Where is there any hard evidence people care about global warming?

You are not defining climate. Define climate. Don't give examples. Define it.

(YOu clearly don't have a clue what this topic is about).
I couldn’t have defined it more clearly.

Climate is defined by latitudinal thermal gradients.

I just gave you two different examples of climate; icehouse and greenhouse.
 
Here's what NASA says about climate:


(SOURCE)

I've highlighted the important bit in red.

Averages of various weather patterns. That would, of course, include the average frequency of said weather patterns (since averages of storm occurrence would be a long-term time-based measure). As such it is, by definition, that storm frequency would be part of climate.
Earth’s climate is that of an icehouse and is characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients.

Climate is not defined by weather patterns. The exact same weather patterns exist in icehouse and greenhouse climates.
 
Earth’s climate is that of an icehouse and is characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients.

Climate is not defined by weather patterns. The exact same weather patterns exist in icehouse and greenhouse climates.

Define Climate.
 
Define Climate.
I already did. Latitudinal thermal gradients.

Earth’s climate is that of an icehouse and is characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients.

Climate is not defined by weather events. The exact same weather events exist in icehouse and greenhouse climates.
 
Here's what NASA says about climate:


(SOURCE)

I've highlighted the important bit in red.

Averages of various weather patterns. That would, of course, include the average frequency of said weather patterns (since averages of storm occurrence would be a long-term time-based measure). As such it is, by definition, that storm frequency would be part of climate.

But you're not getting it s0n. NASA saying it doesn't mean dick if it doesn't transcend to anywhere. It's another banner for the AGW contingent to hang....but has impacted nothing in the real world except for upping internet community message board banter. :cul2: :cul2:

It's akin to the internet tough guy smashing his keyboard with physical threats. Nobody cares.

Talk to me when NASA shit impacts energy policy:bye1: For 25 years, the "97% of climate scientists"....narrative has been completely ignored by the energy policy-makers....yuk...yuk...

STILL no hard evidence anybody caring about climate change....slogans are ghey:fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:
 
But you're not getting it s0n. NASA saying it doesn't mean dick if it doesn't transcend to anywhere. It's another banner for the AGW contingent to hang....but has impacted nothing in the real world except for upping internet community message board banter. :cul2: :cul2:

It's akin to the internet tough guy smashing his keyboard with physical threats. Nobody cares.

Talk to me when NASA shit impacts energy policy:bye1: For 25 years, the "97% of climate scientists"....narrative has been completely ignored by the energy policy-makers....yuk...yuk...

STILL no hard evidence anybody caring about climate change....slogans are ghey:fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:

Then YOU define climate with your source. I'll wait.
 
Then YOU define climate with your source. I'll wait.
Latitudinal thermal gradients.

Earth’s present climate is that of bipolar glaciation with high latitudinal thermal gradients.

It’s geologically rare. It’s never been observed before in the geologic record.

The same conditions which led to the earth’s transition to an icehouse climate still exist today.
 
The earth literally transitioned from a greenhouse climate to an icehouse climate ~3 million years ago.

You honestly don't know what you are talking about. Yes there's latitudinal differentiation or whatever you blathered there. But there's actually technical definitions for climate.

Your claims of any scientific background are getting funnier and funnier with every passing time you can't muster a definition of ANYTHING you talk about.

What a waste.
 
Then YOU define climate with your source. I'll wait.

Lol...the whole point, stupid, is that nobody cares how it's defined. By any of the climate change industry btw....it's been out there for 25 years. Nobody is impressed....most notably, the energy policy-makers. Which makes it nothing more than a hobby...idle banter....slogans....community message board debate.

But in the real world, about as impactful as group navel gazing. :coffee:

People being "concerned" about the "science" doesn't mean dick. Drrrrrr

Climate science is a hobby.

Fossil fuels DOMINATE the energy landscape and will long after every mofu in this forum is in their box. :cul2: :cul2::cul2:





Gay-Meme-lede.jpg
 
Then YOU define climate with your source. I'll wait.

Lol...the whole point, stupid, is that nobody cares how it's defined. By any of the climate change industry btw....it's been out there for 25 years. Nobody is impressed....most notably, the energy policy-makers. Which makes it nothing more than a hobby...idle banter....slogans....community message board debate.

But in the real world, about as impactful as group navel gazing. :coffee:

People being "concerned" about the "science" doesn't mean dick. Drrrrrr

Climate science is a hobby.





gay-meme-lede-jpg.642627
 
You honestly don't know what you are talking about. Yes there's latitudinal differentiation or whatever you blathered there. But there's actually technical definitions for climate.

Your claims of any scientific background are getting funnier and funnier with every passing time you can't muster a definition of ANYTHING you talk about.

What a waste.
Latitudinal thermal gradient is the technical distinction for climate, dummy.
 
The same conditions which drove the earth’s transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today.

And it wasn’t atmospheric CO2.
 
Global warming, White supremacy, racism and an extreme reaction to a leaked Supreme Court decision are all examples of unhinged, incoherent liberalism. It's their substitute for not having any solutions for our problems.
 

Forum List

Back
Top