Infidel Dog

I didn't invent the C in CAGW. It's commonly used by those willing to consider both sides of the argument. 

Without the prophecy of Catastrophe your faith has no argument. Nobody cares.

Why are you so afraid to admit Catastrophic human-caused global warming is what you're really talking about when you redefine the term "CLIMATE CHANGE?"

OK so a catastrophe of Anthropogenic warming is coming. You don't seem to know when and if you know what it will be you don't seem to want say. So an, unknown or unknowable Catastrophe of human-caused global warming is coming sometime but you don't know when. 

And to combat this unknown catastrophe that will arrive you don't know when you advise some sort of collective to act upon it but you don't know how they should go about it.

And anybody who doesn't see the wisdom in this is some sort of heretic.

What's the name of this new religion of yours, anyway?

So are you saying CAGW (the C stands for Catastrophic) or what you'd like to call "Climate Change" is a problem without a solution then?

Pardon me then. "Childishly" refusing to answer a simple question.

Most likely couldn't anyway.

Just as I thought.

Can't answer a simple question.

Yeah right...blah, blah, blah, baseless claims, misrepresentations, deflections and allegations.

Just tell me one thing then. Do you want to change the world or have others change it for you to halt this warming you either do or don't worry about? 

I'll settle for yes or no.

 

I think it's getting pretty obvious by now which one of us doesn't actually have a clue by which one of us is afraid to get into the meat and potatoes of the issue. That would be you - in case you haven't been paying attention.

You have some insinuations and allegations. I slap them down with facts. Which one of us is the obvious possessor of the "clue?" 

Buddy, I'm not "arguing against the 'we're all going to die' scenario. I'm mocking you for it. Let's get that straight. 

What makes you think I have no argument against the theory "climate change increases the likelihood of extreme weather events?"

It may. I don't think I've seen the catastrophe of what you're calling "climate change" yet. Show me what you're talking about. Don't get too excited and start running around Google all day chasing stories from The Guardian and Skeptical Science. I'm telling you right now they won't help you. The first question I'll be asking is has there ever been anything like them before. Spoiler: there has.

Climate is generally thought of as a thirty year trend. There can be changes. Those changes may very well contain forces that cause unusual weather events within them.

What we're talking about though is Anthropogenic Global Warming. They changed the name to "Climate Change" because the kind of warming they were predicting and the resultant disasters weren't happening. The theory is fuel emission Carbon Dioxide started becoming a problem towards the end of the 50s. Temperatures started rising in the 80s. There was a gigantic EL Nino event in 98 and climate warming jumped a step to form a high level that's remained more or less consistent ever since. A few tenths of degree jump here and there.

It's within that you'll be wanting to show your never before seen catastrophes. 

Good luck with that.

Two settings?

That's an interesting way to twist it.

I sometimes mock the silliness of how excited some of you get worrying about what is essentially nice weather. It's a fun mock, But it's the same one for both aspects. What scares you and why it shouldn't. 

But it's interesting what you choose to forget.

As I recall I also showed you a chart showing you how most heat records were recorded more towards the beginning of the last century. Before the days of Al and Greta. In fact the Canadian heat record you were pulling your hair out about set in Lytton during this summer's brief heat wave broke a record Lytton set itself in 1941. And that's interesting because at the beginning of the discussion you were so excited about the phenomenal, never before seen heat in Lytton. You seemed to believe only that could explain a city catching fire. Had to be the spooky, scary mystery that is climate change. The truth is it often gets hot and dry in Lytton. Anybody who's driven through the canyon in summer knows that.

(BTW ever heard of Mrs. O'Leary's cow in  Chicago?)

The brief heat wave that happened in BC weeks back was an expected thing. There was some sort of unusual phenomena moving inland. I forget the specifics but I remember them warning about it on the weather channel.

Unusual weather phenomena has happened on the West Coast. It's snowed in the summer in California. There was a Typhoon (a Pacific Ocean hurricane) in the 60s. Nothing like it has ever happened since. But if it ever does I'm sure you and your pals will be wanting to blame global warming. Except, apparently you guys want to call it "Climate Change" now.

Hey...come to think of it, wasn't it you who was going into little girly spasms because I noted the brief heat wave in Lytton wasn't climate? It was weather. And it wasn't any kind of portent of the coming climate doom some of you seem to be counting on.

And if my saying that pissed you off stick around I've got a better one for you. They still don't know the cause of that town fire. Ezra came up with an interesting possibility though. He noted that Lytton is in the center of those Catholic church arson fires that have been plaguing the BC Interior lately.

"it's no good arguing against Chicken Little hysteria if no-one is arguing for Chicken Little hysteria."

Lots are though. Fat Al, Greta, Bull Nye the fake science guy, Extinction Rebellion nuts, you if you're as angry at my opinion on the issue as you seem to be. Because all I too is argue against the climate hysterics. If you don't believe the world needs to be changed to accompany their hysteria you shouldn't have a problem with anything I say.

Oh and the Trump appointed judges never considered the evidence in a court setting where evidence was produced for consideration. They simply told you why they wouldn't consider it.

Gutless would be my best guess as to why.

We've yet to see a serious consideration of the evidence. Still waiting to see that. I'll tell you my conclusions then...if it ever really happens.

"Ah, okay then.  Your climate change answer is to argue that many of us are going to make it to next Wednesday, so it can't be happening"

No my argument against Chicken Little hysteria on the Anthropogenic Global Warming question is show me what you want to believe is your scientific evidence of an inevitable fossil fuel caused Climate Catastrophe that necessitates a mitigation approach over one of adaptation and I'll show you why you're wrong.

Well I've already answered the "Climate Change" question. Climate Changes but there's no scientific support for the Al n Greta, Chicken Little faux reasoning that necessitates a conclusion of climate catastrophe. Calling the one thing the other is a pretty big lie.

I've yet to see a venue where the evidence for outright election fraud has been considered by anything that isn't fox in the chicken house management. I hear there's an independent audit for Arizona coming out in the next 2 weeks and I hear the Pennsylvania legislature is trying to get one of their own.

Myself, I'm waiting to see on that. However the social media censorship, the corporate left media control the advantaging of the pandemic to slip in slippery legislation making election tampering possible, the sneaking in of Big Left money like Zuckerberg's to see the management of the voting process was left-friendly, the bald faced chicanery of what happened following the claimed closing of the polls until morning - that all happened and is available to any member of the public not taking orders from the corporate Borg mainframe not to notice.

"

bcsapper

So far all I'm seeing are a lot of unsupportable insinuations and allegations. The stock in trade of the Blue Anon leftist. 

 

You're starting too sound more and more desperate to convince the gullible you've got something like an actual point without actually producing one, BcS.

And again, Bubber you're talking about unsupported insinuations and challenged allegations from your Blue Anon source presented as fact.

The whole story is presented here even by the leftist source, Wikipedia under the subheading Paul Manafort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Deripaska#Paul_Manafort

"The only Big Lie that is recognised by the term is the one about election fraud."

Well that's a bit of lie itself, isn't it? I believe the term goes back to a National Socialist who accused Jews of the big lie for what he alleged was blame put on the wrong person for Germany's loss in WW I. 

Since that time it's been used uncountable times by immeasurable sources of who knows how many ideological backgrounds to accuse their oppositions of it.

Your idea it has now become one holy truth with one target is laughable.

As to your contention an end-times of fossil fuel causation is beyond a challenge, thanks for the yuks, Greta.

All I see there are a lot of insinuations and allegations with no actual real world support hoping to convince the easily convinced that something happened when it did not.

Gotta admit though, this Russiagate claptrap dies hard for those of the blue anon, faithful, desperate to believe.

That's it? That's your "Big Lie." Even if you're right I've heard bigger from your side a lot bigger - and more of them. What would they be? The Bigger Lies?

As to your other misused term, "Climate Change." Climate Changes. That doesn't mean there's a Warmageddon of fossil fuel causation coming. There is no scientific consensus saying there is. Insisting there is by twisting out a bogus misdefintion of the term "Climate Change" is a pretty big lie. 

I try not to let myself get diverted as a rule but this might be fun.

Anyway the silly deception of the OP has done the usual Bubber descent to the bottom of the cliff...

So go ahead all-knowing one who goes by the user name Boges tell me how challenging these flexibles terms of the faithful like "The Big Lie" and "Climate Change" is heresy requiring nonpersoning.