Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

As shown before.....nope it hasn't

 

I must be dealing with a very young person to not know of the many warnings. You are the sole person challenging my statement.

Once Katrina hit, and such storms did not materialize, the noise died down.

 

Well, according to the premier temperature sensing system, the USCRN it has but why accept observed science when you have belief.

 

Are you in imminent danger?

 

As shown before, it has. The data outways an opinion piece.

 

I agree. Your opinion is wrong. Lol

 

No but a lot of folks are. I am not so self centered to think I am the only person on this planet.

 

So you think my opinion the real data is always right and opinion often wrong is an incorrect deduction? No wonder you have such a problem.

 

As shown in my link you are reading the data so incredibly wrong. It's kind of funny

 

An opinion piece.

 

They are eh? You must be their hero. What are you doing for them? It is nice to run into an unselfish person who wants to radically change my life, my kids lives and their kids lives.

Maybe we will drive cars as they have in Russia. Barely large enough to call cars.

This is your future if you believe the alarmists.

[video=youtube;45j4thHOZiE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45j4thHOZiE[/video]

For you fearful people, watch this.

[video=youtube;bN1iTQh65QA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLO0ZfOiXWrut-mZU6RHzbA10Yxud2gCZy&v=bN1iTQh65QA[/video]

 

The only changes I propose are positive. It is all in proper land management.

 

I have told you in the past. I think your land ideas are very good.

 

So? How is my age a factor in your linking those papers? Your linking them will make sure we are all on the same page of the conversation. If a published scientific paper predicted "a cascade of hurricanes each worse than the last", it should be mocked imo.

Does that mean that your statement is somehow 'true' by default? And it's statements (plural).

You keep making these assertions. Please give me a link to these scientific papers promising; "a cascade of hurricanes each worse than the last", "promised danger", and "promised hurricanes" ... that way we can join you in debunking them.

 

Many alarmists are still standing behind the hockey stick and believe it to be true.

I have enough engineering education and experience to know that it isn't raining out when someone is pi$$ing on my leg. I've done the homework on the issue and formed my opinions on that homework. Global warming alarmism is/will result in public energy policies that will have no effect on the global average temperature in the next century but will do net harm to the global economy regressively affecting third world countries. Furthermore the rate of global warming is net positive for the next 3 deg C rise which will take 2 - 3 centuries to develop and from an increase to ~ 3000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.

I have no interest in spending the time (again) providing the background references (which come in book form with footnotes, references, and indices) and have no interest in your under informed opinions on global warming but I will point out the discrepancies whenever I see them.

 

Say Sparky, I don't recall telling you about scientific papers.

Why do you keep asking for papers?

 

Since you too have engineering education, don't you think the hockey stick graph is a fraud as to it's construction?

It was specifically designed to alarm people. I have seen a graph that is much more accurate and over a long span. And the line is almost totally flat. The problem is they make temperatures extremely blown up.

 

Of course there is doubt. After all the failed AGW predictions, there is a lot of doubt. Only a fool is so certain that she closes her mind to even the possibility of being wrong.

 

Of course it's a fraud. McKittrick and McIntyre took the hockey stick papers apart in their own papers. The books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding the Decline" provide much more information about the actual conspiracy (it's not theoretical) involved in the hockey stick which the alarmists needed to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

 

A course in weather is required to become a pilot. In 1980 I realized a dream of mine and became a pilot. Now, they will say weather is not climate. But weather is part of climate. To understand any of it, you need to know the forces and conditions.

A person not versed in wind patterns is not likely to comprehend what they think they understand. Terms I never needed as a layman were included in the FAA testing process. Anyway, my radar was on full alert the first time I heard this baffling concept. To call it a theory adds credibility to it and I am not going to do that. I have done enough graphing in courses including Calculus to spot a bad graph when I see one. And the hockey stick sham was awful.

 

Your post ... #277 in this thread said:

I assumed that when you said 'they' you were talking about scientists saying those things. If not, then what is your point? Politicians say a lot of dumb things about science. The news media says a lot of dumb things about science. News media, blogs, politicians ... these are the very worst places to get any kind of scientific info that has any chance of being correct. Books are not a whole lot better. Anyone can get a book published. And I firmly believe that the worst enemy of global warming proponents is not deniers ... it's the alarmists.

No one in this thread is advancing any kind of alarmist propaganda (in fact they all seem to be pretty diligent in backing up what they say with sources)so if you are not talking about scientists in the quote I provided then your statement is just a strawman and/or virtue signaling. I made my position pretty clear in the very first reply to this OP. If you want to know science, ask a scientist. If you want a political or economic answer, ask a politician or an economist. But we shouldn't ever mix the two all together and pretend it's science.

 

Posters will post with a straight face and claim they are telling the frank truth and they know it because science told them so.

No my friend. I did not tell you peer reviewed scientific papers told me there would be many more hurricanes.

Now, I won't presume to say you are on the science side or the news cycle side. You are clearly willing to post about the topic.

And you allege a poster or so is backing it up with science. Yes, AFM has and so has Hoosier. I too have back up my comments using science that is peer reviewed.

Since you offered to help me debunk the alarmists, and clearly those telling me around the time of Katrina we would be shocked at the new rash of hurricanes, tornados and even worse, are such alarmists. They need to be mocked.

Join me.

 

Thank you

 

If you want to know anything do your homework. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

 

I agree....as long as it is legit research.