This is why there’s been so much extreme rainfall and flooding in the U.S.

[Papageorgio]

Anti-learning ... must be a Democrat ... at least Republicans have the excuse they can't learn ...

Neither is capable of thinking or learning, it is all dictated by their party leaders.

 

[BULLDOG]

The fact that you can’t state your credentials as I have stated mine tells me you are ashamed of your credentials.

Sure, I stated my credentials . I said I am Batman. That's just a convincing a your stated credentials.

 

[BULLDOG]

Arrogance has nothing to do with it. This is about your blind acceptance of something you have made no effort to understand.

The weird thing is that you think everyone should blindly accept it.

You can accept what you wish. I happen to have the majority of the world's scientists agreeing it me. How many for you?

 

[Papageorgio]

Sure, I stated my credentials . I said I am Batman. That's just a convincing a your stated credentials.

Credentials don’t matter on a board, he’ll, 95% of the posters here claim to be 1%ers, they all have great bodies and are pure of heart. Several claim to be in financial industry and one guy gets his predictions and forecasts wrong every time but according to him, he and his customers make bank off of him.

Truth is an illusion here.

 

[The Duke]

They've been using weather machines a little north of here is what's up.
We got like 11 inches in under an hour and a half the other day.
Right after the weather machines thing.
I can't say that is totally abnormal, because this is Florida in summertime.
However, seems suspect to me.

 

[BULLDOG]

You bought into the nonsense. There are not even close to that number you claim to follow.

Not sure what you mean by follow. If that means I trust their professional judgement over nutbags on the internet, then sure I follow them.

 

[Robert W]

Credentials don’t matter on a board, he’ll, 95% of the posters here claim to be 1%ers, they all have great bodies and are pure of heart. Several claim to be in financial industry and one guy gets his predictions and forecasts wrong every time but according to him, he and his customers make bank off of him.

Truth is an illusion here.

You ran yourself down.

 

[Papageorgio]

You ran yourself down.

That’s the truth, no one can be taken at face value here, you believe otherwise?

 

[Robert W]

Not sure what you mean by follow. If that means I trust their professional judgement over nutbags on the internet, then sure I follow them.

Editor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.”

Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

 

[Robert W]

That’s the truth, no one can be taken at face value here, you believe otherwise?

Why run yourself down?

 

[Sunsettommy]

That’s the truth, no one can be taken at face value here, you believe otherwise?

This where learning a subject is essential or you stagnate as many warmest/alarmists have shown who often doesn't even know what the AGW conjecture is about.

This is also where you ignore the persons background and stick with what they say about the topic, that is all you can do here but some here keeps running on education and source fallacies when they should be responding to what is being stated about the topic which is about extreme rainfall and flooding to which I have several times addressed showing the OP is making a misleading claim and ignoring the long term trends of which I posted from official sources that gets ignored because of people like Bulldog who run off fallacies instead which is why she remains ignorant of the topic.

 

[ding]

No idea which. You'll have to ask them why they disagree. They disagree. That's enough.

You don’t even know what I am talking about. Do you?

 

[ding]

Sure, I stated my credentials . I said I am Batman. That's just a convincing a your stated credentials.

Thanks for proving my point that you have no credentials you are proud enough of to share.

 

[ding]

You can accept what you wish. I happen to have the majority of the world's scientists agreeing it me. How many for you?

More than you think. Science isn’t a popularity contest and it’s never settled.

You know nothing about any of this.

 

[The Duke]

Editor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.”

Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

You should go slug it out with Crick and abu afak.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don’t even know what I am talking about. Do you?

I see no need for me to know all the details. As I said I have no training in the field, and I'm not about to embark on a new career at this point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks for proving my point that you have no credentials you are proud enough of to share.

Sure I do. You stated your credentials, and I stated mine. Show me documentation of yours and I'll show you mine.

 

[ding]

I see no need for me to know all the details. As I said I have no training in the field, and I'm not about to embark on a new career at this point.

Not if you are going to blindly follow it.

 

[ding]

Sure I do. You stated your credentials, and I stated mine. Show me documentation of yours and I'll show you mine.

No you didn’t. Apparently you are ashamed of what you did for a living. As long as it was honest work there’s no shame.

 

[BULLDOG]

More than you think. Science isn’t a popularity contest and it’s never settled.

You know nothing about any of this.

I agree with both of those remark. Consensus is a formidable challenge to beat though.