Polar vortex returns

U IZ Funneeee!!!

Imagine that! Twisting someone's words so that you can pretend they mean other than they do. Name for that you know - it is called the straw man fallacy and usually indicates that the debater has run out of valid points to dispute

 

That is outstanding.......

Common sense beyond reproach....

Yet liberals will spew their computer model based crap

and their halve azzed baked science as the Gospel.

I love it when I hear one say.... and 99% of scientist agree......

They don't have a clue how silly they look.

 

Have you ever read the AR5 ?? What does it say about climate sensitivity of CO2 and how has that changed from the AR4 ?? What does it say about the observed decadal increase of CO2 in terms of ppm ??

That's an increase of 200 ppm per century. And for a climate sensitivity of CO2 of 1.5 which is the new lower limit based on data and not models that is a temperature increase of less than 1 deg C per century which is net beneficial. Also look at page 43 for some comparisons on just how well the models (114 of them) have been doing.

Scientific American has been in the tank for global warming alarmists for decades.

 

Well the fact is that we with the good common sense to look back through history for comparisons

related to climate change respect others with the same intellect.

We know the chicken little's of the world like yourself really don't have a clue.

You are being played by hucksters who are getting rich as you push their bent agenda.

They laugh at you behind your back...........

 

The earth went into extreme heat and extreme cold all through history, before man was ever on the planet.

While you can say a gigantic meteor wiped out the dinosaurs (by bringing on an ice age), there is nothing to suggest such during the viking era when the planet was warmer than it is now.

Scientists still do not know if global warming produces more carbon into the atmosphere, or if carbon brings on extreme temperatures. Carbon itself experiences diminishing returns, meaning it cannot be the real source behind global warming past a certain point.

The history of the global warming crowds predictions are full of embarrassments. In the 70's they predicted the earth would be a wasteland by the year 2000.

In 2007 the IPCC predicted vast reduction in the surface area of polar caps. Gore claimed in 2007 that the north pole would be gone in 7 years. Well, it gained 50% of it's mass between 2013 and 2014.

Here's a fine article on the embarrassments of the AGW crowd:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ts-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

Here's some more knee slappers:

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

AGW is a hokey religion, not a science.

While I'm sure human's have an impact on the planet, its definitely not the "omg we're gonna die" coming from progressives.

 

Just how would you take it if 99% of doctors said you had heart disease? Would you laugh it off?

- - - Updated - - -

Ya know doctorin is a hokey religion.

 

My "active" Korean War & commercial pilot neighbor was advised to get his narrow
aortic valve taken care of.
It was a catheter job, not a chest cracking like The Arnold and my father had after repeated heart attacks.
And my neighbor was "low energy" ever after. Then suffered several massive strokes and is now a
vegetable.
That hospital use to be a "pearl" until it expanded.
Now I have 3 neighbors who got deadly infections there.

Laughing off just may be safer than procedures and medications. ​

So much for analogies.


Moi, M.D.

r > g

View attachment 47034
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

So...all doctors are quacks and you would refuse medical treatment because they just make things worse...got it.

 

Your post shows NO understanding of Climate or LOGIC.
Zero.
Despite the mini 'Polar Vortex', (a few cold days on a few percent of the earths surface)....
2016 is on course to/WILL Break the record, and AGAIN be THEE hottest year since detailed record keeping started.

With the last Two, and 3 of 4, the HOTTEST.
2015 beating 2014 by even more than previous incremental jumps.
And all but one in this century.

NOAA
Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
or at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_periods

1 - -- - 2015
2 - -- - 2014
3 -- - - 2010
4 - -- - 2013
5 - - -- 2005
6 (tie) 1998
6 (tie) 2009
8 - -- - 2012
9 (tie) 2003
9 (tie) 2006
9 (tie) 2007
12 - - - 2002
13 (tie) 2004
13 (tie) 2011
15 (tie) 2001
15 (tie) 2008​

+

 

C'mon man. We all have access to Google and the uncountable amount of scientific websites that explain these events and anything else one would want to know about climate and weather. Why bother to debate this ad nauseam?

 

Well again Gargoyle, I have the good common sense to know

our doctors know a hell of a lot more about heart disease

than your climate scientist do climate change.

 

Do you? Really?

 

Well of course I do.

Those of us with the intellect to look

at the history of climate change understand

that it's all part of an ongoing process.

You Chicken Little people running around

with your hair on fire yelling the end is near

are a joke. You are being played by people

that are getting rich off the scam while they are

flying around the world and living in multiple houses

leaving a carbon footprint 1000 times more than the

average person. They have been caught red handed

faking data. The biggest clue to the scam is carbon credits,

what a friggin joke. You are all clueless...........

 

Well back when I was a kid when it started to get cold in December here in the northeast we called the event..........winter. Now it appears its called polar vortex that is a space tornado I saw on sci fi channel once.

 

Can you post the training records and calibration records for the 1880 temperature measurement.....along with the serial number off of the NIST calibrated thermometer that should have been used?

 

I would if 99% of doctors were getting paid to promote a medication for heart disease..

Oh yea doctors have done this before, they diagnosed just about any kid that was just being a kid with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin like candy.

AGW is a LIE....

Follow the money.

 

Can you place your FALLACIOUS proof burden any higher?
Funny variant of 'Shifting the Burden' to 'making the Burden impossible.'
"Serial number." LOL

1. How to detect and bust spew freaks, politicians, liars, etc.
First - learn their tricks and Slimy ways:
http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html
25 rules of disinformation

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely AVOID discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.​

2. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Demanding Impossible Evidence http://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fal...manding_Impossible_Evidence.html#.WFW-R_krI3s


Bingo!
IAC, 1880 IS used because that's when the Natl Weather Bureau started, and a degree of accuracy and standardization was established. And of course, those results HAVE been looked at and 'calibrated'/adjusted for over the years.
How Preposterous/Disingenuous/Goofy your post was.
+

EDIT:
Below is just more Disingenuous Fudging.
AlphaOmega was BUSTED on his Failed Fallacious 'debate' attempt
+

 

Yeah I make a living at checking data. Have so for over thirty years. Unless you can verify the data all it is is qualitative at best. That means its intersting but cant actually be used for any serious science. The two requirements I asked for are remedial requests that anyone referencing data should be able to supply otherwise the data cant be used. If you think its outlandish then why do you think the data isnt?

 

Have done so and it leads to Energy and Oil companies spreading disinformation that the gullible lap up.

 

Great - got proof - post it. Better yet publish it. I am sure the Koch brothers with reward you handsomely for putting out proof that global warming is not happening

 

GLOBAL WARMING, er, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!

 

Yes and".........

 

There is something very important that you need to remember - Americas global warming is different to other peoples global warming.

For example...and i think this was done simply to make it simple for you guys to understand - Americans seem to have been told that global warming means everything will only ever get hotter.

I think this was done for comedy reasons. All we need these days is a single snow flake to fall in the winter for the "told you GW was fake" crowd to become very vocal.

Our version of global warming actually means we'll get colder winters - I think that was probably too much for most Americans and would have had many of you running around the streets either shooting each other or asking for god to come and save them.

Had Americans been told "global warming" meant colder temperatures then i think chaos wouldn't be far behind.

I'm not 100% convinced about the GW idea either, i think a lot more research needs to be done and i doubt a final answer will be found in my lifetime.
However, this doesn't mean i can't laugh a the 100% GW deniers whilst i'm still alive.

 

You have it backwards. Im asking for valid data. You guys cant supply it. Prove to me the data YOU guys are citing is both accurate and precise. We do this easily by simply looking to see if the scientific instrument you used was working correctly and that the person using it was trained properly. If you cant demonstrate this then your data is an interesting opinion but not useful for determinig if a planetary size object hurling through space as it rotates at unimaginable speed along with its moon around a gigantic thermonuclear reactor is heating up because dicaprio is heating a mansion for no reason or if its related to mind boggling variables mentioned previously.
So yeah I would expect to see the data quality for a claim of this magnitude be backed up by valid data. Also I dont prove negatives. If you claim man is contributing to climate change then your scientists already know as this is drilled into their heads on every single project that they will ever work on....the data needs to valid because if not it will be invalidated bu someone like me. In this case your data is such a joke, you cant even tell me where the first measurement used in your data set was taken much less if it was taken correctly

 

So, no discernible trends in drought, precipitation, hurricanes or tornados. What now?

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, spouting off green propaganda with no proof.