In other words "Please give me attention. Please?"

1/20/2017 2:33:21 PM

Dude thinks calling Climate change a religion is "competent posting," meanwhile we have 85 pages systematically debunking Anthony Watts blog posts which I doubt he'll bother to read.

[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 2:40 PM. Reason : But isn't that Trumpkins in a nutshell, dismissing sober analysis for hashtags and 140 characters]

1/20/2017 2:39:25 PM

I was gonna say ya'll should take notes from the 2008 posts ITT, people could actually argue back then. Whatever ya'll were bumping this with was garbage tho

"You're a DENIER" = religion

1/20/2017 2:42:06 PM

We haven't had a denier post anything more scientific than Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, or Dick Christy blog posts in probably at least 5 years, all of which are typically easily debunked with a basic understanding of statistics or occasionally a quick google search to see what legitimate scientist are saying. The fact that you've never produced anything that could be construed as science is telling. Hard to make real arguments in under 140 characters.

1/20/2017 2:50:26 PM

Quote :

" The fact that you've never produced anything that could be construed as science is telling"

I haven't made a scientific argument ITT because when the debate has pivoted from something that can be disproven (Global warming) to something that cannot be disproven (The climate changes) it is pointless.

Until there are actual tangible problems and actual proposed solutions the climate change debate is pointless.

In the meantime I'm happy to point out that the alarmists simply want attention, money, power, etc... aka argue the politics of it.

1/20/2017 3:04:35 PM

Ahahahahaha patented conservative semantics argument. I can't see too well, is that you aaronburro???

"if I'm not allowed to set the definitions of all words used in a debate then I won't participate and instead I'll sit back and throw bombs."

Followed by: Baghdad Bob flat denial that anything is going on

Followed by: scaremongering about liberals coming to take everything you hold dear argument.


You really are a vapid idiot aren't you?

1/20/2017 3:16:15 PM

Climate Change Page on whitehouse.gov is gone.

1/20/2017 3:34:04 PM

A vapid idiot would cry about a problem without being able to first define the problem and suggest a solution.

Quote :

"if I'm not allowed to set the definitions of all words used in a debate"

lol. The liberal global warming argument is like a college essay that realized it was shit halfway though and changed the thesis mid paper. The climate is CHANGING, can't disprove that, can you? See I was right! What a hypothesis.

^ So is the section claiming the ACA was working. lol

[Edited on January 20, 2017 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2017 3:39:17 PM

^^I'm sure this is a leftist clickbait website, but the claim can easily be verified

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315284-white-house-climate-change-webpage-disappears-after-trumps

1/20/2017 3:43:03 PM

It is leftist clickbait

1/20/2017 3:45:38 PM

No, a vapid idiot thinks changing the terminology from global warming to climate change suddenly changes all the debates and facts within the science. It doesn't, no one cares what you call it so long as you recognize the role of greenhouse gases in climate.

The absolute worst part is you don't recognize that WE HAD TO CHANGE IT TO CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE ASSHATS LIKE YOU WERE POINTING TO CHILLY OUTSIDE TEMPERATURES AS EVIDENCE THAT "global warming" IS FALSE.

The title was literally changed because of the lowest common denominator idiots like yourself.

1/20/2017 3:49:15 PM

You cried wolf, and people saw through it. Years later you have to change your argument to "wolves exist". You made the adjustment because the stupidity is on your side.

I don't care about arguing over miniscule temperature changes I care about problems and solutions. You can say "science" as much as you want, but this issue is all about government control and money right now.

1/20/2017 4:17:32 PM

Must..rewrite..history..to save.. muh..narrative.

Newsflash: Technically the global average temperature is still increasing, so global warming is fine as a term.

But I see what's really going on here. You have no scientific arguments and you know you are out matched ITT because you are either dumb as a clay bank or have never taken the time to branch out from the "science" section on Buttbart. So instead you gotta start this weak semantics argument, it's plain as day.

Why don't you read this thread and when you are caught up I'll come back and maybe we can have some intelligent back and forth.

1/20/2017 4:29:21 PM

Actually, you can thank conservative Frank Luntz for suggesting the terminology change from global warming to climate change. (But...but...muh narrative! - JCE)

Quote :

""The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation. "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. "Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". "

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

1/20/2017 4:29:54 PM

I know you leftists get erect when you see a temperature graph and think you are finally wearing your big boy pants and talking "science"... but like I said, none of the changes matter until you can point to an actual problem happening with an actual solution.

In case this is too complex for you I will summarize: I'm not arguing about a temperature change, I'm arguing about a MEANINGFUL change that actually AFFECTS something. I'm not denying your pages of super smart temperature science charts, I'm saying nobody gives a fuck. Drive your Prius and pat yourself on the back, until the sea level actually rises nobody gives a fuck.

1/20/2017 8:57:18 PM

So when the US military/intelligence releases report after report detailing how climate change could threaten "national security and international stability," that's not really a problem?

1/21/2017 7:34:30 AM

Quote :

" Drive your Prius and pat yourself on the back, until the sea level actually rises nobody gives a fuck."

sea level has been rising for 8k years. which is weird because the coal was still in the ground for 97.5% of that time.

i bet if we make energy prices really high and keep poor people poor it will be all better tho

1/21/2017 7:48:10 AM

^This is exactly what I'm talking about, dismissing sober analysis for 140 character arguments.


you can't reason with that.

1/21/2017 7:59:09 AM

Just look to Bangladesh for recent changes to its current sea level.

Also, why would climate change policies keep poor people poor? I thought that they were just thinly veiled attempts at wealth transfer to underdeveloped nations.

[Edited on January 21, 2017 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2017 3:33:42 PM

^high energy prices affect poor people the most.

^^true, people will believe a simple wrong explanation over the correct one they cant understand about every time. e.g. religion

1/22/2017 6:01:12 AM

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf

New NOAA update on sea level rise projections in the US. Looks like NC might be right on the edge of an area projected to have higher than average sea level rise, a 0.3-0.5 m increase over the global mean.

1/24/2017 8:16:02 PM

Quote :

"Climate Change Page on whitehouse.gov is gone."

For the record, that wasn't Trump's doing.
http://www.snopes.com/white-house-web-site-trump-changes/

1/24/2017 8:46:46 PM

Totten glacier in the news again. The more data that gets pulled from Antarctica, the worse the news seems.
https://www.nature.com/news/antarctica-s-sleeping-ice-giant-could-wake-soon-1.21808?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews

4/12/2017 10:10:40 PM

^ the Trumpist solution is to stop pulling data, duh

4/12/2017 10:24:02 PM

No no no

We send a bunch of ice cubes from America up to the Antarctic. It'll be great because these ice cubes - and they will be cubes, will be the best ice cubes ever made. And they'll be made here in America. Sent up there by American ships, powered by beautiful American diesel. We'll dump these ice cubes - and there'll be a lot of them, into the water up there. It'll cool the water down tremendously.

4/12/2017 10:50:27 PM

RSS satellite data (the favorite data set for deniers) gets some new revisions:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
Finds a 30% higher warming trend

6/30/2017 4:06:42 PM

Quote :

"So when the US military/intelligence releases report after report detailing how climate change could threaten "national security and international stability," that's not really a problem?"

Bingo.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/Implications_for_US_National_Security_of_Anticipated_Climate_Change.pdf

Oops, I forgot. This is the work of the 'Deep State.' By that, I mean the 'soon to be deep underwater state.'

[Edited on June 30, 2017 at 4:29 PM. Reason : a]

6/30/2017 4:28:50 PM

Ummm, that's something the military would do regardless of human impact on the climate. It's called being prepared for all scenarios. Pretty sure they've got a plan for a hostile alien invasion as well, but does that mean they believe in aliens?

7/5/2017 8:44:04 AM

Did you just really use Because Aliens as a defense against climate change?

7/5/2017 10:10:56 AM

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602821

Further refinements to climate models. Our understanding of the time-scales associated with different forcings keeps growing, increasing the accuracy of models. This particular study suggests climate sensitivity will grow in the coming years.

7/5/2017 7:10:59 PM

Has anyone done any type of study regarding how much damage potential we have, as far as putting CO2 in the atmosphere, in relation to the amount of known reserves of fossil fuels?

In other words , how much potential damage we could do be before we exhaust our supplies?

7/14/2017 12:51:12 PM

Of course we know how much we are burning and how much emissions that causes and have good estimates about how much is left in our reserves but the answer to that question isn't relevant because we would reach runaway methane release well before running out of fossil fuels.

According to the best models, at our current rate, we would "run out" around 2100 but by then, CO2 would be at 1200ppm. The IPCC goal for preventing catastrophic warming is keeping it under 550ppm.

Your question is like asking how much damage could be done to your liver by drinking all of the whiskey in a distillery.

7/14/2017 7:25:36 PM

Sinkoles in FL swallowing up houses.

#thankstrump
#saveparis
#climatocalypse

7/14/2017 7:54:56 PM

^^&^^^you haven't been paying attention if you think there's some sort of linear relationship between the earth's temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration. That's not how it works.

7/20/2017 8:57:43 AM

This video is fucking scary.

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/1445658785521175/

Trump and his supporters would like to see all those people drown.

8/3/2017 6:38:03 PM

Quote :

"^^&^^^you haven't been paying attention if you think there's some sort of linear relationship between the earth's temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration. That's not how it works. "

Who said anything about a linear relationship?

8/3/2017 7:05:45 PM

Quote :

"Ummm, that's something the military would do regardless of human impact on the climate. It's called being prepared for all scenarios. Pretty sure they've got a plan for a hostile alien invasion as well, but does that mean they believe in aliens?"

Did you read the link I posted or just comment because you saw "dni.gov" and assume it was a "what if" scenario?

Page three:

Quote :

"Implications for US National Security of Anticipated Climate Change Key Points Long-term changes in climate will produce more extreme weather events and put greater stress on critical Earth systems like oceans, freshwater, and biodiversity. These in turn will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years. These effects will be all the more pronounced as people continue to concentrate in climate-vulnerable locations, such as coastal areas, water-stressed regions, and ever-growing cities. "

That is the language of someone who believes it.

8/3/2017 7:33:55 PM

hey hey hey did you guys hear about Al Gore?

Dude spends more energy in one year than the average house hold does in 21.

And he's worth $300Bn because you idiots are suckas!

I honestly can't believe the hypocrisy on the...

nm...I can totally believe it.

8/3/2017 7:51:47 PM

no human on the planet is worth $100 billion, let alone $300 billion

8/3/2017 9:44:11 PM

^
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/financier-bill-browder-says-vladimir-putin-is-worth-200-billion.html

8/3/2017 10:39:55 PM

Hahhahahah, kdogg is such a parody.

I just posted something the other day about this when people were bitching about Bernie not being homeless.

Quote :

"Nice. Reminds me of the AL GORE USES ELECTRICITY SO HOW CAN HE LECTURE IS ABOUT FOSSIL FUELS arguments. "

8/4/2017 6:37:00 AM

guy is unhinged

8/4/2017 10:40:56 AM

Quote :

"per source, WH has confirmed they will rescind Obama order that flood-prone infrastructure be built with sea-level rise in mind"

fucking insane

8/15/2017 1:09:01 PM

Just going to leave this here:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

8/15/2017 3:09:00 PM

^^care to explain why? The empirical, measured data, shows no sea level rise acceleration. It's been slowly rising at the same rate since the mid 1800s. Overreacting to that information would be the only thing insane about it.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 9:07 AM. Reason : ]

8/17/2017 9:05:03 AM

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/

how in the world would you consider planning on something, based on data, insane?

infrastructure planning is made with the future in mind. it makes absolutely no sense to not plan something, long term, without taking things like sea-level rise into consideration.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2017 10:44:10 AM

http://www.wral.com/epa-chief-says-administration-to-roll-back-climate-plan/17004378/

Quote :

""The war on coal is over," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared in the coal mining state of Kentucky."

10/9/2017 11:56:41 AM

^^from your own link.



Not really much going on here.

[Edited on October 9, 2017 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/9/2017 4:49:28 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/06/the-most-accurate-climate-change-models-predict-the-most-alarming-consequences-study-claims/?utm_term=.75df8bbbcc9a

Yet another occasion that, after further review, suggests the more alarmist models are probably more accurate than "the central estimates" that most of us previously accepted.

12/8/2017 10:53:40 AM

Quote :

"Attn: Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. The act would require the Pentagon to do a report on how military installations and overseas staff may be vulnerable to climate change over the next 20 years. The following language was included in the act: "Climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for future conflict exist." We are wondering if he read the act? However, we will take the victory!"

-Alt National Park Service

12/14/2017 8:23:22 AM