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

[HikerGuy83]

No, the community isn't silent they have been rebutted.

Purge garbage.

and they aren't able to demonstrate a predictive success,

That pretty much describes the entire gaggle of alarmists.

The scientific community doesn't fear an open discussion, they just don't accept any hypothesis as a theory unless it's actually you know.... scientifically tested.

You can't even get agreement on the quality of data being utilized. And yes, it does fear an open discussion. It is well known that the community turns on anyone who strays from the narrative.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yep. I knew you were about due to bring up your conspiracy theory.

Do you still drive a car?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yep. I knew you were about due to bring up your conspiracy theory.

No theory. We are seeing it play out in Tempe, AZ. I know...where ?

Just like all the civil engineering companies that join their voice in support of any candidate who will "fix the roads", climate money sits in the wings waiting with the "solutions" to the "problems" they help foment.

As I said, I am neutral when it comes to man-made climate change. But when I see the hero looking to create a villan, I know something is up.

Do you still drive a car or fly in airplanes?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I didn't leave it out. I just refused to accept your attempt to rephrase my claim which was that the economic cost of natural disasters is increasing. If you want to express, it in terms of percentage of GDP because that is better for your narrative you can do so. But not as a response to my claim that the costs are going up. Because that wasn't what my graph expressed. That's simply using a red herring.

As for me being a fool. I'm not the one posting graphs that confirms the other person's point. Nor do I need to shift the narrative.

You are in complete denial as you are going to LIE to yourself and ignore this part YOU never brought up with is why YOUR narrative was false and dishonest from the start, the below is from the Economist Dr. Pielke paper:

In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator.

You have been exposed, give it up your nonsense isn't going to work here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you still drive a car?

Not sure what that might have to do with anything, but yes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Michael Mann is an idiot.

And he owes $1 million in legal fees to the guys he sued.

Brilliant!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't? Let's do the math since you seem unable.

1990– GDP: $6 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.22 % of GDP → 0.0022 × $6 000 billion = $13.2 billion

2016– GDP: $18.8 trillion– Disaster spending: 0.18 % of GDP → 0.0018 × $18 800 billion = $33.84 billion

Increase from 1990 to 2016– $33.84 B − $13.2 B = $20.64 billion

So even though the share of GDP dipped from 0.22 % to 0.18 %, absolute disaster outlays rose by about $20.6 billion.

So, I guess thank you for proving my point is in order.

If I triple my income and the guy who mows my lawn doubles his prices,
I can still afford to pay him, right?

 

[ding]

The problem they have in this hypothesis is that they go against a basic scientific principle that you test your hypothesis and try to falsify it. If they would have they wouldn't be able to disregard laboratory spectroscopy and line-by-line radiative-transfer models showing how CO₂ and other greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

I don’t believe anyone who understands this is arguing against that. The argument is against the ridiculous amount of feedback and the assumption they make that all warming is due to CO2.

 

[ding]

In short, they are simply being bad scientists coming up with a wild hypothesis going completely against the current consensus.

You mean like when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the oceans and the atmosphere warm?

 

[ding]

Not sure what that might have to do with anything, but yes

It has to do with walking the talk. It’s not what you say that shows what you believe, it’s what you do that shows what you believe.

 

[BULLDOG]

It has to do with walking the talk. It’s not what you say that shows what you believe, it’s what you do that shows what you believe.

That's just goofy. I don't know anybody opposed to transportation. There is no need for them to have to produce more pollutants than necessary. Driving a car is a necessity, especially when there is no public transportation available. Is someone forcing you to post so much dumb stuff.

 

[ding]

That's just goofy. Driving a car is a necessity, especially when there is no public transportation available. Is someone forcing you to post so much dumb stuff.

It’s not goofy at all. What is goofy is you thinking you are better than others while having the same carbon footprint of the average American.

 

[San Souci]

And sure enough, dammit, the CLIMATE IS CHANGING!

Just like it has been for millions of years.

Al Gore said - based on what he was told by climate scientists - that the Arctic would be completely ice-free by 2016. Last I checked, there was a huge amount of layered ice in the arctic regions.

What happened? Will it all melt in August?

The Sky will fall before the Climate changes

 

[BULLDOG]

It’s not goofy at all. What is goofy is you thinking you are better than others while having the same carbon footprint of the average American.

I never really thought of it in that way. I suppose supporting development of ways to reduce the carbon footprint for everyone does make me better than those who don't care, doesn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never really thought of it in that way. I suppose supporting development of ways to reduce the carbon footprint for everyone does make me better than those who don't care, doesn't it?

How many more nuclear reactors do you think we should build?

 

[BULLDOG]

How many more nuclear reactors do you think we should build?

No idea. Waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of years is a concern.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No idea. Waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of years is a concern.

More of a concern than CO2 that will end us much sooner?

 

[ding]

I never really thought of it in that way. I suppose supporting development of ways to reduce the carbon footprint for everyone does make me better than those who don't care, doesn't it?

No. Just a hypocrite.

 

[BULLDOG]

More of a concern than CO2 that will end us much sooner?

There are a wide range of concerns to be considered at the same time. You didn't already know that?

 

[BULLDOG]

No. Just a hypocrite.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Some like minded cult members might even agree with you.