Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

Nevermind, Opera kicks ass.

Lol. The troll is stong with this one.

Puts in more effort to show people think he is a troll than actually backing up his stupid claims

[nando]

no it's responsible for crazy weather, even though thee has been a reduction in extreme weather events worldwide

more total nonsense from GWB

the insurance companies that pay for the natural disasters say otherwise, but I guess they're part of your global conspiracy too. I even posted a couple links a while back to an extensive report by major insurance companies that discussed the large increase in extreme weather events and how much more it's costing them to cover, and what they can do to mitigate the financial damage.

[gwb72tii]

this is required reading
and you all clamor for "peer review"
here it is

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/

[gwb72tii]

more total nonsense from GWB

the insurance companies that pay for the natural disasters say otherwise, but I guess they're part of your global conspiracy too. I even posted a couple links a while back to an extensive report by major insurance companies that discussed the large increase in extreme weather events and how much more it's costing them to cover, and what they can do to mitigate the financial damage.

you really need to research before you post

[nando]

you're right, you're probably much better at researching and assesing risks due to extreme weather than the multi-billion dollar insurance companies. I'm such an idiot!

[nando]

this is required reading
and you all clamor for "peer review"
here it is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/3...ogenic-or-not/

you should have a default post heading that says "here is a link to a conspiracy blog website".

looks like the same circle jerk of people from all the different conspiracy blogs you like to post.

[gwb72tii]

you should have a default post heading that says "here is a link to a conspiracy blog website".

looks like the same circle jerk of people from all the different conspiracy blogs you like to post.

are you related to rwh? maybe his twin?

read the post. the only place any of you will find someone outside the incestuous circle you belong to is what you'd call crackpot websites.

burying your head in the sand doesn't help your understanding of the science.

you want to disagree with the science in the article, pick it apart if you care to try and we'll see if you make any rational arguments

[Farbin Kaiber]

Maybe that report was based on charts from 1985-2005?

[Fusion]

Since skeptics in this thread are not allowed to use terms such as "circle jerk" or "conspiracy blog" without being accused of being ignorant, trolls, idiots, senile, science haters, I would expect any further discussion related to gwb's link be a highly sophisticated explination of why the scientist working 40 years in the field is wrong.
Please proceed.

[nando]

are you related to rwh? maybe his twin?

read the post. the only place any of you will find someone outside the incestuous circle you belong to is what you'd call crackpot websites.

burying your head in the sand doesn't help your understanding of the science.

you want to disagree with the science in the article, pick it apart if you care to try and we'll see if you make any rational arguments

I read the post. It's more of the same drivel. and the author of the "science" paper reccomends.. oh wait, more conspiracy blogs!

does't look like a scientific article to me, but more of an opinion peice.. oh wait, it's a blog site!

[nando]

Maybe that report was based on charts from 1985-2005?

you talking about the chart he posted? It looks to go to about 2005-2006.

and in any case, hurricanes aren't the only example of extreme weather. How much data do you think the insurance companies have vs one chart that GWB has posted?

[Farbin Kaiber]

you really need to research before you post

you talking about the chart he posted? It looks to go to about 2005-2006.

and in any case, hurricanes aren't the only example of extreme weather. How much data do you think the insurance companies have vs one chart that GWB has posted?

No, it looks like it goes from 1910 to 2012, but maybe my uneducated in the "Climate Sciences Chart-Making 101" self cannot accurately read charts.

[nando]

you're right, but my point still stands.

[herbivor]

you really need to research before you post

Can you explain the graph to me? What does it represent exactly? And after you explain what it represents, let me know exactly how it justifies whatever your opinion is of it. I am curious if you even know what you are looking at. Also, assuming the source is the NOAA, why would you put any faith in the graph, considering the NOAA holds the position that global warming is anthropogenic?

[BraveUlysses]

you want to disagree with the science in the article, pick it apart if you care to try and we'll see if you make any rational arguments

Why would we do this yet again? You've made this kind of statement no less than a dozen times and every single time you ignore whatever replies you get.

You've cried wolf too many times. Why would anyone keep trying to convince you of anything when every post you make about this subject is so intellectually dishonest?