Global Warming is over.

[ForcedFirebird]

kinda expected this response.
So the actual NOAA measurements are wrong? You're right? Care to explain?

Your side of this argument does not hold the ethical high ground. So far basically nothing predicted, the doom and destruction, no arctic ice, none of it has come to pass. You do have models though.

4" here in Miami area since 1996

https://www.miamiwaterkeeper.org/sea_level_rise

10" in Hawaii since 1950

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03/05/sea-level-rise-threatens-coastal-communities-hawaii-state-struggles-find-solutions/

Permafrost is melting in Alaska

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a25475332/melting-permafrost-arctic-alaska-study/

https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/impactzones/alaska.html

Walrus have no place to breed/rest after feeding

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-sea-ice-walruses.html

100,000 crammed in a small piece of land due to lack of ice, falling to their deaths, even

https://www.livescience.com/65226-why-netflix-walruses-fall-off-cliffs.html

You can argue whether or not humans are the cause, but complete denial of global warming, ice melting, and sea rise? ha

[gwb72tii]

Science is wrong, trust me, here's a dudes blog to prove it.

kinda expected this response.
So the actual NOAA measurements are wrong? You're right? Care to explain?

Your side of this argument does not hold the ethical high ground. So far basically nothing predicted, the doom and destruction, no arctic ice, none of it has come to pass. You do have models though.

[cale]

Science is wrong, trust me, here's a dudes blog to prove it.

[gwb72tii]

You’re arguing without saying it that man is the cause of our planet’s warming, which is not certain, and frankly satellite data doesn’t support.
What if you’re wrong?
NOAA’s land based temperature stations do not support AGW either. This is not made up data as is the temperature "corrections" from our friends at NASA.

And for anyone with an interest, this is a good read:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/21/cooling-down-the-hysteria-about-global-warming/

[decay]

And anyone that can’t see the science and logic in the argument is blind, eh?

you haven't answered me. the economic impacts of climate change are becoming evident, even to fox news. i get that you dislike it as a narrative because it originated from the left, first, but when it comes to it impacting our country's economy, and all of our jobs-

what is left for you to defend your position on, other than it's a quasi-religion for you?

[ForcedFirebird]

https://www.businessinsider.com/so-much-co2-planting-trees-cant-save-us-2017-5?utm_content=bufferde0ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi&fbclid=IwAR3iKl6ybxaezIa9vZc7iyBRdH-x_1oqAKPQi7zw4-1GaBPbIp6k0IpqJeA

[gwb72tii]

"It was warm before so it's ok now"

It took 4 "climate scientists" to get together and come up with an argument a high school student couldn't debunk? Anyone who can't understand what's wrong with that logic is a genuinely stupid.

And anyone that can’t see the science and logic in the argument is blind, eh?

[cale]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

"It was warm before so it's ok now"

It took 4 "climate scientists" to get together and come up with an argument a high school student couldn't debunk? Anyone who can't understand what's wrong with that logic is a genuinely stupid.

[decay]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5971098994001/

your own mouthpieces have turned on you, gwb.

[gwb72tii]

this might interest some:

https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU

[cale]

For anyone interested in science, please refer to some unemployed lawyers blog that looks like it just stepped out of the 90s.

k.

[gwb72tii]

At the risk of triggering Cale, I found this:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog?tag=Scientific+Fraud

For anyone interested in the subject of anthropogenic global warming, where the trace gas CO2 is now a pollutant, it is a worthy read.
The cause of global warming is solved.

[saucers]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

Stop regurgitating Alex Epstein, he's a known Koch shill

[cale]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

Great, you've now explained something to people who already understood it. Do you actually think anyone who's been vocal in this thread is unaware of this? Maybe you can share some more gems that everyone else learned in the 8th grade which you're just stumbling on now.

[gwb72tii]

and my comment about climate hypotheses being wrong, from a Nobel Laureate physicist, Richard Feynman, who was I believe apolitical, about how science is supposed to work:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is . . .  If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.