Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

notice how i didn't say anything about that

 

Ah.... So duration then does matter, meaning that polar ice extent is still growing, right?

 

Meaning that it is simply not possible for yourself to give a break down of just what the accord actually amounts to in terms of substance. Instead all that can be done on the part of yourself is pointing to an article that supposedly has all the answers. Answers that apparently are not possessed by yourself.

The article merely talks about nations attempting to discuss the matter, and procuring finance from various nations to be used later on. None of that is substance. None of that is proposals for what would have a legitimate and demonstrable effect of improvement in a reasonable amount of time.

Beyond such, what amounts to these so-called "pre-industrial" levels that are being referred to in the article? What point in history amounts to "pre-industrial" as far as the accord is concerned?

 

it means that you don't know what you're talking about

it means you should stop pretending and start reading

 

It has indeed been read. But nothing of actual substance has been found within. It is nothing more than various nations discussing a problem that may or may not exist, which is based solely on questionable evidence, poorly understood science that is disputed by everyone even in the scientific community, about a topic that has become politically charged and weaponized, and all the while looking for ways to ensure funding for a problem that no one can even come to an agreement on. What good does securing one hundred billion dollars a year for the next eight years amount to, when there is no hard, properly defined plan of actually addressing what is being regarded as a problem, or for how to go about wisely utilizing such funding?

Whenever the call is for more and more funding, it means the operation is nothing more than a sham. They have no actual solutions to offer up, they are merely milking the matter for all they can out of greed and self-serving notions.

 

A couple of new studies out are making a very reasonable case that ALL GLOBAL WARMING is in fact man made. But not in the traditional sense. The observation is that all observed warming occurs around man made heat islands, that the temperature records from them. The influence looks to be somewhere in a range from 3C to 10C compared to non urbanized heat islands. Similarly, when these heat islands are transferred into the broader data set of non urbanized recordings, these records tend to inordinately skew the data. Even the "smoothing" still trends the overall towards a functional warming. And yet, for those stations outside of the effects of the heat islands, the observed trending is cooling. On all continents. Irrespective of CO2 saturation.

 

Obviously, the trend line suggests that the polar ice extent will continue to grow, right? Does that mean you withdraw your own NOAA data? NASA Data? This seems truly problematic for you.

 

i doubt you've read it and from your comments about the accord

i don't think you have a clue how it works or what it's doing

ever heard of the 'acid-rain program'?

it means you aren't being honest

 

In what way? Your own graph shows an ever increasing ice extent. You were the one who cherry picked the data point, which frankly is also rapidly improving towards the trend line (FYI), so which is it? Does the trend line need to be observed as the prediction, or are you now only interested in the point observation? You seem to be the only one attempting to be dishonest here.

 

you're parroting the same nonsense and using the same tactics as big-oil lobbyists

 

Wow, you continue with logical fallacy and activist memes for your arguments. Hilarious. Don't worry, I know you will not be capable of understanding this.

 

Laughable. Insert boogie man specter here.... The problem here is that you simply don't know the facts, and have a limited emotional attachment to a narrative you find appealing. Facts don't matter to you. Science doesn't matter to you. Only the belief in your narrative which then requires you to appeal to the boogieman specter to reinforce your own belief. Classic.

 

Indeed it has been heard of. And it largely amounts to nothing more than corporations paying fines and fees for operating in the manner that they do, all based on the notion of funding supposedly fixing all problems that are encountered. If a corporation pollutes more than others, they simply pay more in the way of penalties, because the penalties cost less than compliance. It is no different than the Ford manufacturing company choosing to leave the design defects of the Pinto motor vehicle in place, because settling the wrongful death suits was determined to be more cost effective than the eleven dollar investment necessary for actually fixing the problems that led to the deaths in the first place.

 

While the posts made by yourself convey all the integrity of a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum over not getting their way, in the hopes that their screaming fit will get them what they want.

Nothing of substance has been presented on the part of yourself. You are asked question, you instead point to articles because of an inability to articulate the matter. You claim others are merely parroting the intellectual dishonesty of corporations, but you fail to even demonstrate just how the points being raised are dishonest. Merely claiming dishonesty is not actual proof of dishonesty, and the onus is on yourself to demonstrate that your objections are accurate.

Everything presented boils down to little more than seeking more funding from corporations that hold human life in very little regard. The Ford manufacturing company concluded that a human life was not worth eleven dollars of their profits, why should any other corporation be regarded as having any more integrity?

 

what a joke, lobbyists and their dupes abound, just look around

jay lehr is a convicted fraud, later he became the science-director at the 'heartland institute'

"In the 1990s, Heartland worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health regulations. Starting in 2008, Heartland has organized conferences to question the scientific opinion of global warming."

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil." *

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...&q=The Inquisition of Climate Science&f=false



* https://books.google.com/books?id=5...&q=The Inquisition of Climate Science&f=false

 

again with the jokes, i'm laughing at your nonsense

 

Thus, once again affirming as fact, that there are no actual answers to be presented on the part of yourself. You attack the one presenting the message, rather than addressing the message itself.

 

I have nowhere else to look but to your own citations. So, are you now suggesting that your own citations are suspect? You seem to want to now deflect away from your obvious misunderstanding of the data you're attempting to represent. And how you're aggressively engaging in ad hominem? Doesn't seem to induce any further credibility of your comments or tactics. You might as well be screaming "devil" while holding a writhing snake...

 

the dozens of answers i've been giving, say you're not honest

my citations are reliable, your questions are dishonest, as i've shown, over and over

 

Nothing has been presented on the part of yourself except insults, dismissals of points as being nothing more than dishonesty by corporations, and citations of articles when pressed for details that are apparently absent on the part of yourself.

 

as my comment demonstrates, your claim is completely false

these aren't insults

 

And yet when pressed for answers, for articulation to explain talking points, and demonstrate that they have more validity than the concept of victory gardens and bomb shelters, there is nothing but silence on the part of yourself, and citations of articles that do nothing but provide the same talking points that are being questioned. It is apparent that the matter is not understood by yourself. Nothing is being done by yourself except proclaim that you are correct by the mere virtue of being correct, despite evidence to the contrary. Nothing has been presented by yourself other than what you have been told to repeat by others. You have wasted more time trying to discredit the counterpoints that have been raised, than what would have spent in simply answering the questions directly.

 

what a joke, try reading back through the pages

you're just trying to revive old circular-arguments that were already refuted

 

They have already been read through. And, once again, nothing of actual substance has been presented.

Then actually go about laying the claims to rest, rather than engaging in the current pattern of behavior and engagement. Nothing is being presented on the part of yourself, other than proof of lacking an understanding of the matter, and an inability to answer difficult questions being presented to yourself.

 

your comments don't reflect the trtuh