No! Learn science. The cold is BECAUSE of global warming. The unusual (and sometimes record) cold and snow is due to warming. Sure you might think that sounds crazy, because global warming used to make winters warmer, but now it makes record cold and snow, so yes, dead people and animals from record snowfall and brutal cold is global warming.
It’s how science works. Science is always right because as things change, science changes. Now that cold is increasing, it is due to warming. It’s this sort of fluid, and quite changeable science that you can not defeat. You might be wrong, but science isn’t. Don’t deny this.
You see? Cold is due to warming, which is why it makes me sick. All those people freezing and even dead, and all the while selfish bastards and short sited people keep burning fossil fuels. Not the people here, I’m sure the ones typing day in and day out aren’t part of the problem. That’s why you should listen to them and do like they do.
And thank you for showing all that you did not pay any attention to the previous thread, if mother nature throws us a hurricane it was bound to be worse than usual thanks to all that extra matter (water vapor) and energy in the way.
But there was also a chance that things like an increase in wind shear thanks to the warming was going to work towards preventing several hurricanes from forming. As I even pointed before: it may be one of the few good things global warming can make, but as usual one data year does not make much of a difference.
Unfortunately that item, reported by climate scientists before, does not fit the sorry narrative of the deniers that claim that scientists are only alarmists, so even that item has to be denied by the clowns too.
You see how busy Gigo is? he doesn’t have time to explain the theory of global warming, or even how it’s not a theory. Scientists are busy, and explaining global warming theory is hard.
Or explaining how it’s not a theory. Either way, it’s right and you are wrong. It’s science.
Nah why should I be busy when all the lifting was made already by big orgs like NASA? What I only see is just cowards that realize that it is a tall order to discredit big guys like NASA and NOAA so the coward clowns think that it is brave to attempt to discredit a poster on a message board. Not impressed. Like Evolution AGW is a valid theory that also has facts on its side.
Well, at least you finally said something about the theory of AGW. Now give us the link to skepticalscience (or any other site) where we can read the theory. It will only take a second of your valuable time.
It just makes me sick when good people like Gigobuster have to type out volumes of text on a message board. There should be one place where all the evidence is presented, so it could be linked to. It would stop all this fighting over things.
You start by presenting the theory (which there isn’t) and then show how the evidence supports the theory (if there was one), and then science wins.
Ya got me Brazzers. I misrepresented the 97-98% from the poorly remembered cite as 95% and “climate scientist” as “the scientific community” in an earlier post.
That really shores up support for your POV. After your inspiring example, I’m sure many of the posters here will want to shove their head up their ass to see how long they can function without oxygen too.
That avoids the very heart of the issue of course. Climate (and the global energy balance) changes, it always has.
AGW theory (theory of anthropogenic global warming) predicts certain changes that show the change is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions from human beings. As well as deforestation and land use changes. It’s a vital theory in that natural climate change does not show the same signs, and it is a key point in presenting evidence for AGW. Since obviously the climate of the planet has changed a lot, including drastic changes that dwarf anything we have ever experienced, the human signal is essential to knowing if, and to what degree, human activities are changing things.
This can easily be illustrated by an example most people can grasp. (that the resident “internet agw experts” never talk about the essential facts is quite telling btw)
When monitoring a stream for flow rate, quantity, quality of the water and wildlife, certain markers reveal human activity as a cause of pollution and damage to the stream system. When these are observed we know somewhere upstream or in the atmosphere there is an Anthropogenic source. Mercury, arsenic, lead or toxic chemical compounds that don’t exist in nature are a sure sign. Acidity from the sulfur in fuels can be detected, even mud and soil can be from clear cutting forest upstream. Fertilizer runoff, oils or gasoline, even human waste (shit and piss and such) can be measured. exotic wildlife that should not be in the stream is a human cause. Radionuclides, trash, drugs, ash and charcoal from human fires, all of it is an Anthropogenic issue.
The other sources are considered natural, wild fires, volcanic dust or ash, landslides, the normal level of feces and organic waste. These can also damage a stream (or river). The important thing is, for this example, is that We can detect the difference, and know how much damage is from human activity. Be it directly upstream or a coal plant spewing mercury a hundred miles upwind. Or a leaking reactor in Fukushima. Or a medical waste processing plant. A tractor trailer full of Crisco or some kids pouring laundry detergent into the water, we can measure and know what the cause is.
For AGW theory it’s not that cut and dried, but certainly there are specific predictions and markers that tell us that a change is due to a human cause.
That the self proclaimed supporters of AGW theory don’t simply do this, but rather type out endless insults and dreary asides, that makes me sick.
While I was writing the above, which was easy as pie and took a few minutes, Gigobuster was still doing his idiot thing
It makes me sick that he is actually a paid shill who makes global warming supporters look bad. Obviously he knows almost nothing about climate science, AGW theory or how to compose a thoughtful post.
Well of course. When warmistas want to claim that lots of people agree with them, they typically are referring to a version of the theory which is watered down to the point of being practically meaningless. In short, a bait and switch.
In any discussion of a scientific claim, hypothesis, or theory, it’s totally reasonable for skeptics to demand that the proponents set forth exactly what is being claimed, hypothesized, or theorized.
And if the proponents are unable to do it, they lose at the threshold.
Well, to be clear, it’s not really going to do very much as far as killing all life on the planet; temperatures have been a LOT hotter over geological history than they’re forecast to be according to AGW.
’
However, it’ll make things uncomfortable for mankind, and in many ways, fundamentally change the geographic value of various land areas in a way not seen in history.
Please tell me 2 specific changes which will take place; summarize the evidence that they will in fact take place; and summarize the evidence that they are unprecedented.
Well, from the other side it has to be noticed that your line of thinking makes others sick.
It was used by groups that denied that tobacco smoke caused cancer, that made many sick and had to die before we realized how much that FUD from the tobacco companies was really stupid.
Same it is with the ones that this late claim that scientists are not reporting how CO2 and other global warming gases released by humans are affecting the atmosphere and the oceans.
Scientists actually do this, it is only the stupid deniers that do this, real skeptics already know all that, the only thing they quibble about (as it is the only honest thing left for them) is to report that the effects of the items already detected will not be as bad as expected. The stupid comes by claiming that the scientists are not investigating, recording and reporting about those markers and how many scientists are seeing their predictions on those markers confirmed.
As the previous post of mine showed, it is you the one that can not find a good cite to support what you say.
Everyone that looks at your link can see for themselves that you are not touching the item of who is really lying with malice about the climate scientists.
Your refusal to deal with it only confirms and certifies who is, on top of an idiot, just a coward for not making any effort to clean up or just even criticize the ones that even US judges are realizing are only defaming science and seeding FUD.