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

[ding]

Climate includes the frequency and intensity of storms that regions experience over time. As such they can be expected to change with changes in the climate.

No. That’s horseshit.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. That’s horseshit.

No, that's climate. Climate includes frequency and intensity of storms.

That's honestly the least controversial thing I've said on this entire forum.

 

[ding]

No, that's climate. Climate includes frequency and intensity of storms.

That's honestly the least controversial thing I've said on this entire forum.

No. That’s horseshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Links please....nobody cares about conjecture.

Meanwhile, I can provide VOLUMES of evidence that nobody is caring...and here's a great place to start. This thread ePiC....a billion views and thousands of posts...hundreds and hundreds of links btw. Oh did I mention...the thread started 9 years ago and has been on TOP of page 1 every day.


More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!


But I digress.... links please...
....or your responses are....



View attachment 640446

Another stupid thread by and for the denier fools.

Where is the hard evidence people care about cancer? I demand to see it. Else who cares about cancer?

Enjoy, dummies.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. That’s horseshit.

Show me my error. (You can't, but it would be fun if you tried.)

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate includes the frequency and intensity of storms that regions experience over time. As such they can be expected to change with changes in the climate.

That's a myth...debunked many years ago.

 

[skookerasbil]

Another stupid thread by and for the denier fools.

Where is the hard evidence people care about cancer? I demand to see it. Else who cares about cancer?

Enjoy, dummies.

But the dummies are winning....d0y.

For progressives, symbolism, emotions and words are winning....ghey. Lol...they don't even understand the meaning of "hard evidence". But skeptics do!!

25 years of climate alarmism...zero winning. And what has changed in the real world as a result of the "science"? For Christsakes, even the slogans haven't changed.

Renewable energy is still at laughably low levels...which means....nobody is caring. Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested.

No hard evidence...still

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That's a myth...debunked many years ago.

So you are telling me that the climate does NOT include how often certain types of storms occur?

Do you have ANYTHING to support your claim?

 

[ding]

Show me my error. (You can't, but it would be fun if you tried.)

You want me to prove a negative? There’s no science here. Just a plea to emotion. It’s the stupidest argument ever.

 

[ding]

So you are telling me that the climate does NOT include how often certain types of storms occur?

Do you have ANYTHING to support your claim?

Yes. That is what I am telling you. It’s weather. Climate change is when the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Yes. That is what I am telling you. It’s weather.

No, weather would be the storm itself. CLIMATE would be the overall general FREQUENCY of storms.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You want me to prove a negative?

Showing someone their error is NOT PROVING A NEGATIVE.

You said I was incorrect in saying that frequency of weather patterns in an area is part of climate. If you are unable to support your claim that the frequency of weather patterns is not part of climate then perhaps you can tell the class what climate entails and explain how frequency of weather patterns is not integral in climate.

 

[ding]

No, weather would be the storm itself. CLIMATE would be the overall general FREQUENCY of storms.

That just shows how desperate you fools are.

 

[ding]

Showing someone their error is NOT PROVING A NEGATIVE.

You said I was incorrect in saying that frequency of weather patterns in an area is part of climate. If you are unable to support your claim that the frequency of weather patterns is not part of climate then perhaps you can tell the class what climate entails and explain how frequency of weather patterns is not integral in climate.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So tell me what "climate" is.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That just shows how desperate you fools are.

Why do you troll? Just curious. I've provided you with a point that all you ever do is screech "That ain't right!" as if you are the lord god almighty or something.

Just define climate and we can both figure out if you are right or I am right.

Right now the claim is: Frequency of weather patterns is part of 'climate'.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That just shows how desperate you fools are.

Here's what NASA says about climate:

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the 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.

 

[ding]

So tell me what "climate" is.

Earth’s climate is an icehouse climate characterized by high latitudinal thermal gradients and bipolar glaciation. Within this climate weather phenomenon exist. The exact same weather phenomenon existed when the earth’s climate was a greenhouse climate.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Earth’s climate is an icehouse climate characterized by high latitudinal thermal gradients and bipolar glaciation. Within this climate weather phenomenon exist. The exact same weather phenomenon existed when the earth’s climate was a greenhouse climate.

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).

 

[ding]

Why do you troll? Just curious. I've provided you with a point that all you ever do is screech "That ain't right!" as if you are the lord god almighty or something.

Just define climate and we can both figure out if you are right or I am right.

Right now the claim is: Frequency of weather patterns is part of 'climate'.

No. It’s not. It’s a scare tactic by fools who think natural warming is bad in the middle of an ice age.