Climate Change

[Deluge]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're welcome to use my "Playground is Closed" sign when you get tired of arguing with those clowns.

Wouldn't it be easier to run to your safety spaces and put us on ignore? 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Deluge

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Wouldn't it be easier to run to your safety spaces and put us on ignore? 

Strangely enough, in all the forums I've been on, and with all the clowns (and worse) I've encountered, it's never occurred to me to put anyone on ignore. 

It's far too much fun just to read all the deranged opinions, and then ignore at will.

[Deluge]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Strangely enough, in all the forums I've been on, and with all the clowns (and worse) I've encountered, it's never occurred to me to put anyone on ignore. 

It's far too much fun just to read all the deranged opinions, and then ignore at will.

Jumbled nonsense. 

The truth is you hate America and you'll say and do anything to destroy it and the arguments for it. 

Your problem is that people like me throw your bullshit back in your faces and that chaps your asses. lol

[Guest]

Just now, Deluge said:

Jumbled nonsense. 

The truth is you hate America and you'll say and do anything to destroy it and the arguments for it. 

Your problem is that people like me throw your bullshit back in your faces and that chaps your asses. lol

See how it works?

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

See how it works?

LOL. 

You pussies really should go back to your safety basements and self mandate.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Strangely enough, in all the forums I've been on, and with all the clowns (and worse) I've encountered, it's never occurred to me to put anyone on ignore. 

It's far too much fun just to read all the deranged opinions, and then ignore at will.

Honestly i don't know why everyone doesn't think this way.  There's a number of posters i just gloss over because i don't find them interesting or care about their opinion - i don't put them on ignore.  Once in a while even they might say something worth considering or the like.

"Ignore' seems kind of weak to me.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

LIES must be flagged as such.

They can post lies more quickly than you can flag them though.

I have been trying to lobby for an "isolate and fumigate" strategy

 

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They can post lies more quickly than you can flag them though.

I have been trying to lobby for an "isolate and fumigate" strategy

 

He has a simple solution to that. Like most of you on the left he just tags everything he doesn't like  as lies and doesn't worry about the truth. Much faster

[reason10]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

NOAA is the country's EXPERTS on climate, unlike you who KNOWS NOTHING about it and has NOTHING but ^your ignorant OPINIONS.

They are hardly experts. They get it wrong all the time. And this NOAA was appointed by Unelected Joe. It is not an independent agency.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

The NOAA is no more independent or unbiased or scientific than THE VIEW.

 

 

 

 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Jumbled nonsense. 

The truth is you hate America and you'll say and do anything to destroy it and the arguments for it. 

Your problem is that people like me throw your bullshit back in your faces and that chaps your asses. lol

Your problem is that you don't understand how ridiculous it is for you to PRETEND the OPINIONS you post here outweigh the world's foremost experts on climate.

You also don't understand that you're ONLY revealing YOUR BUFFOONERY.

But keep on digging. Posting Dunning Krueger OPINIONS is all you have. LMAO

 

[reason10]

Boys and girls, here are the facts:

1. Most of the Earth's surface is water. Only 29.2 percent of it is land. Humans take up HALF of that, which means around 14 percent of all the LAND in the world is wilderness.

2. Climate is defined as prevailing WEATHER conditions in a specific area over a period of time. (Alaska mostly cold for most of the year; Texas mostly hot) There is no such thing a GLOBAL climate. The earth is made up of areas with DIFFERENT climates.

3. The earth HAS warmed on cooled over its multi-million year history. There was an actual ICE AGE which (if you believe in Evolution) separated human existence from that of the dinosaurs. Human activity had nothing to do with those instances because there were NO humans on the earth, no SUVS, no coal mines, no Algore private jets spewing CO2)

4. Will the earth warm up in the future? Probably. The reason the earth does not resemble the surface of the MOON is our greenhouse gasses, which trap in the heat that makes human, mammalian etc life possible. 97 percent of ALL those greenhouse gasses is WATER. CO2 doesn't even make up a single percentage point of those gasses, and most CO2 released into the atmosphere is from nature. (Termites account for more CO2 in the atmosphere than all human activity combined.)

5. Will the climate change in the near future? Probably. Nobody who respects science and the facts will say otherwise. Can humans do anything about it? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Humans are less able to change local climates any more than an ant hill reroute traffic around the city of Houston, Texas. There is no such thing as a global climate, because climate is defined as prevailing weather conditions in specific areas.

6. Let's not forget that a lot of the land surface of the earth used to be under water. Florida used to be totally under water. Back then, there were no SUVs driving around in cities causing the poles to heat up and flood the planet. The most major changes in climate temperature and local climates occurred BEFORE humans got here.

[reason10]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your problem is that you don't understand how ridiculous it is for you to PRETEND the OPINIONS you post here outweigh the world's foremost experts on climate.

You also don't understand that you're ONLY revealing YOUR BUFFOONERY.

But keep on digging. Posting Dunning Krueger OPINIONS is all you have. LMAO

 

There is no such thing as a foremost expert on climate. The highest paid WEATHERMEN get it wrong all the time. Climate is defined as prevailing WEATHER conditions in a specific area. And because there are so many different specific climate zones, there is no such thing as a GLOBAL CLIMATE.

Humans cannot warm a small town in the winter. There is no way human activity ON BASICALLY 14 PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE can warm or cool an entire planet. And there is no way human activity ON BASICALLY 14 PERCENT OF THE EARTHS'S SURFACE  can bring ANY change to all the many diverse climate zones.

Those are facts, and FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GOOSE STEPPING OPINIONS.

[Deluge]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your problem is that you don't understand how ridiculous it is for you to PRETEND the OPINIONS you post here outweigh the world's foremost experts on climate.

You also don't understand that you're ONLY revealing YOUR BUFFOONERY.

But keep on digging. Posting Dunning Krueger OPINIONS is all you have. LMAO

 

I don't have any problems here. 

I either have facts, or I have opinions that beat the shit out of what you have. 

How was your Independence Day weekend? I had a great time! 

[robosmith]

14 minutes ago, reason10 said:

They are hardly experts. They get it wrong all the time. And this NOAA was appointed by Unelected Joe. It is not an independent agency.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

The NOAA is no more independent or unbiased or scientific than THE VIEW.

You're going to have to do better than an EDITRORIAL from IBD which admits they are AGENDA DRIVEN. ?

Quote

No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective

 

[reason10]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You're going to have to do better than an EDITRORIAL from IBD which admits they are AGENDA DRIVEN. ?

 

Investors Business Daily is a reliable source. NONE  of your bullshit goose stepping rags are reliable, but they are ALL agenda driven.

Find someone with an education to read that IBD article, simplify it and explain it to you, since it is way over your melon fcking head.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

There is no such thing as a foremost expert on climate. The highest paid WEATHERMEN get it wrong all the time. Climate is defined as prevailing WEATHER conditions in a specific area. And because there are so many different specific climate zones, there is no such thing as a GLOBAL CLIMATE.

Humans cannot warm a small town in the winter. There is no way human activity ON BASICALLY 14 PERCENT OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE can warm or cool an entire planet. And there is no way human activity ON BASICALLY 14 PERCENT OF THE EARTHS'S SURFACE  can bring ANY change to all the many diverse climate zones.

Those are facts, and FACTS DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GOOSE STEPPING OPINIONS.

YOUR OPINIONS are NOT "FACTS." Duh.

Weathermen are NOT experts ON CLIMATE.

But you're right about one thing here, there are MANY climates all over the world.

That's why gathering and analyzing all that data is so difficult.

2 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Investors Business Daily is a reliable source. NONE  of your bullshit goose stepping rags are reliable, but they are ALL agenda driven.

Find someone with an education to read that IBD article, simplify it and explain it to you, since it is way over your melon fcking head.

Your childish name calling makes you sound like (you believe) you're an expert. NOT.

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Weathermen are NOT experts ON CLIMATE.

Neither are you or any other whacked-out activist. 

The Earth does its thing with or without our help. 

How was your 4th? 

[Michael Hardner]

This is a silly discussion.  I have a short explanation of climate change in my sig.

[reason10]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

YOUR OPINIONS are NOT "FACTS." Duh.

Weathermen are NOT experts ON CLIMATE.

But you're right about one thing here, there are MANY climates all over the world.

That's why gathering and analyzing all that data is so difficult.

Your childish name calling makes you sound like (you believe) you're an expert. NOT.

The NOAA's OPINIONS ARE NOT FACT EITHER, SHIT FOR BRAINS. They are ALL based on politics, which is probably why they have been WRONG so many times.

Actually meteorologists who report the weather are the ONLY experts on CLIMATE.  They are basically reporting CLIMATE since it is nothing more then prevailing WEATHER patterns.

The NOAA is NOT gathering ANYTHING except millions of dollars from George Soros. It is not more an expert on global climate (which there is no such fcking thing) than PeeWee Herman.

 

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is a silly discussion.  I have a short explanation of climate change in my sig.

It is a silly discussion. in fact, we shouldn't even be discussing it at all. 

The only weather related change we ever consistently see is the change in seasons.  

Edited July 5, 2023 by Deluge

[WestCanMan]

On 7/1/2023 at 12:02 PM, Rebound said:

Whatever lies fit your story.  Nearly every Caribbean island has been wiped out by hurricanes in the last ten years.  

Hurricanes are normal. The frequency and strength of hurricanes now is normal. 

The only metric by which they're up over 60 years ago is "The number of hurricanes out in the ocean", and that was never measured until we had satellite radar to track them. For all we know there were more of them in 1913 than there are now. 

 

FYI "The weather's gonna git ya unless you _____ _____ _____ _____!" is the oldest trick in the book. Shaman used it, polytheists used it, monotheists used it, and now demonrats use it.

100 years ago the population of the earth was 1.6 billion and if a tribe experienced a hurricane somewhere along the Atlantic coast then no one else knew about it. Damage to stone age dwelling would have been measured in sticks and stones. In 2023 there are 5x as many people on earth and there are permanent, modern buildings everywhere so all Hurricanes are very expensive, and we know about them well before they make landfall. 

There's not an extreme weather event anywhere on earth that goes undetected right now, and unreported to the global audience. 100 years ago the exact same things were happening but we just didn't know about them.

If you wanna save the world then put some snake oil in your gas tank and ask your gov't to ship all of our fossil fuels to China, where they can somehow be burned without releasing greenhouse gases, genius.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

It is a silly discussion. in fact, we shouldn't even be discussing it at all. 

The only weather related change we ever consistently see is the change in seasons.  

Climate Change is real and caused by humans due to CO2.

The Greenhouse Effect is real.  Humans pump CO2 to cause it and temps go up.  There's no other explanation for the increase in temperatures.

"Owning the libs" has caused you to embrace fantasy, which to me is a sign of something wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Hurricanes are normal. The frequency and strength of hurricanes now is normal. 

Believe it or not - the reporting of hurricanes being a defacto EFFECT of climate change is inaccurate, you are correct.

It's new research and although they are coming to that conclusion, last I checked there wasn't consensus.

That said, if you think consensus is a 'thing' (which I do) then you have to accept that there IS consensus on man-made climate change.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

It is a silly discussion. in fact, we shouldn't even be discussing it at all. 

The only weather related change we ever consistently see is the change in seasons.  

^Keeps digging that Dunning Krueger hole. Weather is NOT climate. Nor are the changes in seasons. Duh.

When are you going absorb the FACT that you know next to nothing about this issue? LMAO

[CdnFox]

35 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Keeps digging that Dunning Krueger hole. Weather is NOT climate. Nor are the changes in seasons. Duh.

You... ahhhh .... you realize he's just as much of an expert as you are, right?

And you're drooling again.