MLD Woody Posted January 27, 2019 Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 A 90 year old man that's never studied the climate that won a Nobel prize 45 years ago... Expert We've covered your list of "scientists" dozens of fucking times. I could be on that list for Christ's sake. You are incapable of retaining new information. And heaven forbid that new information conflicts with your political party's agenda. If someone else on here wants to take the time and explain why the list of nonsense you vomit onto this board is misleading or incorrect, more power to them. I've done it on here enough times and it just goes in one of your ears and out the other. It's a shame scientific issues get politicized. It's a shame our county is so scientifically illiterate. Politicians manipulating voters against what the actual experts have found. Smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 27, 2019 Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 Look at cal still referencing the "poll" taken years ago of climate "experts" who hold phd's in shit psychology and child developnent, or a myriad of unrelated fields. Ive posted links to real fucking climate scientists who worked at prestigious research institutions decades ago when there was butt fucking zero financial incentives to do so. Men who gave the most productive years of their lives making often less than what teachers make. Shitting on them because their conclusions were politically and economixally incinvenient, is some if the most disgusting tripe on earth commirted by factual lowlifes on par with the lowest forms of life on earth. Ive said numerous times how much we affect climate is a discussion to be had but one side, diesnt even want that. Nope, humans cant possibly affect our climate because as im sitting here on my couch with zero education and intellectual background, this hot girl on tv with nice legs is telling me its bunk. And i love how thos cold weather snaps are being used to discredit GW. Despite people telling us for decades that the perturbations in the jet stream caused by our emissions would cause that fuck u running in the mouth cold air from the arctic that gets kept up there by the jetstream....to come cascading south. No we're not going to acknowledge that....🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 hours ago, MLD Woody said: We've covered your list of "scientists" dozens of fucking times. I could be on that list for Christ's sake. You are incapable of retaining new information. And heaven forbid that new information conflicts with your political party's agenda. If someone else on here wants to take the time and explain why the list of nonsense you vomit onto this board is misleading or incorrect, more power to them. I've done it on here enough times and it just goes in one of your ears and out the other. It's a shame scientific issues get politicized. It's a shame our county is so scientifically illiterate. Politicians manipulating voters against what the actual experts have found. Smh and every single time it's pointed out that when you diss all those hundreds, even thousands of scientists, asswhole woodypeckerhead, you are actually dissing yourself too, when you keep "authoritatively" demanding you are an "expert" on mmgw. By you own emtional knee jerk retorts - you should just keep quiet on the subject - you got nothin but being all wet-feathered in Egypt. and who POLITICIZED IT ? your leftwing scum socialist movement. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 furthermore, she is a world-recognized CLIMATE SCIENTIST. https://www.spectator.com.au/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/ ‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry inte It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis. Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur. ‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do. Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear. In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise. Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C. This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’ Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications. Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’ Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’ She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’ David Rose writes for the Mail on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming | Politics ... https://www.usnews.com › Civic › Politics Oct 7, 2009 - Noted geologist says Earth needs more, not less, carbon dioxide to feed plant life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 Global Warming: New Study Says Models Exaggerate Warming By Up ... https://www.investors.com/politics/.../global-warming-computer-models-co2-emission... Apr 25, 2018 - ... far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. ... The planet will warm from human activity, but not nearly enough to ... Climate Scientists Mount Misleading Attack On IBD Editorial About Global Warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 whatever effect co2 does have, it is so tiny that the corrupt leftwing UN based politics are seen clearer and clearer. I've been winning this debate since ole leftwing sheply was screaming about how gore was his "god" and we were all going to die in ten years. I think that was twenty years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: and every single time it's pointed out that when you diss all those hundreds, even thousands of scientists, asswhole woodypeckerhead, you are actually dissing yourself too, when you keep "authoritatively" demanding you are an "expert" on mmgw. By you own emtional knee jerk retorts - you should just keep quiet on the subject - you got nothin but being all wet-feathered in Egypt. and who POLITICIZED IT ? your leftwing scum socialist movement. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. It really is amazing you continue to take your ignorance to new heights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: It really is amazing you continue to take your ignorance to new heights. Well don't worry, we've only got 12 more years anyway. So in 11 and a half you can tell him "I told you so!" WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 29 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: Well don't worry, we've only got 12 more years anyway. So in 11 and a half you can tell him "I told you so!" WSS Wouldn't be a typical Steve response if it didn't include putting words in my mouth ... smh #NukeThePoliBoard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Wouldn't be a typical Steve response if it didn't include putting words in my mouth ... smh #NukeThePoliBoard Blow me. You don't have the balls to say what you mean so just STFU. 🧚♂️ WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 4 hours ago, MLD Woody said: It really is amazing you continue to take your ignorance to new heights. you are like Tex - you have nothing to show how right you are, except your warped emotions on subjects. emotional knee jerkie.it's what all real liberals do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 9 hours ago, MLD Woody said: Wouldn't be a typical Steve response if it didn't include putting words in my mouth ... smh #NukeThePoliBoard By the way the 12 year remark came from your girl Cortez you self-important little turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: By the way the 12 year remark came from your girl Cortez you self-important little turd. Never been "my girl", never been my remark But I understand this is all easier for you if you just assume they are.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 28 minutes ago, MLD Woody said: Never been "my girl", never been my remark But I understand this is all easier for you if you just assume they are.... I'm sure you forgot your post squealing about her replacing your boy David Hogg as the target of the right-wingers here. And again it was her remark and nobody ever said it was yours. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 28, 2019 Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: I'm sure you forgot your post squealing about her replacing your boy David Hogg as the target of the right-wingers here. And again it was her remark and nobody ever said it was yours. WSS You literally just tried attributing it to me... And pointing out the boogeyman obsession of some on here doesn't mean I agree with everything those boogeymen say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 28, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: Never been "my girl", never been my remark I see a woodpecker turd flopping around in deep river water in Egypt. ASK THE BIRD FOLKS: Why don't woodpeckers take baths? capecod.wickedlocal.com/article/20101021/NEWS/310219362 Oct 21, 2010 - Other birds bathe frequently, but not woodpeckers. ... When a flock of starlings hit a birdbath, water splashes everywhere, looking like a blender ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Meanwhile in australia, cause we have to remind the old and feeble that murica is not the center of the universe.... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/climate/global-warming-extreme-weather.html?emc=edit_na_20190130&nl=breaking-news&nlid=9687434ing-news&ref=cta&fbclid=IwAR1lGqXSzMG378p-NrAoDcDSqQpUTzxdidUsJehIh4B_c-Uqpo-C5YR0gwI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 To recap, again for the old and senile....steve, cal this is for u.........just cause ders alot o dat der cold stuff and such deez days........doesnt mean warming isnt happening globally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 30, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 https://pjmedia.com/trending/record-cold-forces-rethink-on-global-warming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 14 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: https://pjmedia.com/trending/record-cold-forces-rethink-on-global-warming/ An article on a conservative website Referencing cold across the world without any data Written by a Dr in geography Along with a mechanical engineer That is part of the ICSC A deceptively legit sounding group of climate skeptics That received funding from the Heartland Institute A conservative think tank ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 33 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: https://pjmedia.com/trending/record-cold-forces-rethink-on-global-warming/ record cold here in the U.S, record heat on the other side of the globe where it's summer. Think outside your immediate environment. The record cold for us is coming from the arctic that doesn't have the Jetstream anymore to contain that cold. That's why we're getting it. Globally, it's warming. Period. Extreme cold and heat snaps will be the norm from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Have any of you read this? It's a must if you want to have this conversation. I'm just not getting the impression anyone has. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 51 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said: record cold here in the U.S, record heat on the other side of the globe where it's summer. Think outside your immediate environment. The record cold for us is coming from the arctic that doesn't have the Jetstream anymore to contain that cold. That's why we're getting it. Globally, it's warming. Period. Extreme cold and heat snaps will be the norm from now on. And then, in 12 years, death to everyone. Should be enough for the Browns to get to the Superbowl and hopefully for Mark lewisohn to finish the Beatles biography. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 22 minutes ago, htownbrown said: Have any of you read this? It's a must if you want to have this conversation. I'm just not getting the impression anyone has. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ anything that has "chapters" and a "glossary" at the end, is probably a nonstarter here. Are the cliffs available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said: anything that has "chapters" and a "glossary" at the end, is probably a nonstarter here. Are the cliffs available? I'm sure there is, but you can't take in the utter amount of bullsh!t the media has been printing without the details. Only on this particular subject have I seen talking points qualified with "low/medium confidence" and presented as "proof" of something in the media. It used to be called an educated guess, but now....it's a modern day "fact." That's not to say all possible assertions are incorrect, it's just no where close to settled science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just for context, how many headlines have said the exact opposite of this statement? Tropical cyclones:"Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trendin the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cccjwh Posted January 30, 2019 Report Share Posted January 30, 2019 The stupidity of some Americans is embarrassing. Go through link below and just look at how many of the record high temperatures are after 2000, most in the last 5 years. Then looks at all record low temperatures and how most are before 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records But hey the ocean temperature going higher too, but NASA is part of the deep state so that can't be true and it's cold where I live so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.