Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

    5,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by Infidel Dog

  1. Near as I can figure this below is what they're doing this over: See that little pin on his lapel? According to their corporate, state and other Prog media it has a little Q in the blue part. They don't seem to have a clear shot of the Q in a trump pic that hasn't been photoshopped but we're told we must believe them that it's there. I actually am prone to believe them this time because what happened was Trump wore it at one Ohio rally. Almost like he was baiting them because he wanted to watch their heads explode. And they did. OMG did they explode. I bet the first 5 pages, at least, at google are screaming outrage.
  2. You mean like this one: JK Rowling is cancelled again: Performing arts school drops Harry Potter author's name from house over her views on transgender rights At least in Texas the children they're protecting from the agenda of no guns, no baby murder backed up with foul language were just little children. But yeah...the school council maybe got a little over-twitchy here if it's a free speech issue. The gun-hating, baby killing author claimed she just wanted to talk to kids about hats. She didn't want to bring in a Tranny with a strap-on or anything. (At least not this time.) Oh well, that's what happens in Texas when you're a writer who wants to build yourself a hardcore Prog-comm rep. Maybe it shouldn't.
  3. My God but you're thick, man. Do you not understand that you can have a climate trend within climate but weather is just weather. It's not considered climate. Embedded within but no indication of long term climate effect until it becomes at least a 30 year trend. Seriously, is this the first time you ever heard about the distinction between weather and climate? If so I can only see two explanations. You really are that ignorant and determined to remain so or you're putting me on. Either way that's enough of you. This is my last response to you here on this. You have enough to figure it out.
  4. Before trends are considered climate they should have been evident for at least 30 years. That's a pretty well known parameter. Not sure why you're having a problem with it.
  5. Related maybe but not the same thing. Climate begins at a 30 year trend, technically. Weather can be something like a heat wave.
  6. Don't be a denier now. You get it. I know you do. When people say heat records in the summer show climate but a cold record in winter is weather that's blatant stupidity. I'm saying you're bright enough to get that. Why? Are you trying to prove me wrong?
  7. Yeah, and don't forget about all the other regulations and government controls that suggest they're necessary to thwart climate doom. They'll kill us before the climate does.
  8. It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to talk about the little ice age though. Following that is when it started to warm up again. Hey, have you seen this new viral video where this comedian is talking to the Oxford Union, trying to rationalize the issue for the woke?
  9. Sure, I'm familiar with all that. Richard Lindzen has a hypothesis that it's a negative feedback when you compute in cloud and sea surface temperature in his Iris hypothesis. But if you have any information showing something is happening currently that suggests something more than 1 degree per doubling show me. You'll need more than 1 degree of warming per carbon dioxide doubling to make a climate doom projection work. You could use IPCC projections but I would say OK now show me something real world and not a computer modelled projection. I don't know where you got this about the 4-6th century. Sounds interesting. Show me. The medieval warm period was around 900 to 1300 and it was period in which civilization advanced as happens in most warm periods
  10. Man can affect the weather. For example: the well documented urban heat island effect. He can't control it. Little bits maybe. He definitely can't control the climate. Trudeau and Singh can shake hands and agree to drive Canada back to the stone age they won't save a single muskox or bring the temperature down .0001 of a degree.
  11. What do you mean by a "physical model?" Do they predict the future? Computer models don't. You have faith in the coming climate apocalypse then. Good for you. If you have scientific method style science supporting it show me. Then I'll shake your hand (digitally) and congratulate you because I haven't seen it yet. But don't you dare try to show me something like the experiment that shows 1 degree per doubling of CO2. We're talking specifically about human caused climate armagedon. BTW there's no proof any of these what call anomalies (I assume you're talking about bad weather) are anything we haven't seen before.
  12. Why does he have a recent study like Dr. Spencer's you'd like to show me?
  13. Not sure what you mean by "serious people". I think I've been pretty clear about who was talking about in reference to them pushing summer heat records as climate but cold records in winter as just weather. I'm talking about people I talk to in forums like this one.
  14. OK. What about Doctor Roy Spencer then? The scientist that co-manages the satellite record at UAH. Is he a "reputable climatologist? Is he what you want to reference? If so check out this one: IPCC Climate Models Grossly Exaggerate 'Global Warming'
  15. I agree. It's nuts to think if it happens in summer it's climate but if it happens in winter it's just weather. So we finally agree then? That's nice. Oh, sorry I didn't click you're NOAA link. I've seen them before I know what they think. I know even they know a climate trend is generally believed to be at least 30 years not a few months of winter or summer. Check this forum in the section called Local (I think). There's a thread there about the fire in Lytton during a heat wave. The other guy I'm talking to there is certain that because Lytton broke its heat record that summer week that is proof of what he calls "climate change." He goes on and on about it. Are you starting to see what I mean yet?
  16. BTW, I don't deny climate changes. I deny there's any real scientific method support for the hypothesis a climate catastrophe is coming worse than anything we've seen before.
  17. I do understand it. You don't seem to understand I'm talking about a logical fallacy where people who talk like you want to tell us when it's a heat record in the summer it's climate. If it's a winter cold record it becomes just weather. What I don't understand is why you're having so much trouble with such a simple concept.
  18. The first time I saw that one it wasn't targeting Climate realists like myself. It was directed at leftists.
  19. Would you like to see that in action BCSapper? I can start reeling off cold weather events from this winter. How long do you think it will be before somebody starts Dorksplaining to me the difference between climate and weather?
  20. Oh, everybody is a scientist who believes Warmageddon is coming now are they? Because my point was a general maxim that people who push climate doom prefer to do it in the summer when the weather is hot. Too them Summer heat is Climate. Cold winters are just weather. That's what I actually said.
  21. The idea some exclusive club called "reputable climatologists" believe there is a hard science proof of a coming climate catastrophe caused by man's use of fossil fuels is the conspiracy thread. By the way, do you know how you become one of these "reputable climatologists?" You don't need real science. You just have to push the theory they now call "Climate Change" but is more "Climate apocalypse." So "reputable climatologists" believe the theory (actually it's more just a hypothesis) that Warmageddon is coming and you become a "reputable climatologist" by pushing the hypothesis. See how that works. But I see why you're tiring of the topic. That happens with the true believers every winter. In the winter cold records are just weather. In summer heat records are climate.
  22. OK again, I can immediately tell this post is going to be BS ridden so I'll just deal with the first point. The fact Clark was a Democrat casts shade on the idea MLK was coming round to that way of thinking. That was the point.
×
×
  • Create New...