all that math, and logic!

trumptardz hate science Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all that math, and logic!


They're the only ones who have posted any in this thread.

You just post this kind of bullshit. lol

that hurricanes don't exist?

And that people sensationalize them and incorrectly attribute them to climate change. Which they obviously do and is what he actually said.

We believe you - hurricanes really aren't all that bad, and they aren't caused by 'global warming'. Okay? All better now?

ice age a cometh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just so the "Global Warming" idiots know - It was
> just a few decades ago that the Scientists were
> "97% consensus" on how a NEW ICE AGE and GLOBAL
> COOLING was inevitable.


^THIS

Point is that no one really knows. Having scientists say that a new ice-age was right around the corner a few decades ago kind puts the brakes on the whole "warming" thing.

The environment has always fluctuated and will continue to do so.

Also, WE could never kill the planet, it will always be fine. WE could kill ourselves in 10,000 years sure. The planet would shake us off like fleas and warm or cool as it sees fit.

Bottom line is simple - try to pollute the environment as little as possible and recycle whatever you can.

and we have an ice age Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ice age a cometh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just so the "Global Warming" idiots know - It
> was
> > just a few decades ago that the Scientists were
> > "97% consensus" on how a NEW ICE AGE and GLOBAL
> > COOLING was inevitable.
>
>
> ^THIS
>
> Point is that no one really knows. Having
> scientists say that a new ice-age was right around
> the corner a few decades ago kind puts the brakes
> on the whole "warming" thing.
>
> The environment has always fluctuated and will
> continue to do so.
>
> Also, WE could never kill the planet, it will
> always be fine. WE could kill ourselves in 10,000
> years sure. The planet would shake us off like
> fleas and warm or cool as it sees fit.
>
> Bottom line is simple - try to pollute the
> environment as little as possible and recycle
> whatever you can.

Shows you how much we have altered the climate

Was there actually a '97%' consensus on that?

I recall the 'ice age' theory Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was there actually a '97%' consensus on that?


It was the conventional wisdom at the time.

The "97% consensus" now is bullshit to begin with. And whatever "consensus" exists diminishes greatly by the time that you get from whether temperatures are changing to whether that's a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 and what that means going forward as far as timing and magnitude of any change. And another huge step by the time that you get to what should be done about it. And a completely disconnected step by the time that you get to the level of mitigation which is nearly entirely political and centers on a money grab by lesser developed countries at the UN for US money.

If this shit is anthropogenic, they're causing more of the problem than we are.
We need all of our cash to move our cities a bit further back from the coast.
So, at some point, I make tell you to buy a prius, but I don't expect you to buy one for Ravi, Abdul, or jose. They can buy their own.

global warming strikes again!

ruh-roh! Three hurricanes! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> global warming strikes again!

I thinks those bars are gonna be gettin' a lot higher....

old stats..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thinks those bars are gonna be gettin' a lot
> higher....


No, they probably won't because they already include past seasons with as much or more activity.

Aggregating Aggregator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> old stats..... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thinks those bars are gonna be gettin' a lot
> > higher....
>
>
> No, they probably won't because they already
> include past seasons with as much or more
> activity SO FAR.

Truth isn't a majority vote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recall the 'ice age' theory Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Was there actually a '97%' consensus on that?
>
>
> It was the conventional wisdom at the time.
>
> The "97% consensus" now is bullshit to begin with.
> And whatever "consensus" exists diminishes
> greatly by the time that you get from whether
> temperatures are changing to whether that's a
> direct result of anthropogenic CO2 and what that
> means going forward as far as timing and magnitude
> of any change. And another huge step by the time
> that you get to what should be done about it. And
> a completely disconnected step by the time that
> you get to the level of mitigation which is nearly
> entirely political and centers on a money grab by
> lesser developed countries at the UN for US money.


TRUE

I posted the ice age shit. There was no numerical consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged in the "97%" thing to fuck with the global warming nuts.

Also, the above post is SPOT ON with the $$$ grab by lesser countries through the UN and the Paris Accord(name?).

Our POTUS, fuck whoever he or she is, made a great decision to save us billions getting out of that circle jerk.

My point was - WE DO NOT KNOW HOW WE ARE AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT - proven scientifically by how much our scientists do not know.

iceage to the icecaps melting is a big difference

great post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth isn't a majority vote Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I recall the 'ice age' theory Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Was there actually a '97%' consensus on that?
> >
> >
> > It was the conventional wisdom at the time.
> >
> > The "97% consensus" now is bullshit to begin
> with.
> > And whatever "consensus" exists diminishes
> > greatly by the time that you get from whether
> > temperatures are changing to whether that's a
> > direct result of anthropogenic CO2 and what
> that
> > means going forward as far as timing and
> magnitude
> > of any change. And another huge step by the
> time
> > that you get to what should be done about it.
> And
> > a completely disconnected step by the time that
> > you get to the level of mitigation which is
> nearly
> > entirely political and centers on a money grab
> by
> > lesser developed countries at the UN for US
> money.
>
>
> TRUE
>
> I posted the ice age shit. There was no numerical
> consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged in
> the "97%" thing to fuck with the global warming
> nuts.
>
> Also, the above post is SPOT ON with the $$$ grab
> by lesser countries through the UN and the Paris
> Accord(name?).
>
> Our POTUS, fuck whoever he or she is, made a great
> decision to save us billions getting out of that
> circle jerk.
>
> My point was - WE DO NOT KNOW HOW WE ARE AFFECTING
> THE ENVIRONMENT - proven scientifically by how
> much our scientists do not know.
>
> iceage to the icecaps melting is a big difference

So you lied to make a point....

I would say you should kill yourself for the good of civilization but you are so fucking stupid you would end up hurting an innocent person

You truly are one clueless motherfucker

great post Wrote:

>
> I posted the ice age shit. There was no numerical
> consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged in
> the "97%" thing because I like making shit up.


Meanwhile, there is a 100% consensus that there are THREE HURRICANES menacing North America!

I do hope you realize that, whether the whole manmade climate change theory is valid or not, if we have a disastrous hurricane season, you are going to be hearing a lot about global warming.

So, to clarify Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> great post Wrote:
>
> >
> > I posted the ice age shit. There was no
> numerical
> > consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged in
> > the "97%" thing because I like making shit up.
>
>
> Meanwhile, there is a 100% consensus that there
> are THREE HURRICANES menacing North America!
>
> I do hope you realize that, whether the whole
> manmade climate change theory is valid or not, if
> we have a disastrous hurricane season, you are
> going to be hearing a lot about global warming.


You feel for the corporate lie that there is no climate change
Just like big tobacco they hire a few scientist to put out fake reports to muddy the water
Exxon believes in climate change

Are you smarter than Exxon?

Do they really? Or are they just trying to push the coal mines out of business?
They funded the anti-nuclear movement back in the 1970s.

Exxon believes in climatechange? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do they really? Or are they just trying to push
> the coal mines out of business?
> They funded the anti-nuclear movement back in the
> 1970s.


Yes they do

So, to clarify Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> great post Wrote:
>
> >
> > I posted the ice age shit. There was no
> numerical
> > consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged in
> > the "97%" thing because I like making shit up.
>
>
> Meanwhile, there is a 100% consensus that there
> are THREE HURRICANES menacing North America!
>
> I do hope you realize that, whether the whole
> manmade climate change theory is valid or not, if
> we have a disastrous hurricane season, you are
> going to be hearing a lot about global warming.


It makes no difference because "climate change" is the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll hear it either way. That's because it's whatever one wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's due to "climate change." If it snows more than normal - climate change. Less than normal - climate change. Wetter than average - climate change. A drought - climate change. More hurricanes that normal - climate change. Now that there have been less for the last decade or so - yep, climate change again. It's no longer an objective thing. It's a belief system like God's will. Whatever happens whatever way it happens is "climate change!"

That extends from tards like you who just repeat whatever shit they're told to those using it for political purposes to collective interests to profit in various ways to individuals who want funding for their pet research interests.
Submit a research proposal to study the mating habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then you'll get no funding and have to spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If you submit the same proposal as studying the influence of climate change on the mating habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then off to Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual "climate change" there may be has become so hopelessly distorted at this point that it's become extraordinarily difficult for the average person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the 97% nonsense being a prominent example).

Vested Interests Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, to clarify Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > great post Wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I posted the ice age shit. There was no
> > numerical
> > > consensus that I am aware of, I just plugged
> in
> > > the "97%" thing because I like making shit
> up.
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile, there is a 100% consensus that there
> > are THREE HURRICANES menacing North America!
> >
> > I do hope you realize that, whether the whole
> > manmade climate change theory is valid or not,
> if
> > we have a disastrous hurricane season, you are
> > going to be hearing a lot about global warming.
>
>
> It makes no difference because "climate change" is
> the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll hear it
> either way. That's because it's whatever one
> wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's due to
> "climate change." If it snows more than normal -
> climate change. Less than normal - climate
> change. Wetter than average - climate change. A
> drought - climate change. More hurricanes that
> normal - climate change. Now that there have been
> less for the last decade or so - yep, climate
> change again. It's no longer an objective thing.
> It's a belief system like God's will. Whatever
> happens whatever way it happens is "climate
> change!"
>
> That extends from tards like you who just repeat
> whatever shit they're told to those using it for
> political purposes to collective interests to
> profit in various ways to individuals who want
> funding for their pet research interests.
> Submit a research proposal to study the mating
> habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground
> squirrel, then you'll get no funding and have to
> spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If you
> submit the same proposal as studying the influence
> of climate change on the mating habits of the
> Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then off to
> Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual
> "climate change" there may be has become so
> hopelessly distorted at this point that it's
> become extraordinarily difficult for the average
> person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the 97%
> nonsense being a prominent example).

So you know more than Exxon?

Vested Interests Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> It makes no difference because "climate change" is
> the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll hear it
> either way. That's because it's whatever one
> wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's due to
> "climate change." If it snows more than normal -
> climate change. Less than normal - climate
> change. Wetter than average - climate change. A
> drought - climate change. More hurricanes that
> normal - climate change. Now that there have been
> less for the last decade or so - yep, climate
> change again. It's no longer an objective thing.
> It's a belief system like God's will. Whatever
> happens whatever way it happens is "climate
> change!"
>
> That extends from tards like you who just repeat
> whatever shit they're told to those using it for
> political purposes to collective interests to
> profit in various ways to individuals who want
> funding for their pet research interests.
> Submit a research proposal to study the mating
> habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground
> squirrel, then you'll get no funding and have to
> spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If you
> submit the same proposal as studying the influence
> of climate change on the mating habits of the
> Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then off to
> Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual
> "climate change" there may be has become so
> hopelessly distorted at this point that it's
> become extraordinarily difficult for the average
> person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the 97%
> nonsense being a prominent example).

You are much more eloquent than most unemployed coal miners!

Well, I'll give you this... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vested Interests Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > It makes no difference because "climate change"
> is
> > the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll hear
> it
> > either way. That's because it's whatever one
> > wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's due
> to
> > "climate change." If it snows more than normal
> -
> > climate change. Less than normal - climate
> > change. Wetter than average - climate change.
> A
> > drought - climate change. More hurricanes that
> > normal - climate change. Now that there have
> been
> > less for the last decade or so - yep, climate
> > change again. It's no longer an objective
> thing.
> > It's a belief system like God's will. Whatever
> > happens whatever way it happens is "climate
> > change!"
> >
> > That extends from tards like you who just
> repeat
> > whatever shit they're told to those using it
> for
> > political purposes to collective interests to
> > profit in various ways to individuals who want
> > funding for their pet research interests.
> > Submit a research proposal to study the mating
> > habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground
> > squirrel, then you'll get no funding and have
> to
> > spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If you
> > submit the same proposal as studying the
> influence
> > of climate change on the mating habits of the
> > Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then off
> to
> > Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual
> > "climate change" there may be has become so
> > hopelessly distorted at this point that it's
> > become extraordinarily difficult for the
> average
> > person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the 97%
> > nonsense being a prominent example).
>
> You are much more eloquent than most unemployed
> coal miners!


Unfortunately for you, I actually am a "scientist." I'm not strictly a climate scientist, but I certainly know how to assess data and data quality and do have substantial background in energy-related and environmental/physical sciences. More importantly, I know bs when I see. And I've seen other similar instances over the years where the "consensus" and models indicating 99.5 confidence proved to be way wrong. As well as having experience in writing government program justifications to play up whatever was in vogue in order to get funding.

I appreciate that doesn't make me as qualified to discuss such things as a regular Maddow viewer with a poli sci degree.

I don't watch tv.

Please don't tell me you're one of those 'scientists' who believe the world is 6000 years old.

Settled Science! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, I'll give you this... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Vested Interests Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It makes no difference because "climate
> change"
> > is
> > > the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll
> hear
> > it
> > > either way. That's because it's whatever one
> > > wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's due
> > to
> > > "climate change." If it snows more than
> normal
> > -
> > > climate change. Less than normal - climate
> > > change. Wetter than average - climate change.
>
> > A
> > > drought - climate change. More hurricanes
> that
> > > normal - climate change. Now that there have
> > been
> > > less for the last decade or so - yep, climate
> > > change again. It's no longer an objective
> > thing.
> > > It's a belief system like God's will.
> Whatever
> > > happens whatever way it happens is "climate
> > > change!"
> > >
> > > That extends from tards like you who just
> > repeat
> > > whatever shit they're told to those using it
> > for
> > > political purposes to collective interests to
> > > profit in various ways to individuals who
> want
> > > funding for their pet research interests.
> > > Submit a research proposal to study the
> mating
> > > habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground
> > > squirrel, then you'll get no funding and have
> > to
> > > spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If you
> > > submit the same proposal as studying the
> > influence
> > > of climate change on the mating habits of the
> > > Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then
> off
> > to
> > > Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual
> > > "climate change" there may be has become so
> > > hopelessly distorted at this point that it's
> > > become extraordinarily difficult for the
> > average
> > > person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the 97%
> > > nonsense being a prominent example).
> >
> > You are much more eloquent than most unemployed
> > coal miners!
>
>
> Unfortunately for you, I actually am a
> "scientist." I'm not strictly a climate
> scientist, but I certainly know how to assess data
> and data quality and do have substantial
> background in energy-related and
> environmental/physical sciences. More
> importantly, I know bs when I see. And I've seen
> other similar instances over the years where the
> "consensus" and models indicating 99.5 confidence
> proved to be way wrong. As well as having
> experience in writing government program
> justifications to play up whatever was in vogue in
> order to get funding.
>
> I appreciate that doesn't make me as qualified to
> discuss such things as a regular Maddow viewer
> with a poli sci degree.


You must be a lawyer because every thing you write is just bs
Did you take a class on how to write bs like this
You are straight from a Koch funded fake think tank

Ngcjgck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Settled Science! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, I'll give you this... Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Vested Interests Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It makes no difference because "climate
> > change"
> > > is
> > > > the perfect "storm" so to speak and we'll
> > hear
> > > it
> > > > either way. That's because it's whatever
> one
> > > > wants it to be. If it's hot, then that's
> due
> > > to
> > > > "climate change." If it snows more than
> > normal
> > > -
> > > > climate change. Less than normal - climate
> > > > change. Wetter than average - climate
> change.
> >
> > > A
> > > > drought - climate change. More hurricanes
> > that
> > > > normal - climate change. Now that there
> have
> > > been
> > > > less for the last decade or so - yep,
> climate
> > > > change again. It's no longer an objective
> > > thing.
> > > > It's a belief system like God's will.
> > Whatever
> > > > happens whatever way it happens is "climate
> > > > change!"
> > > >
> > > > That extends from tards like you who just
> > > repeat
> > > > whatever shit they're told to those using
> it
> > > for
> > > > political purposes to collective interests
> to
> > > > profit in various ways to individuals who
> > want
> > > > funding for their pet research interests.
> > > > Submit a research proposal to study the
> > mating
> > > > habits of the Brazilian three-toed ground
> > > > squirrel, then you'll get no funding and
> have
> > > to
> > > > spend the winter in fucking Chicago. If
> you
> > > > submit the same proposal as studying the
> > > influence
> > > > of climate change on the mating habits of
> the
> > > > Brazilian three-toed ground squirrel, then
> > off
> > > to
> > > > Rio you go. The reality of whatever actual
> > > > "climate change" there may be has become so
> > > > hopelessly distorted at this point that
> it's
> > > > become extraordinarily difficult for the
> > > average
> > > > person to filter fact from bs (e.g., the
> 97%
> > > > nonsense being a prominent example).
> > >
> > > You are much more eloquent than most
> unemployed
> > > coal miners!
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately for you, I actually am a
> > "scientist." I'm not strictly a climate
> > scientist, but I certainly know how to assess
> data
> > and data quality and do have substantial
> > background in energy-related and
> > environmental/physical sciences. More
> > importantly, I know bs when I see. And I've
> seen
> > other similar instances over the years where
> the
> > "consensus" and models indicating 99.5
> confidence
> > proved to be way wrong. As well as having
> > experience in writing government program
> > justifications to play up whatever was in vogue
> in
> > order to get funding.
> >
> > I appreciate that doesn't make me as qualified
> to
> > discuss such things as a regular Maddow viewer
> > with a poli sci degree.
>
>
> You must be a lawyer because every thing you write
> is just bs
> Did you take a class on how to write bs like this
> You are straight from a Koch funded fake think
> tank


Nope, mostly worked with DOE, EPA, and other energy-related agencies under multiple administrations. Which is why I live here. Which is why I'm on this clusterfuck of a forum.

I liked you better when you were a coal miner!

A government drone? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked you better when you were a coal miner!


Some of the time. University drone. Government-sponsored corporation drone. National lab drone. Private-sector drone. Consulting drone.

it is clear you now consult for somebody unhappy with the global warming narrative. Am I correct, or just paranoid?

and following the money Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it is clear you now consult for somebody unhappy
> with the global warming narrative. Am I correct,
> or just paranoid?


Nope. Completely unrelated. Have a business that makes actual physical stuff vs thinking and writing about stuff. Which is what I really wanted to do to begin with. Just took longer than I expected to get there.

Things worth doing always seem to take longer than one hopes...

I can give you a perfect example to illustrate a similar circumstance of conventional wisdom from what I did that was much, much more solid than "climate change."

One of my first jobs was with the government related to developing alternative fuels. This was way back in the olden days of the 1980s following the Arab oil embargos, gas lines, and all that. It was a huge deal. There weren't just general indications of some potential future problem. There were actual demonstrable problems that affected daily life, GDP, national security, etc. We spent $100s of billions of dollars (and that was back when a billion was a big number) on various programs to try to address it. Plus very significant secondary effects on military spending and strategy and geopolitical types of concerns.

Within that part of what we and lots of others did was to try to assess US oil reserves/resources so we knew what we had, how long it would last, and how that would affect imports, oil prices, pricing for alternatives, etc. We had access to tons of hard data for reserve assessments, the best experts and economists, and most sophisticated models running on the biggest baddest computers around.

Based on that and other expert judgement it was considered a virtual certainty that the US would be completely out of economically recoverable oil by about the year 2000 or shortly thereafter. Not some squishy "97% consensus" but real, hard 99.5% confidence level statistical, resource and economic analysis based on actual data and the most widely accepted assumptions by experts run through endless simulations. All sources were in virtual agreement other than at minor detailed degrees. Pretty much anyone who said otherwise was considered fringe and wasn't really taken seriously. You can go back now and see all of this in the news and policy and research of the time if you're inclined to look.

That consensus judgement was the single major factor which guided US energy policy for the next 20-30 years up until relatively recently. "Energy security!" was always a primary talking point in politics (which actually meant oil supply).

We spent billions of dollars building huge Strategic Petroleum Reserves in salt caverns in TX and LA to store oil. We built huge multi-billion dollar proof of concept plants to turn coal and shale into liquid fuels. People were concerned that they'd take most of the water and concrete and labor in the western US to build and operate. There were boom towns created around various areas in anticipation. And a whole range of other research and development on other renewable fuels, electric vehicles, and on and on. 10,000s of people working on it in various ways.

How'd that turn out? ; )

When it didn't happen, we just adjusted the same consensus view out in time another few years. That continued up until maybe the last 5 years or so when the reality of the shale gas and oil boom finally pretty much finally squashed that one. Now we're looking at more like another 50-100 years.

And nope, it wasn't just an economic thing. Oil prices on a current-dollar basis were even higher than they are now for much of that time. It wasn't even mostly a technology thing since most of the same enhanced recovery techniques were known and used at the time. Directional drilling and fracturing technology dates back to the 1930s or 70s depending on what you want to count and expectations for that were factored into the analysis. It was mostly that people just hadn't done it yet to show how wrong it was yet.

Point being that if we can be that sure about something like that with much greater than a weak "97% consensus" then we definitely can be wrong as far as other things that are much more speculative and less certain like "climate change." Oil and gas supply very likely will become an issue at some point in the future but we weren't even close with our "97% consensus" view of the future world and how we needed to address it.

I just rewatched 'The Day After Tomorrow' (great special effects, terrible acting as only Hollywood can deliver) and I am very worried that this hurricane shit indicates anthropogenic global warming which MAY INDEED spawn a new ice age. Therefore, the global warming crowd AND the 1970s ice age prophets were BOTH RIGHT.

Rush says its all a made up hoax by liberals. Science is a big con job folks. Sure we have computers and internet but Alex Jones said those are real so of course they work. Hurricanes are FAKE NEwS

First I applaud anyone citing data to argue their point here - scientific method of recording observations and drawing conclusions from that data is vital! If you are on the side denying that man is affecting climate change you are well outside consensus. So much outside that you are met with an obligation to disprove current consensus - that is a very big job.

We need dissent, science is designed to be a battle of knowledge. That said we must base our decisions on informed consensus especially where it is nearly unanimous. Know this, once you cite data, use graphs draw conclusions based on recorded information you must accept the scientific method - you cannot deny man caused climate change because you like Trump or hate Hillary or like Bush and hate Al Gore.

thing's already getting weaker.

I've changed my mind - global warming's a fucking scam!

Hate to say it, but maybe Rush was right.

I now regard Gerry as the FFU expert on weather. We wil let him decide whether manmade glaobal warming is responsible for these dreadful hurricanes or not.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

fakenewsaa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scient
> ific-consensus.htm


.

All that hype about Miami getting hit with 185 mph winds!

Didn't happen - instead some swampland is getting hit with winds less than half as pwoerful.

The climate change hysteria crowd was simply wrong on this one.

I'm sorry, I didn't quite get what you guys are talking about, can you all run it through one more time?

thanks

If Florida sustains > 100 billion in damages, it proves global warming is causing bad hurricanes.

If less than 100 billion, global warming is bunk.

we're settling the argument Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Florida sustains > 100 billion in damages, it
> proves global warming is causing bad hurricanes.
>
> If less than 100 billion, global warming is bunk.


Dollar value isn't a good metric for that. We build lots more stuff now and more of that stuff is built in vulnerable areas and the cost of what we build/replace is much greater. Which is why people try to disingenuously use it as 'proof' as you do here and Obama tried to do after Sandy. The damage from any large storm nearly always will be greater than the past. That says nothing about the power, frequency, or much of anything else about hurricanes/global warming. You could do the same correlation with the price of Fritos.




A 1935 aerial photo of an eleven-car Overseas Railroad train swept off the tracks near Islamorada during the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935.

Try fine-tuning your sarc meter...

ummmm, previous poster? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Try fine-tuning your sarc meter...


As obviously dumb as it may appear, sadly, people actually make that argument.

In fact, you'll very likely see them doing so soon for Harvey and Irma once we get past the immediate problems. Happens every time so I can virtually guarantee it. lol

Recently, some large chunk of ice broke loose from Antarctica.
If it were towed up to the Caribbean, we could leave it sitting in the path of the most likely hurricanes, and it would cool the water to the point that any hurricane passing over the area would fizzle. It would take roughly 800,000,000 tons of coal to provide enough energy to propel the bitch, so we would also employ a lot of coal miners.

Irma fizzled, so I guess that makes global warming untrue.

Right?

The Labor Day hurricane of 1935 is the strongest hurricane to ever make landfall in the USA. It also had the lowest recorded pressure.

Kinda ruins the MUH CLIMATE CHANGE narrative, doesn't it?

Libtardz!

Lolz!

because it angers the neocontardz

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/pope-says-humanity-down-does-224136414.html

starting to look like the anti-CO2 crowd were right after all!

ruh-roh! Maria's coming! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> starting to look like the anti-CO2 crowd were
> right after all!


Really? How's that?

If only the dinosaurs didn't burn fossil fuels they'd still be around today!

GLOBALWARMINGTARDS!

Pretty much puts a stop to any debate - global warming is real!

rrruh-roh! Category FOUR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretty much puts a stop to any debate - global
> warming is real!


There were never category 4 hurricanes before the I dust rial revolution?

My, that was fast!

This global warming is some bad shit!

stop global warming!

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM


Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.

According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.

Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.

FUCK! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> An unexpected “revolution” in affordable
> renewable energy has also contributed to the more
> positive outlook.
>


We need to completely replace coal with solar by 2025.

this is the main point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > An unexpected “revolution” in affordable
> > renewable energy has also contributed to the
> more
> > positive outlook.
> >
>
>
> We need to completely replace coal with solar by
> 2025.


That's not happening and not going to happen.

Solar isn't even a significant component within renewables.



Even less if you consider energy consumption including transportation (i.e., oil):



The main reason for lower coal use has nothing to do with "global warming" but rather competition by cheap nat gas. When nat gas prices rise, which they will, coal use will again rise. Solar and other renewables also don't function well to fuel large base-load plants so coal and gas are even harder to displace given that they comprise the largest plants. Nuclear now is dead so coal/gas also will make up that gap going forward for the foreseeable future.

Republicans must masturbate with coal
There is no other way to explain their obsession

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans must masturbate with coal
> There is no other way to explain their obsession


"Republicans" aka people who actually know WTF their talking about just correct the stooopid shit that libtard dreamers say.

It indicates that most o four enegry comes from fossil fuels. Well, that MUST change, or we we will start seeing caategory five hurricanes. Oh, wait.

If we try hard, we can elimiate coal by 2025, oil by 2035, nat gas by 2045.

global warming strikes again!

global warming strikes again!

good chart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It indicates that most o four enegry comes from
> fossil fuels. Well, that MUST change, or we we
> will start seeing caategory five hurricanes. Oh,
> wait.
>
> If we try hard, we can elimiate coal by 2025, oil
> by 2035, nat gas by 2045.


No, we can't stupid.

ruh-roh! 165 mph winds! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> global warming strikes again!


Trump will HAVE to ban the use of fossil fuels!

now it's 175 MPH!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ruh-roh! 165 mph winds! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > global warming strikes again!
>
>
> Trump will HAVE to ban the use of fossil fuels!


your stupid posts.

We're all about to get wiped out by a series of killer hurricanes, and you're upset by my POSTS!!??!!?!?!? Fucking snowflake!

what a stupid dipshit! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're all about to get wiped out by a series of
> killer hurricanes, and you're upset by my
> POSTS!!??!!?!?!? Fucking snowflake!


Calling you a dumbshit doesn't mean that I'm upset.

It just means that you're a dumbshit.

Dumbshit.

Just take a deep breath, and start planning your carbon-free future.

don't get hysterical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just take a deep breath, and start planning your
> carbon-free future.


That lame shit isn't going to work with me stupid. lol

Maybe try being more of an adult....

so you're just a troll? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe try being more of an adult....


Maybe try being less of a dumbshit....

Dumbshit.

We'll have to see what hurricane maria has to say about this...

Oh well. You just can't learn... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We'll have to see what hurricane maria has to say
> about this...


She says that you're a dumbshit.

CAT FIVE!!!!!!!!!

no - she says....... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CAT FIVE!!!!!!!!!


You're a dumbshit.

Dumbshit.

All that global warming got you hot under the collar?

my! somebody's triggered! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All that global warming got you hot under the
> collar?


Dumbshits like you are easy to trigger.

Just say 'global warming' and they go flocking to Wikipedia for evidence to the contrary!

We're down to 909 millibars! That's one badass storm!

not as easy as trumptardz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just say 'global warming' and they go flocking to
> Wikipedia for evidence to the contrary!
>
> We're down to 909 millibars! That's one badass
> storm!


To demonstrate that you're a dumbshit.

Global warming - it's real, and it's coming to get you!

it's getting stronnnnnger! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming - it's real, and it's coming to get
> you!


Your dumbshittedness.

But hasn't peaked yet.

prepare for right-tard butthurt!

ruh-roh! Lee's coming back! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> prepare for right-tard butthurt!


Lee will be protested by whining SJWs.

And Trump will deport Jose and Maria, so that pretty well takes care of things in the Atlantic!

Isn't this the thread for the sex doll ads?

Ireland is about to get hit by a major hurricane! Florida weather in Ireland, fior fuck sake!?!

Pretty damn near impossible to deny global warming now!

This has really never happened before! What, oh what indeed, is going on with the fucking weather?



(we're all gonna die!)

I hope there are no more people who deny global warming
It's like being an anti-vaxxer or a flat earther

Global warming is a huge threat but it's not the only environmental issue we deal with. There are tons of them and one of the most impactful is of course trash. In many countries, it's not recycled or it's done poorly. To improve the situation developers even start inventing projects like https://myimpactpower.org/ to change people's behaviour with challenges. I do hope it will help to change people's attitudes towards the problem because otherwise, we will face extremely difficult to solve problems.