Global Warming is over.

[parkerbink]

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**

You post nothing but bullshit and have the audacity to act like you are the injured party when just told to go home and get your shine box?

Give me your paypal, I'll send you 1.00 towards your purchase of a clue.

[Massive Lee]

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.

Are you talking about yourself here?

[cale]

snopes?? hahahaha

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**

Pretty sad when your second post is easily dismissed by your first.

My article can beat up your article.

[marshallnoise]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

It's sad that you guys just poopoo an article that took research and effort to draw conclusions from simply because the place it was posted is a place you don't like.

It reeks of group think.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[gwb72tii]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...50563/abstract

It's sad that you guys just poopoo an article that took research and effort to draw conclusions from simply because the place it was posted is a place you don't like.

It reeks of group think.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Thank you

Anybody that believes in consensus in science is completely ignorant of the scientific method

[cale]

Look up the definition of consensus, it doesn't mean complete agreement by all parties.

You love them buzzwords eh? The only time I hear hear words like consensus and settled being used, they're being used by deniers to tell others that those things aren't happening. Funny

[marshallnoise]

Look up the definition of consensus, it doesn't mean complete agreement by all parties.

You love them buzzwords eh? The only time I hear hear words like consensus and settled being used, they're being used by deniers to tell others that those things aren't happening. Funny

Ok, I am glad you understand that there isn't any consensus about global warming.

You are confusing consensus with GENERAL consensus. That is the context that AGW folks use to castigate "deniers." Worse, general consensus is masquerading as unequivocal proof of AGW and that is dishonest at a minimum.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[cale]

I didn't say there isn't, what I said is no one other than deniers use the word. It results in people misinterpreting it as a claim that everyone in science is in agreement, they're not and no one claims so. It's done to try and put AGW and denial of it as equally viable truths, they are not. By the definition of the word, yes there is a consensus among climate scientists. I'm not confusing two things that are the same thing.

[marshallnoise]

I didn't say there isn't, what I said is no one other than deniers use the word. It results in people misinterpreting it as a claim that everyone in science is in agreement, they're not and no one claims so. It's done to try and put AGW and denial of it as equally viable truths, they are not. By the definition of the word, yes there is a consensus among climate scientists. I'm not confusing two things that are the same thing.

I think you are denying a lot of reality to make those statements. All of our leftist political leaders, almost all academia, and almost all the media have said the debate is over and the science is settled and the scientific community has reached consensus.

Because an extreme minority do not ascribe to AGW and therefore complete consensus is not achieved, those folks who who believe in it effectively say there is consensus and the science is settled.

Your eyes aren't open or you are parsing terms as if this is some game. It's not funny and it is dishonest at it's root. Tell the fucking truth.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[cale]

First it was general consensus vs consensus, now it's complete consensus vs consensus. How many other terms are you going to make up?

The only truth here is you're struggling and need to make up terms to fit your narrative. Awaiting your reply about theoretical potential possibilities.

Ah yes, I forgot it's a political argument for you. You'll have to forgive me if I don't play along.

[Wschnitz]

Sorry we lack the mental deficiency to rabidly believe in conspiracy theories, supported by blog posts and news websites that publish bullshit and delete it silently when its disproved.

[gwb72tii]

First it was general consensus vs consensus, now it's complete consensus vs consensus. How many other terms are you going to make up?

The only truth here is you're struggling and need to make up terms to fit your narrative. Awaiting your reply about theoretical potential possibilities.

Ah yes, I forgot it's a political argument for you. You'll have to forgive me if I don't play along.

bullshit clean and simple

I don't remember you specifically cale as sometimes it appears you're level headed

here's a clue

does 97% ring a bell? even if the study supposedly showing 97% consensus is so filled with gross manipulation of the data as to be meaningless, 97% has been shouted at skeptics since the bogus study was released

[parkerbink]

NASA Study Shows Global Sea Ice Diminishing, Despite Antarctic Gains
Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.

“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

[parkerbink]

Climate change is real, and we need you to spread the facts. We've rounded up 10 important facts about climate change and global warming. Share these with your friends on social media and spread the word about this critical issue.

97 percent: The percentage of scientists who agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activity.

1950: Year when atmospheric CO2 levels broke records from the previous 400,000 years, sharply rising and continuing to grow.

8 inches: Rise in global sea levels over the last century. The rate of rise has nearly doubled in the last two decades.

16: Number of record-breaking hottest years since 2000. 2016 was the hottest year yet.

1.5 degrees: The average worldwide temperature increase in Fahrenheit compared to a century ago.

400 parts per million: Average concentration since 2016 of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to 275 PPM for past 400,000 years.

9: The 9 most explosive fires in America's history have all occurred since 2000, with 2015 having the biggest fire (10.1 million acres burned) in American history.

19th century: When the heat-trapping nature of CO2 was first demonstrated.

30 percent: The increase in acidity of the world's oceans.

$180 billion: Estimated economic losses to the United States by end of the century if no action is taken on climate change.

Sources: NASA and EPA

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/help/10-climate-change-facts.xml

[gwb72tii]

oh god............not this again