Global Warming is over.

[marshallnoise]

https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/sho...d.php?t=413896

Sleeve, George, marshall, come on guys, I'm honestly curious.

I am wrenching today. No mental unravelings today for me.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[BraveUlysses]

the story is coming undone. the earth is not warming anywhere close to what the left would have us believe (and the fact this is a political issue tells you something about the left).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...ists-k9p5hg5l0

time for a real analysis of this buillshit link you crapped out

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/possible-good-news-about-climate-change-leads-to-confused-coverage/

In The Guardian, the headline was “Ambitious 1.5C Paris climate target is still possible, new analysis shows.” But over at Breitbart, readers were told that “Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming.’” Other headlines spanned pretty much the entire range between these two. The grist for the mill was a new study published in Nature Geoscience by a group of well-known climate scientists, but different news outlets baked very different breads with it.

[BraveUlysses]

EPA is finally putting money where it matters:

EPA spending almost $25,000 to install a secure phone booth for Scott Pruitt

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/26/epa-spending-almost-25000-to-install-a-secure-phone-booth-for-scott-pruitt/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cdeb3ca595a3

gotta make sure those phone calls from oil and gas companies aren't monitored lol

[gwb72tii]

time for a real analysis of this buillshit link you crapped out

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...used-coverage/

wow, a link to another discredited hack, gavin schmidt. that's like quoting Mann or James Hansen. you can do better can't you?

[BraveUlysses]

lol, an embedded tweet discredits the whole article (that you didnt read)

[gwb72tii]

so here's an interesting analysis from someone I've never heard of, and I don't know what his position is on AGW.

That NOAA/GISS temp data doesn't necessarily show a trend when you analyze it versus a random walk analysis. The author also quotes the infamous Michael Mann.

worth a read:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mikhail-voloshin/random-walk-analysis-of-noaa-global-temperature-anomaly-data/10154721015506945/

[ForcedFirebird]

Interesting new data?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/01/new-measurement-confirms-the-ozone-is-coming-back/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2018/01/-antarctic-ozone-hole-nasa-sees-1st-direct-proof-of-recovery-33-years-after-its-discovery-.html

[ELVA164]

That's a good sign!

[mjimport]

Cool, I admit I was not familiar with much background on the Montreal protocol, even though I’m ultimately responsible for our facility’s usage of CFCs lol.

Neat story proving great things can result when the world nations work together.

[gwb72tii]

looks like deforestation may be reversing which is good, and CO2 will help

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/20/th...rest-regrowth/

[Wschnitz]

Stop

Linking

Trash

Sources

[parkerbink]

Stop

Linking

Trash

Sources

Qft but that is all he has

[gwb72tii]

Qft but that is all he has

this is all you guys have? no rebuttal about the piece itself. the daily beast is not my cup of tea, and they didn't do the research.

it is truly amazing about the crowd who has drunk the cool-aide, can't debate on science, rejects any and all information outside of their unsupported beliefs. Believes in things like consensus in science and will not allow any challenges to CAGW, which proves CAGW is not science.

**shakes head**

[Massive Lee]

this is all you guys have? no rebuttal about the piece itself. the daily beast is not my cup of tea, and they didn't do the research.

it is truly amazing about the crowd who has drunk the cool-aide, can't debate on science, rejects any and all information outside of their unsupported beliefs. Believes in things like consensus in science and will not allow any challenges to CAGW, which proves CAGW is not science.

**shakes head**

Have a read here about your "objective" source then.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Notes: The Daily Caller is an American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller produces sensational headlines and has a right wing bias in reporting and has made false claims according to Snopes and Politifact. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017)"

[gwb72tii]

snopes?? hahahaha