollution?
 


I did find an anti-CO2 experiment going on by Bill Gates and three oil cos. CO2 help plants thrive and in turn they help us thrive. This could be win-win as it reduces air pollution.

CO2 isn’t air pollution. It’s a vital component of the carbon life cycle that all life depends upon.


Who ever said CO2 was considered air pollution?

You mean besides the EPA?

JB just implied it.
 
There is no observable data that proves the small amount of global warming attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuel thus far has altered any weather patterns.
That's a shameless lie. In fact, you just made it up on the spot.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/06/extreme-weather-Appendix-A2.pdf

I didn't say it hasn't shown up by exacerbating extreme events like your link shows. It is showing up in other ways to like the melting of the Glaciers and the Ice caps. It hasn't reached the point of altering weather patterns yet. I'm not saying it wont either.
We are in an interglacial cycle. Have been for the past 20,000 plus years or so.

Our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles.
 
There is no observable data that proves the small amount of global warming attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuel thus far has altered any weather patterns.
That's a shameless lie. In fact, you just made it up on the spot.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/06/extreme-weather-Appendix-A2.pdf

You can't really trust anything put out by the MacArthur Foundation, that includes everything you see on PBS and hear on NPR.

It is propaganda down to the bone, with one goal, world government.
 
You can't really trust anything put out by the MacArthur Foundation, that includes everything you see on PBS and hear on NPR.
No,YOU can't, because you are inventing reasons to stay ignorant. Because, if you learn anything, you will learn you are wrong. Can't have that.
 
He was referring to New York not having those things....not that they didn't exist. I actually read your link..............did you?
List of New York hurricanes - Wikipedia

Meteorologists fact-check Cuomo's claim New York 'didn't have hurricanes' before climate change
Governor's comment come in response to Halloween storm in upstate New York
Meteorologists fact-check Cuomo’s claim New York ‘didn’t have hurricanes’ before climate change

 
You can't really trust anything put out by the MacArthur Foundation, that includes everything you see on PBS and hear on NPR.
No,YOU can't, because you are inventing reasons to stay ignorant. Because, if you learn anything, you will learn you are wrong. Can't have that.
Most people’s problem is believing they can’t be wrong. It’s not that they are so invested in what they believe as it is that they are invested in themselves.

So despite what you may believe about me, I do listen to all sides because I am constantly challenging my beliefs to strengthen my understanding of truth.
 
"I told people to ignore my Boss because he was going to get impeached, so he fired me..."

Derr derr derr derr.

You Never Trumpers are an endless series of stupid

Did Mueller talk to her?? Can he add her to the Mueller Report?

Fucking idiots
 
You can't really trust anything put out by the MacArthur Foundation, that includes everything you see on PBS and hear on NPR.
No,YOU can't, because you are inventing reasons to stay ignorant. Because, if you learn anything, you will learn you are wrong. Can't have that.

You should do your research, not the shit shoved right in front of your nose by the elites that own everything.

 
You should do your researc
Like, climate scientists do?

What a revolutionary idea!

:rolleyes:
But they don’t. They don’t start their explanation with past and present climate changes and go from there.

They don’t address why we transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world. They don’t discuss the trend of a cooling planet which led to bipolar glaciation and a series of glacial and interglacial cycles.

They don’t explain that the same conditions which led to the glacial cycles are still present today.

They don’t explain what this planet would look like at 250 ppm.

Those are the starting points for any climate discussion. Without that foundation you can’t possibly make sense of their models.

They only have one valid model and that’s 1B. And even that is heavy on unnecessary feedbacks.

But I am guessing you believe the scenario that has atmospheric CO2 at 900 ppm and sea level rise at 1m by the year 2100 which is a ridiculously unrealistic model which bears no semblance to the well established trends since the end of the last ice age.
 
But they don’t. They don’t start their explanation with past and present climate changes and go from there.
They, of course, do, and this is a shameless, moronic lie. You are embarrassing yourself, and, if I wanted the idiotic opinion of an uneducated slob on complicated scientific matters, i would ask my dog.
 
But they don’t. They don’t start their explanation with past and present climate changes and go from there.
They, of course, do, and this is a shameless, moronic lie. You are embarrassing yourself, and, if I wanted the idiotic opinion of an uneducated slob on complicated scientific matters, i would ask my dog.
Can you show me where they have done this?
 
Can you show me where they have done this?
Yep!

But, as always, I don't do exercises for dishonest hacks. If you were honestly interested, you would already have looked it up. But you aren't, and you haven't and won't. No, I don't give a shit if you take my word for it or not. No, I will not indulge your nauseating little fetish for distracting from the topic and yet saying absolutely nothing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top