“I think I've stated before on this thread that the point of climate change is not that CO2 & temperature have jumped up and down naturally - the point is that this is the first time in the history of the Earth that CO2 has been *forcibly* increased by a mechanism not related to natural variability.”
What you 'stated before' was in your post #1 ::….. “It was incredibly easy to convince legions of stupid conservatives that it was all a hoax by just saying on Fox news that liberals made it up.
Now ‘legions of those stupid conservatives’ are among the 10K basket of deplorables that have entertained both sides of the ‘global warming’ (now climate change) arguments on this thread.
So AC…..Why would you characterize conservatives as……’stupid’? What is your basis for the characterization…..”stupid”.
That post was supposed to be sarcastic, but apparently the AMG snowflakes have had their feelings hurt and need to have their bellies rubbed.
Whoops….I totally, completely missed the sarcasm. My apologies AC. When you said stupid conservatives and…. just deploy conservative robots to say words….and they( either the stupid conservatives or conservative robots) will do whatever you tell them to do…..I actually thought that is what you meant…..apparently you meant something different…..you mean …like…you meant the opposite or something?
You did not mean stupid conservatives? What did you mean….snowflakes? Un-stupid conservatives?
Jasper….what do you think AC meant? Jasper?
Ireland Beach Restored; Sand 'Floated In' on Melting Glacial Runoff
"It's enormously significant," Sean Molloy of Achill's tourism office told the Irish Times newspaper, recalling how the popular beach once sustained four hotels and a number of guesthouses on the west coast of the island of 2,600 people.
"Achill already has five blue-flag beaches, so we are hoping that in time it will be awarded a sixth."
Dammit, Molloy! Can't you see that beach tourism is doomed?
Gloria Steinem Blames Climate Change on ‘Forcing Women to Have Children’
"People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?" the magazine's Lindsey Stanberry asked.
"Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population," Steinem responded.
The Refinery29-dubbed unicorn then appeared to link women not being able to have abortions to overpopulation and climate change.
"If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don't want or can't care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn't have the climate problems that we have," Steinem said. "That's the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn't tell us that."
Oops! You mean abortion IS about eugenics and population control? Fossil fuels, indeed. So much for the rights and safety of women.
I was conflicted over whether to post this here or to resurrect an abortion thread. My point in posting it at all is to provide one more example of a libtard trampling over one myth in order to advance another.
If you want to talk about abortion, put it in a different thread. There may only be 6 of us here but things should still be organized.
'My point in posting it at all is to provide one more example of a libtard trampling over one myth in order to advance another.'
Your point is that libtard positions are not supported by a factual basis….there has been no global warming for 18 years plus….even though CO2 continues to increase. Same junk.
The margin of temperature measurement that puts 2016 as the hottest year on record is within the margin of statistical measurement error and libtards like AC ignore that, and advertise the position….”hottest year on record”….relying on sensationalism instead of logic. That’s what they do. Same junk.
Given the Maine scientist from U of ME….upon his retirement….stating:Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”
But what he wants people to understand is that climate change researchers and politicians collude to create fear of a disaster that will never happen.
The libtards simply ignore that information..and that epitomizes there ethical culture…if you do not agree with my position based on how I feel, you are flat wrong. Discussion over. Same junk
So your point taxfoe focuses on the libtard style….ie, tell us how you feel….not what you can argue from a fact based position….its how you feel. We get that. Global warming due to the absence of abortion is the equivalent of….global warming is due to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Same junk.
You have exposed the flawed logic of the thread author….he does not get it. He feels you should take your argument elsewhere. Same junk.
Once you get a ‘sense’ for the scientific term……”margin of error”…see below:
For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree—one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line—give or take a hundred yards.
THEN….you can appreciate the fallacy of the statement….”the hottest year on record”.
See further explanation below:http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/
When you read a science report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that you will get numbers. And you would be wrong.By Robert Tracinski
January 18, 2017They say that mathematics is the language of science, which is a way of saying that science is quantitative. It is moved forward by numbers and measurements, not just by qualitative observations. “It seems hot out” is not science. Giving a specific temperature, measured by a specific process at a specific time, compared to other systematically gathered measurements—that is science.
So when you read an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, last year was the hottest year on record, you might expect that right up front you will get numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error. You know, science stuff. Numbers. Quantities. Mathematics.
And you would be wrong.
“I just got done combing through a New York Times report titled, “Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year.” The number of relevant numbers in this article is: zero.”
It wasn’t just the New York Times. Try finding the relevant numbers ready at hand in the NASA/NOAA press release. You get numbers comparing 2016’s temperature with “the mid-20th century mean” or “the late 19th century.” But there’s nothing comparing it to last year or the year before except qualitative descriptions. So the government’s science bureaucracy is setting the trend, making reporters dig for the relevant numbers rather than presenting them up front.It’s almost like they’re hiding something. And that is indeed what we find. I finally tracked down an exception to this reporting trend: the UK newspaper The Independent gives us the relevant numbers.They should have been in the first paragraph, but at least they’re in the third paragraph: “This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….” There’s stuff after the “but,” but it’s just somebody’s evaluation. Even this report can’t give us a straight fact and leave it alone.For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree—one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line—give or take a hundred yards.
Global warming due to the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is a hoax.
" . . The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree—one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line—give or take a hundred yards"
The.essence of advocacy science. And 'reporting'.
Mark Steyn, filling in for Rush on Friday, had a caller with a great point: We are asked to believe that climate science is an absolute certainty while biological science, say as it applies to gender, is a social construct.
And it makes me wonder.
"Seas Will Rise! Insects Will Spread!" Tucker and Ann Coulter Troll Kathy Griffin and Paris Deal
Relevant footage, profound hypocrisy, is in the second half but the whole thing is worth watching.
Trump agrees that global warming is real:
The reason he gave for pulling out of the Paris Climate agreement was because it wouldn't have a strong enough effect... which implies that global warming is real but the Paris Climate agreement wasn't strong enough.
So, since your Lord and Savior His Majesty and Master of All He Surveys and Supreme Convfefe just told you that global warming is real. You must obey or become Sad!
Global warming, which is not occurring, cannot be caused by the 0.04% of CO2 when 95% of the molecules up there interacting with escaping infrared radiation are H2O.
Global warming due to the presence of CO2 ....the name was changed to Climate Change for a reason....is not occurring; it is a hoax.
I lifted the text below from a post by Melvin Udall regarding Article 7 of the 'Paris Accord'.....and stuck it here because it is worth repeating. Just read it and see if you can wrap your head around whatever message is in there.
"The following vacuous sentence (Article 7, paragraph 5) actually speaks volumes about a politically correct, feel-good document that can be agreed to by 174 countries:"
“Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”
Wait are you saying that you think Trump is wrong?
Watcher says: I don't think that it is 'technically true" that global warming (that concept is now debunked and is now called climate change) is "mainly as a result of human activity."
Spider says: I don’t think it is true that climate change is affected by human behavior. That includes the climate changes that occurred before humans behaved.
The Telegraph newspaper in the UK has published a fascinating article detailing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).
Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick.
The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.
As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.
This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.
The Catholic bishops say…..
Human behavior and activity are, according to the most recent findings of the international scientific bodies charged with assessing climate change, contributing to a warming of the earth's climate.
Keep your eye on those sunspots folks.....they may be contributing to a cooling of the earths climate.http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
California's endless winter: 8 feet of snow still on the ground in June
The Mammoth Mountain ski area in Mammoth Lakes, Calif., is seeing its "best spring conditions in decades ... and will be operating DAILY into August for one of our longest seasons in history," the resort said on its website. "When will this endless winter end? We don’t have that answer yet, but we do know that the skiing and riding is all-time right now . .
“We are in rare territory here with the winter we’ve had,” said Chris Smallcomb, a meteorologist with the weather service in Reno, Nev., the office that also covers the Sierra in California.
Damn facts. Anyway . .
I have spring skied high up in both the east and west. The novelty is fun but I've never encountered good skiing snow even as late as April.
I would expect to find wet corn. Anyone have a really nice spring snow experience?
WHEN GALAXIES COLLIDE
SOURCE Scroll way down
. . It's widely accepted than in 5 billion years our Milky Way will collide with the nearby Andromeda galaxy - but what will happen when it does?
. . the newly formed super-galaxy, dubbed 'Milkomeda', will also ultimately spell disaster for Earth as our planet is flung out into interstellar space.
That's nice. Milkomeda. Is that the best they've got? And just who is going to be left around to confirm that prediction?
Wouldn't you think that, with the immanency of climate catastrophe, the Badgers should be using all those state and federal dollars to figure out a way to save spring break?
Some other group wants to build a super collider many times larger than Hadron. Hadron didn't come cheap or quick. Shouldn't the 97% certain, scientific community get grappling with more urgent matters?
"That's nice. Milkomeda. Is that the best they've got? And just who is going to be left around to confirm that prediction?"
I think the Sun will have burned up the Earth by then (I think best estimates is that it will consume Earth around 7.5 billion years).
In any case, this has to be all wrong, because the Earth is only 10,000 years old. I read it in a book somewhere, so it must be true!
Mea culpa. a_c has been right all along . .
The news article that predicted the devastating impact of fossil fuels on climate change and warned the damage will be 'considerable in a few centuries' - in 1912!
COAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE
'The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year', the unknown journalist wrote.
'When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly'
'This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the Earth and to raise its temperature', he said.
'The effect may be considerable in a few centuries'.
Not only did they predict global warming, they also predicted fair use, copyright lawsuits. That's the whole article!
Weather Channel Founder stuffs his boot up Stetler's and CNN behind!
Accepted Science... subject to change. Yes, the fact that it's universally accepted and taught as fact doesn't make it so.
8 places to visit before they're lost to climate change
Bucket list for climate disciples.