I know conservatives that believe and liberals that don't.
Condescending? Self-righteous pride?
Hypocrisy.
Run back to Fox News now...
Condescending? Self-righteous pride?
Hypocrisy.
Run back to Fox News now...
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
Wait...are you proving my point or yours?
Whichever one helps you to rest at night.
I heard Jesus is going to be defending gun rights on Fox News and explaining how killing innocents is totally different from abortion.
You don't want to miss that.
I heard Jesus is going to be defending gun rights on Fox News and explaining how killing innocents is totally different from abortion.
You don't want to miss that.
...yeah i don't think he was referring to you specifically but i think we can all see just how well that shoe fits.
https://youtu.be/C5AUOWNg_sE
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM
bozo
...lol, just for shits and giggles...
Oh shit...so now what? I am supposed to get into some back on forth bitch fest with you? I just love these internet though guys. I have nothing more for you. Take care.
Nice !
From the perspective of a non-scientist (me)....I reckon that the seas/oceans should stop being used as a garbage dump for plastics and dangerous chemicals. That I have seen and know it to not be good. Trying to clean up that clear and present environmental danger would be a good start.
Being able to gauge how much C02 is being released globally, and the affects there-of I cannot see.
So whether the whole 'climate change, global warming' thing is a real concern or not for humanity is not directly evident within our own societies to the average Joe, especially since right now we are going thru quite a cold winter.
I have listened to the arguments on both sides of the climate change debate and come to the conclusion that IF climate change is happening at the rate the top scientists are reporting, then the cataclysmic effects from climate change they mostly predict will not happen till long after I am dead and gone, so that makes it kinda difficult to know if it is actually happening, unless we rely on the predictions of the scientists.
Of course it should be a concern for any of us to know if this planet will be habitable by humanity, even after we pass on (particularly those of us with kids/living relatives and friends.)
Being able to gauge how much C02 is being released globally, and the affects there-of I cannot see.
So whether the whole 'climate change, global warming' thing is a real concern or not for humanity is not directly evident within our own societies to the average Joe, especially since right now we are going thru quite a cold winter.
I have listened to the arguments on both sides of the climate change debate and come to the conclusion that IF climate change is happening at the rate the top scientists are reporting, then the cataclysmic effects from climate change they mostly predict will not happen till long after I am dead and gone, so that makes it kinda difficult to know if it is actually happening, unless we rely on the predictions of the scientists.
Of course it should be a concern for any of us to know if this planet will be habitable by humanity, even after we pass on (particularly those of us with kids/living relatives and friends.)
Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.
Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.
The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by climate alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of these papers, for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on climate and weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation patterns.
The second position questions the allegedly “unprecedented” nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers suggested that these events fall within the range of natural variability, while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels...
...just sayin'.
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.
Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.
The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by climate alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of these papers, for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on climate and weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation patterns.
The second position questions the allegedly “unprecedented” nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers suggested that these events fall within the range of natural variability, while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels...
...just sayin'.
And the fact that the land underneath glaciers rises when the glaciers melt is just as silly as a surface going down when weight is added.
No argument from me, it would be a silly exercise in futility. It is not stupidity, much brainpower is needed to avoid viewing true facts.
But simple uncomplicated cause and effect seem to me to be very very hard to pretend doesn't exist.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732
Hope it prints, it shows 22,000 years of climate change.
!
!
global temps
global temps
as the thread has evolved to a bit more than just north pole pics
seems time to up the science a little more
so global temperature map and comments courtesy of NOAA
November
November 2017 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
November 2017 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
During November 2017, warmer-than-average temperatures dominated across much of the world's land and ocean surfaces, with the most notable temperature departures from average across the Northern Hemisphere. Parts of the western contiguous U.S., northern Canada, northern and western Alaska, western Asia and Far Eastern Russia had temperature departures from average that were +2.0°C (+3.6°F) or greater. Record warmth was limited to the southwestern contiguous U.S., the oceans off the southeastern coast of Australia, and scattered across parts of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, western Pacific Ocean, and across parts of southern Asia. Meanwhile, near- to cooler-than-average conditions were present across much of Canada, central Asia, and the eastern and central tropical Pacific Ocean. No land or ocean areas had record cold temperatures during November 2017. According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, South America and Asia had their 10th highest November temperature in the 108-year continental records. Meanwhile, Africa had its lowest temperature departure from average since 2011.
The combined global average temperature over the land and ocean surfaces for November 2017 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This value tied with 2016 as the fifth highest for November since global temperature records began in 1880. November 2017 marks the 41st consecutive November and the 395th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The 10 warmest Novembers have occurred during the 21st century. The global land and ocean temperature during November has increased at an average rate of +0.07°C (+0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1980. The global land surface temperature was the ninth highest on record at 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F).
global temps
as the thread has evolved to a bit more than just north pole pics
seems time to up the science a little more
so global temperature map and comments courtesy of NOAA
November
November 2017 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Anomalies in degrees Celsius
November 2017 Blended Land and Sea Surface
Temperature Percentiles
During November 2017, warmer-than-average temperatures dominated across much of the world's land and ocean surfaces, with the most notable temperature departures from average across the Northern Hemisphere. Parts of the western contiguous U.S., northern Canada, northern and western Alaska, western Asia and Far Eastern Russia had temperature departures from average that were +2.0°C (+3.6°F) or greater. Record warmth was limited to the southwestern contiguous U.S., the oceans off the southeastern coast of Australia, and scattered across parts of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, western Pacific Ocean, and across parts of southern Asia. Meanwhile, near- to cooler-than-average conditions were present across much of Canada, central Asia, and the eastern and central tropical Pacific Ocean. No land or ocean areas had record cold temperatures during November 2017. According to NCEI's Regional Analysis, South America and Asia had their 10th highest November temperature in the 108-year continental records. Meanwhile, Africa had its lowest temperature departure from average since 2011.
The combined global average temperature over the land and ocean surfaces for November 2017 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F). This value tied with 2016 as the fifth highest for November since global temperature records began in 1880. November 2017 marks the 41st consecutive November and the 395th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. The 10 warmest Novembers have occurred during the 21st century. The global land and ocean temperature during November has increased at an average rate of +0.07°C (+0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1980. The global land surface temperature was the ninth highest on record at 1.10°C (1.98°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F).
hahahaha Tucker Carlson getting bodied with factual information.
either people like Carlson know exactly what they're saying and are lying to the faces of the American public, or he's an actual koolaid drinker and believes this shit.
[YOUTUBEIF]I02LGkyhjFc[/YOUTUBEIF]
either people like Carlson know exactly what they're saying and are lying to the faces of the American public, or he's an actual koolaid drinker and believes this shit.
[YOUTUBEIF]I02LGkyhjFc[/YOUTUBEIF]
...typical liberal attacking the source, kinda sad though you need me to point out that while the article was indeed posted by Brietbart, the 485 scientific papers were not.
...just sayin'.
...but you keep drinking the koolaid snowflake.
bozo
Typical indeed.
Not only are you drinking kool-aid but passing it around.
Attacking a source by mentioning it?
Just mentioning a source isn't an attack.
Unless you're waiting for it.
Or the source is a right winged cesspool of propaganda.
Then it's an attack on attack.
Not only are you drinking kool-aid but passing it around.
Attacking a source by mentioning it?
Just mentioning a source isn't an attack.
Unless you're waiting for it.
Or the source is a right winged cesspool of propaganda.
Then it's an attack on attack.
...yeah, passive/aggressive, disingenuous bullshit, lol.
...so you think the mention of Brietbart in that condescendinly offhanded way wasn't an attack? ...or rather, an insult?
...and again homeslice, Brietbart didn't write a single one of the 485 scientific reports that contradict the 'Climate Change' dogma espoused by so many libtards.
...you have made yourself abundantly clear on this topic, unfortunately for you there is actual evidence to the contrary AND actual evidence that some of the data that supports the dogma was in fact faked.
...so I'm just not buying the dogma and i am not alone, at least 485 actual climatologists agree, the dogma is bullshit, lol.
...and passive/aggressive doesn't work with me, i'm a parent and a grandparent so stamping your foot and holding your breath won't work either, i'm immune to snowflakery, lol.
bozo
Condescending?
He was just sayin...
Evidence from 485 PAID scientists.
I thought paid scientists were the disingenuous.
You aren't fooling anyone but those who choose to be.
It's probably pretty cool to be part of the club.
Until you realize you were helping a machine that wants to profit off posterity.
And even then... Some people get off on that too.
Have a blast.
He was just sayin...
Evidence from 485 PAID scientists.
I thought paid scientists were the disingenuous.
You aren't fooling anyone but those who choose to be.
It's probably pretty cool to be part of the club.
Until you realize you were helping a machine that wants to profit off posterity.
And even then... Some people get off on that too.
Have a blast.
