The extreme cold, the USA is experiencing, s a result of global warming

[Crick]

Here is one for you stupid Environmental Wackos. One again EVs prove to be shitty technology. LOL!

But you couldn't identify a single point in the last 50 years when the planet as a whole was getting colder. It's not getting colder now. Do you have any idea how stupid you look here?

 

[otto105]

The extreme cold, the USA is experiencing, is a result of global warming. The most uneducated among us feel it is proof there is no global warming. The cure for stupidity is to educate yourself.

Specifically, warming temperatures are disrupting the polar vortex and pushing cold air into non-traditional areas. While the polar vortex may be bringing extreme cold temperatures to one part of the world, the rest of the world is experiencing extremely hot weather.

This Is Why Global Warming Is Responsible For Freezing Temperatures Across The U.S.

Weather isn't climate. The President isn't a scientist. And physics is still real.

www.forbes.com

The idiots are pointing to weather just like Imoff's snowball in winter.

 

[Crick]

Elmo is one of the gullible sheep who cannot accept any evidence which might challenge their religious devotion to Gaia.

And what evidence would that be?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Such as?

Reduce energy used
regulate travel
use sustainable supplies
eliminate waste
conserve water

 

[ElmerMudd]

Elmo is one of the gullible sheep who cannot accept any evidence which might challenge their religious devotion to Gaia.

Back is wrong again.
You are the one who is listening to one off nut jobs on climate change. Back follows the 3%, I will go with the 97%.
I think you can find 3% of scientists who will back you up that the earth is flat and Santa Claus is real.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

climate.nasa.gov

 

[BackAgain]

And what evidence would that be?

Already discussed.

I expected more from you in the past.

Now you’re just scraping bottom to win the affection of dolts like Elmo Dud.

When you jerkoffs say “the paradoxical effect of AGW” to explain away climate matters that don’t fit within your theory and expectations and predictions, what you folks are really doing is quite clear:

You’re denying any possibility of falsifiability.

 

[ding]

Reduce energy used
regulate travel
use sustainable supplies
eliminate waste
conserve water

Won't change a thing. The planet has had over 30 glacial cycles over the past 3 million years. And for the 47 million years prior to that the planet cooled with significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than we have today. The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures because each pole is thermally isolated from warmer marine currents. With the north pole being uniquely configured for extensive continental glaciation because of the surrounding landmasses. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic (i.e. ocean circulation pattern) is what drives the climate of the northern hemisphere and it's the climate of the northern hemisphere which drives the climate of the planet.

 

[BackAgain]

Back is wrong again.
You are the one who is listening to one off nut jobs on climate change. Back follows the 3%, I will go with the 97%.
I think you can find 3% of scientists who will back you up that the earth is flat and Santa Claus is real.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

climate.nasa.gov

Zzz

You can “go with” whatever you wish. But you can’t claim to be relying on science in the process, Elmo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Back is wrong again.
You are the one who is listening to one off nut jobs on climate change. Back follows the 3%, I will go with the 97%.
I think you can find 3% of scientists who will back you up that the earth is flat and Santa Claus is real.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the

climate.nasa.gov

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Won't change a thing. The planet has had over 30 glacial cycles over the past 3 million years. And for the 47 million years prior to that the planet cooled with significantly higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than we have today. The planet is uniquely configured for colder temperatures because each pole is thermally isolated from warmer marine currents. With the north pole being uniquely configured for extensive continental glaciation because of the surrounding landmasses. Heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic (i.e. ocean circulation pattern) is what drives the climate of the northern hemisphere and it's the climate of the northern hemisphere which drives the climate of the planet.

People with much more knowledge, of geoscience, disagree with you.
You cherry pick the science you quote.
Either you buy the science that has been scrutinzed and met the stringent requirements of the scientific method or you don't.
You do not follow the scientific process in your own research. You cherry pick your science to back your narrative.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

And your doctorate of science is in what area?
Taking 6th grade science class does not make you a science expert.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your doctorate of science is in what area?
Taking 6th grade science class does not make you a science expert.

Remember the old days when you finally got invited to a scientist party?
You're standing in the corner, nursing your White Claw and a woman comes up to you and asks, "What do you do"? You mumble something about reconstructing paleo temperatures using ice cores and tree rings. She says "Really? What's that good for"? You mumble, well,
nothing, really, as she wanders off looking for a real scientist.

Now you show up to the party in a spiffy Tesla and stand at the bar drinking your single malt and a woman comes up to you and asks, "What do you do"? You proudly say "I'm saving the planet by reconstructing paleo temperatures using ice cores and tree rings. She says "Really? What's that good for"? You say, "It allows me to predict we're all going to die in 30 years unless I get another government grant so I can program a fake climate model and write an op-ed about ExxonMobil killing the planet"

See, it's a feel-good story.

Unless you need cheap, reliable power.

 

[ding]

People with much more knowledge, of geoscience, disagree with you.
You cherry pick the science you quote.
Either you buy the science that has been scrutinzed and met the stringent requirements of the scientific method or you don't.
You do not follow the scientific process in your own research. You cherry pick your science to back your narrative.

Really? What exactly was cherry picked. It's all public record data that has zero controversy around it. No one disputes the planet is an ice age that began 3 million years ago.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Remember the old days when you finally got invited to a scientist party?
You're standing in the corner, nursing your White Claw and a woman comes up to you and asks, "What do you do"? You mumble something about reconstructing paleo temperatures using ice cores and tree rings. She says "Really? What's that good for"? You mumble, well,
nothing, really, as she wanders off looking for a real scientist.

Now you show up to the party in a spiffy Tesla and stand at the bar drinking your single malt and a woman comes up to you and asks, "What do you do"? You proudly say "I'm saving the planet by reconstructing paleo temperatures using ice cores and tree rings. She says "Really? What's that good for"? You say, "It allows me to predict we're all going to die in 30 years unless I get another government grant so I can program a fake climate model and write an op-ed about ExxonMobil killing the planet"

See, it's a feel-good story.

Unless you need cheap, reliable power.

We can take care of our energy needs of today and work to have cleaner energy in the futuere,
Those that are too lazy to have to deal with a few inconviences, for future generations, make excuses why there is no need to.

Lazy, selfish, uneducated people.

 

[marvin martian]

We can take care of our energy needs of today and work to have cleaner energy in the futuere,
Those that are too lazy to have to deal with a few inconviences, for future generations, make excuses why there is no need to.

Lazy, selfish, uneducated people.

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

 

[martybegan]

We can take care of our energy needs of today and work to have cleaner energy in the futuere,
Those that are too lazy to have to deal with a few inconviences, for future generations, make excuses why there is no need to.

Lazy, selfish, uneducated people.

And those who want to condemn future generations to controlling oligarchs by giving up our freedoms and standards of living are gullible morons.

Like you.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Really? What exactly was cherry picked. It's all public record data that has zero controversy around it. No one disputes the planet is an ice age that began 3 million years ago.

View attachment 889133

View attachment 889134

View attachment 889135

No one was alive 3 million years ago. Science has provided us with the knowledge of what our climate has been through time.
Science, also, tells us that humans are affecting climate change. Science, also, provides the information on how to mitigate the human factor. Either you buy into the science or you don't. Don't cherry pick climate data, review all of the climate data that science provides.
Read your own data. Please explain the unusal increase in CO2.
To provide more relevant data, for today's climate, you need to get more granular in your analysis. A graph of millions and millions of years does not provide the information of predicting the next 100 and 200 years. We need to get through that before we start looking at millions of years in the future.

 

[marvin martian]

No one was alive 3 million years ago. Science has provided us with the knowledge of what our climate has been through time.
Science, also, tells us that humans are affecting climate change. Science, also, provides the information on how to mitigate the human factor. Either you buy into the science or you don't. Don't cherry pick climate data, review all of the climate data that science provides.
Read your own data. Please explain the unusal increase in CO2.
To provide more relevant data, for today's climate, you need to get more granular in your analysis. A graph of millions and millions of years do not provide the information of predicting the next 100 and 200 years. We need to get through that before we start looking at millions of years in the future.

View attachment 889315

View attachment 889316

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

 

[ElmerMudd]

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

On a macro level I support most initiatives to reduce CO2 emissions in the world.
On a personal level
Reduce energy used
regulate travel
use sustainable supplies
eliminate waste
conserve water

 

[martybegan]

No one was alive 3 million years ago. Science has provided us with the knowledge of what our climate has been through time.
Science, also, tells us that humans are affecting climate change. Science, also, provides the information on how to mitigate the human factor. Either you buy into the science or you don't. Don't cherry pick climate data, review all of the climate data that science provides.
Read your own data. Please explain the unusal increase in CO2.
To provide more relevant data, for today's climate, you need to get more granular in your analysis. A graph of millions and millions of years does not provide the information of predicting the next 100 and 200 years. We need to get through that before we start looking at millions of years in the future.

View attachment 889315

View attachment 889316

So the same thermometers measured all those values going back centuries?