Discussion:
Climate change is already making Atlantic hurricanes more fierce
(too old to reply)
kensi
2019-02-11 03:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
difficult to forecast:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Checkmate
2019-02-11 04:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate! In article <q3qro0$1f7g$***@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01
@gmail.nospam.invalid says...


¤
¤ Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
¤ up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
¤ difficult to forecast:
¤
¤ https://www.thestar.com/news/world/20l9/02/08/climate-change-is-
already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html

How's "Helsinki"?
--
Checkmate ®
Copyright © 2018
all rights reserved

AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore)
Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker
award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll)
Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012

Author, Humorist, Cynic
Philosopher, Humanitarian
Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars
Usenet Shot-Caller

In loving memory of The Battle Kitten
May 2010-February 12, 2017

"There are many here among us,
who feel that life is but a joke."

"I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as
kensi." -Nadegda
Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$***@dont-email.me>

"People just submitted it ... I don't know why ...
They 'trust me' ... dumb fucks." -Mark Zuckerberg

"You can be unethical and still be legal that's the
way I live my life." -Mark Zuckerberg
Chris M. Thomasson
2019-02-11 06:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o

A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
Serg Io
2019-02-11 07:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Climate change *has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT,IT IS CALLED WEATHER*
I am demoting kensi pupa to kensi pupa worm, and I put bad kensi pupa
worm in cage with hungry bird.




already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce,
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
driving up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more
<snip crap>
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
bigdog
2019-02-11 10:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
benj
2019-02-11 12:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
Media repeated lie: Weather is climate.

Ignorant Non-science Journo bullshit.
Snit
2019-02-11 12:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
Media repeated lie: Weather is climate.
Ignorant Non-science Journo bullshit.
I love how badly the right is freaking out over their own lack of
knowledge.
bigdog
2019-02-11 13:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
Media repeated lie: Weather is climate.
Ignorant Non-science Journo bullshit.
I love how badly the right is freaking out over their own lack of
knowledge.
You're the one that seems to be freaking, Skippy. All because we won't drink
your Kool-Aid.
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 14:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
Media repeated lie: Weather is climate.
Ignorant Non-science Journo bullshit.
I love how badly the right is freaking out over their own lack of
knowledge.
You're the one that seems to be freaking, Skippy. All because we won't drink
your Kool-Aid.
Nobody who isn't just using you for trouble-making purposes (isn't a sock/shill) sees you as anything remotely close to decent. You have no one but me to point to for that.

Time to blame anything but Linux! Any horribly desperate insomniac could easily do the same.
--
Get Rich Slow
http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_j6f7mm_gruesome-gunshot-wounds

Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 14:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
Media repeated lie: Weather is climate.
Ignorant Non-science Journo bullshit.
I love how badly the right is freaking out over their own lack of
knowledge.
A shadow of mattb, projected incorrectly, at the wrong time. I think bigdog does not even know what is wrong with Breitbart. Everyone is bigdog -- the oldest gag in the book. Which regular knows Perl, is a programmer, has hacked mattb's ID, has motive and is a huge conniption-fit throwing mama's boy who, when he gets a bad case of narcissistic rage/injury going, posts demands he be "trusted" even when he's _not_ flooding... AND... who struggles to pin everything HE is doing on "anyone he can" and has for his whole life?
--
My Snoring Solution
http://www.5z8.info/how-to-build-a-bomb_o8n9lg_racist-raps
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Snit
2019-02-11 12:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Very cold, and a lot of snow: Fwiw, in South Lake Tahoe, it dumped
around 4 and a half feet on and off last night, at lake level. My Aunt
said she can barley get around, and they shut down Ski Run Blvd, the
main way to get to Heavenly Valley. I have never seen it snow that much
before! A foot in an hour, then it would seem to stop, fine. 4+ feet in
one night is hard core! Btw, there is another storm rolling in, about to
dump another 2-3 feet at lake level. There are going to be a lot of
stranded tourists. ;^o
A lot of moisture mixed with a cold front.
That's a weather event, not a climate event.
No one weather event can be proved to be tied to climate change (that I
know of) but the trend fits the PREDICTIONS.

And like the PREDICTIONS of when the sun will rise tomorrow those
predictions are based on measurements and calculations.

Got it yet?
bigdog
2019-02-11 10:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 10:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll's obsession with Just Wondering started in 2004 when Carroll got mad about his then girlfriend obsessing over Just Wondering (heavily documented here: <http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot>). Just Wondering continued to respond to Steve for about 5 years, when Steve flipped out in 2009 and started contacting Just Wondering's employer with the stated goal to have him fired (he spoke of doing so even if he had to twist arms):

<http://goo.gl/OHNryA>
<http://goo.gl/MZ6yCD>
<http://goo.gl/WaKKGq>

There were more, but Carroll has had them deleted from the Google archive. I have not spent the time to find them elsewhere (and likely will not).

With that Just Wondering stopped responding directly to Steve except for *one* chance he gave him in 2011 when Steve was accusing *Just Wondering* of running: <http://goo.gl/racU64>.

Carroll, as predicted, ran (he always does when faced with facts):
<http://goo.gl/qHs5Xh>

Steven Petruzzellis knows he has no backing for any of his nonsense and has become, if anything, more and more obsessive since Just Wondering stopped responding to him.

Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll is truly a very, very sick man.

--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!

Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
benj
2019-02-11 12:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
Media lie. Hurricanes NOT more frequent nor more intense.

Kensi lies. Nothing here to see. Move along.


Snit
2019-02-11 12:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
Media lie. Hurricanes NOT more frequent nor more intense.
Kensi lies. Nothing here to see. Move along.
http://youtu.be/oN_oynx1D8w
Once again right wingers have nothing to bring to the table do they deny
the problem.
Snit
2019-02-11 12:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.

Time and time again.
bigdog
2019-02-11 13:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 15:05:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:42:01 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?

LOL
Snit
2019-02-11 15:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:42:01 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?
LOL
Unlike you and Bigdog I have a basic understanding of the science you deny.
And I welcome solutions to deal with our harm and encourage personal
responsibility.

You run from the concept of responsibility and back paying the wealthy to
take care of you.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 15:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by bigdog
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?
Unlike you
You have no idea what my position is. And that frightens you.
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 15:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:42:01 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?
LOL
Unlike you and Bigdog I have a basic understanding of the science you deny.
And I welcome solutions to deal with our harm and encourage personal
responsibility.
You run from the concept of responsibility and back paying the wealthy to
take care of you.
I have been around to figure out the depths of mattb's indecency.

mattb's posts are nothing but a meaningless prattle. Like the other trolls in political groups, mattb relies on mainstream media to form stances on politics. So, he only is aware of and listens to the media stories which also are the ones which describe humanism in an absurdly kind and ethical slant.

Who knows AppleScript, is an insomniac, has stolen Klaus Schadenfreude's account, has poor impulse control and is a colossal conniption-fit throwingloser who, when he gets a bad case of narcissistic rage/injury going, posts all kinds of ridiculous crap even when he's not flooding... AND... who tries to attributes everything HE is doing on "advocates" and has for over a decade? Already moved on from that. Take it as you want!

Being decentralized as it is, bulletin boards will never go away but it'll never be what your grandfather would use. By listening to 'media talking heads' like that you get terms like 'moral relativism'. Carried to its (im)moral slippery slope, the insistence that it's 'unfair' for a heterosexual male to not wish to date a gay man is born.

--
Live on Kickstarter!!

https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund
https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Snit
2019-02-11 16:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:42:01 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?
LOL
Unlike you and Bigdog I have a basic understanding of the science you deny.
And I welcome solutions to deal with our harm and encourage personal
responsibility.
You run from the concept of responsibility and back paying the wealthy to
take care of you.
Klaus cried that I called him out, but suggested his position might change.
bigdog
2019-02-11 17:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:42:01 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
I don't have a solution because I don't have a problem, Skippy. How many times
do you need to be told that. It's only stupid liberals who dream up solutions
to problems that don't exist.
It sure doesn't take much to freak Snit out, does it?
LOL
Unlike you and Bigdog I have a basic understanding of the science you deny.
And I welcome solutions to deal with our harm and encourage personal
responsibility.
You run from the concept of responsibility and back paying the wealthy to
take care of you.
Klaus cried that I called him out, but suggested his position might change.
Skippy continues to reply to his own posts. He must be awfully lonely since his
imaginary friend moved away.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 21:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Snit is crying now, replying to himself.

I noticed he does this more than ANYONE on usenet.

Interesting.





More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html

Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 13:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no sol[..]
The team considered natural variations in climate that might drive the
increase,
Snit
2019-02-11 14:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Klaus freaked out again. :)
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 14:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Snit, freaking, continues to talk to himself. Interesting.
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 14:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Klaus freaked out again. :)
Besides bigdog, who doesn't know what I'm doing?

I think we have two different beliefs about bigdog. bigdog is far too unintelligent to write a useful script. The only scripting he's ever shown he can do is simple stuff I did years ago. Tizen, runs on the LibreOffice kernel. So yeah, LibreOffice is mobile. LibreOffice is a super computer. LibreOffice is a server. LibreOffice is a desktop. LibreOffice is growing in market share.

-
Best CMS Solution of 2017
Loading Image...
http://bit.ly/2oNYRgv
Jonas Eklundh
Snit
2019-02-11 17:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
Michael Ejercito
2019-02-11 18:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?

Were they washed away in a hurricane?


http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/


Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again

Never mind!

The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”

Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.

Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.

And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.

How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.

The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.

Check back with me in 2020.
Snit
2019-02-11 18:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
What part of the consensus are you referencing?

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".

• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last
800,000 years".

• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.

• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"

• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"

• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by
limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"

• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest
an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).

• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements
are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a
"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-
ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change
is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes,
however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate
chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses
problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a
wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of
their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than
demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging
the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected
officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research,
political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists
who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to
outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting
more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions
in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing
where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying
islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media
didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed
without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and
climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on
Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its
bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead
to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening
“scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical
projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less
likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb.
Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced,
myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and
international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility
and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are
doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and
reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and
projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the
experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative
that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As
for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so
clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the
most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark
Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the
U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new
expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these
arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be
right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates,
not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for
the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an
important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible
messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I
don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another
chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.


bigdog
2019-02-11 19:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Snit
2019-02-11 20:14:22 UTC
Permalink
On 2/11/19 12:45 PM, bigdog wrote:> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more
lethal
and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-
making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics
- and-credibility-again/
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is
man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however,
without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance
projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems
for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut
down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by
science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the
science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the
global warming community, including elected officials with agendas,
radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy
groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al
Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and
apocalyptic “projections.”
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more
shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible
with every exaggerated claim.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee
climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the
numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food
production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of
those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the
Pacific and Caribbean.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t
mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without
comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change
skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its
bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to
2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific
prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was
a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly
alarmed.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb.
Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself,
of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international
climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity,
and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse
of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless
pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection
methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be
candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be
seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media
coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly
uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most
hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin,
Rush, take your pick—plausible.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst
of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S
public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures
based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers?
Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the
hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called
“climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their
warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they
have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have
failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting
another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out
of
this
Post by bigdog
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
He ran against a horrible candidate who ran a lousy campaign and still
ended up with only a 30% chance of winning (but win he did).

As far as you pointing out hand-picked denials of the science, sure. I
agree you have.

Remember the ONE time you moved outside of the handpicked
fewer-than-seventy scientists who disagree with the consensus? LOL! That
was FUNNY!

-- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
benj
2019-02-11 22:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.

They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."

Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).


And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.

The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parro
bigdog
2019-02-11 23:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous.
About half of the warming since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution occurred
during the first part of the 20th century when there wasn't much additional
CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere so something else must be in play here.
I'm sure human CO2 emissions CONTRIBUTE to the warming but they aren't the
whole story and certainly nothing to be alarmed about. A little warming is not
going to be a disaster especially given the fact we are in an ice age and are
enjoying one of the brief periods know as an interglacial. I wouldn't want to
be around when this current interglacial ends. Anything we can do to forestall
that is something we should encourage, not discourage.
Snit
2019-02-12 00:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change
is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes,
however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate
chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses
problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a
wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of
their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than
demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging
the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected
officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research,
political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists
who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to
outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting
more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions
in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing
where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying
islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media
didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed
without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and
climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its
bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead
to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening
“scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical
projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less
likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb.
Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced,
myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and
international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility
and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are
doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and
reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and
projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the
experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative
that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As
for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so
clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the
most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark
Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the
U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new
expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these
arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be
right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates,
not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for
the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an
important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible
messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I
don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous.
About half of the warming since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution occurred
during the first part of the 20th century when there wasn't much additional
CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere so something else must be in play here.
I'm sure human CO2 emissions CONTRIBUTE to the warming but they aren't the
whole story and certainly nothing to be alarmed about. A little warming is not
going to be a disaster especially given the fact we are in an ice age and are
enjoying one of the brief periods know as an interglacial. I wouldn't want to
be around when this current interglacial ends. Anything we can do to forestall
that is something we should encourage, not discourage.
You have no clue how to handle the issue so you deny it. Got it.
Snit
2019-02-12 00:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is
man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however,
without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance
projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for
environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut
down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by
science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the
science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the
global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical
anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups
and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t
forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more
shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in
food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where
many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in
the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t
mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without
comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change
skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad
prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to
2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific
prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection
was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming
that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself,
of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international
climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity,
and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse
of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless
pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection
methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be
candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be
seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media
coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly
uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most
hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin,
Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S
public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures
based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers?
Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the
hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called
“climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their
warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they
have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have
failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting
another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous.
You speak of science as a liberal endeavor.

And you may very well be right. Republicans/ right wingers tend to denounce
evidence and reason.
Michael Ejercito
2019-02-12 18:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is
man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however,
without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance
projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for
environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut
down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by
science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the
science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the
global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical
anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups
and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t
forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more
shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in
food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where
many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in
the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t
mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without
comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change
skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad
prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to
2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific
prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection
was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming
that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself,
of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international
climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity,
and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse
of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless
pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection
methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be
candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be
seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media
coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly
uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most
hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin,
Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S
public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures
based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers?
Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the
hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called
“climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their
warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they
have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have
failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting
another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous.
You speak of science as a liberal endeavor.
And you may very well be right. Republicans/ right wingers tend to denounce
evidence and reason.
Have you found the 50 million climate refugees?

Did they get lost and end up on the surface of Pluto?


Michael
Snit
2019-02-12 18:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Michael Ejercito
So where are the 50 million climate refugees?
Were they washed away in a hurricane?
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again/
Global Warming Advocates Flunk Ethics, and Credibility…Again
Never mind!
The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still
possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is
man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however,
without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance
projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for
environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut
down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by
science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the
science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the
global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical
anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups
and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t
forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”
Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States
crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures
designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly
speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald
Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making
“The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more
shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and
counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less
credible with every exaggerated claim.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to
flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in
the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in
food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where
many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in
the Pacific and Caribbean.
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP
didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t
mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without
comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change
skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad
prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to
2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific
prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection
was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming
that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands
reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself,
of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international
climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity,
and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse
of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless
pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection
methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be
candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be
seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media
coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly
uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most
hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin,
Rush, take your pick—plausible.
The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of
a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U..S
public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures
based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers?
Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the
hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called
“climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their
warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they
have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have
failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting
another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.
Check back with me in 2020.
Extremely well written article and pretty much touches all the bases I have been
pointing out to Skippy the last several months. I did get a kick out of this
line written in 2011, "...are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into
the White House". He might want to rethink that one. It does point out the
shrewdness of Trump. He tested the waters and decided 2012 was not the right
time to make a run for the White House. He saw the opening in 2016 and
pounced.
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous..
You speak of science as a liberal endeavor.
And you may very well be right. Republicans/ right wingers tend to denounce
evidence and reason.
Have you found the 50 million climate refugees?
What part of the consensus are you referring to on that? Here it is
again to help refresh you:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".

• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last
800,000 years".

• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.

• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"

• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"

• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by
limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"

• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest
an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).

• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements
are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a
"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Did they get lost and end up on the surface of Pluto?
Michael
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Michael Ejercito
2019-02-13 17:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous..
You speak of science as a liberal endeavor.
And you may very well be right. Republicans/ right wingers tend to denounce
evidence and reason.
Have you found the 50 million climate refugees?
What part of the consensus are you referring to on that? Here it is
• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".
• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last
800,000 years".
• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.
• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"
• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"
• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by
limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"
• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest
an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).
• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements
are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a
"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Did they get lost and end up on the surface of Pluto?
Michael
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
I already quoted it.

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.

Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.

And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.

How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
Snit
2019-02-13 19:00:50 UTC
Permalink
On 2/13/19 10:44 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:> On Tuesday, February 12,
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
Post by benj
Not quite Bigdog.
One cannot expect an Lib to really know any science even when they are
bashing the global warming liars.
They said; "The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming,
though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of
the change is man-made."
Remember Libs never do quantity. A warming of about 1 degree since 188o
is indeed warming but is amazingly fucking stable. How is a couple of
degrees going to end life on the planet? Ever notice the range of
temperatures from day to night let along from summer to winter. ARe you
dead yet? How much warming would it take to turn Canada into a Temperate
climate? WOuld that be a bad thing? That so-called 1 degree is itself
very questionable given the errors in temperature measurement
(especially with data being fudged for political purposes).
And then we get to the man-made part? Is this even not a good theory let
alone established? Sounds like someone (authors) have been fooled by the
fake paper saying 97% of scientists believe this. That is not only a lie
but has no meaning. Science is not done by a majority vote. IF there is
an effect (just SOME effect by no means a primary effect) my guess is
destruction of Rain forests tops the list, rather than fossil fuels.
The incredible non-science lies combined with public ignorance has got
even the critics parroting these lies as facts. Sad. AND very dangerous..
You speak of science as a liberal endeavor.
And you may very well be right. Republicans/ right wingers tend to denounce
evidence and reason.
Have you found the 50 million climate refugees?
What part of the consensus are you referring to on that? Here it is
• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to
millennia"..
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last
800,000 years".
• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.
• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"
• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"
• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by
limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"
• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest
an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).
• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún
Agreements
Post by Michael Ejercito
Post by Snit
are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a
"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Did they get lost and end up on the surface of Pluto?
Michael
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
I already quoted it.
Ah, you mean something that was not a strong consensus.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.890.9744&rep=
rep1&type=pdf

Fair enough.

I am, of course, speaking of a strong consensus... which is the best
knowledge we have on the topic.

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these conclusions:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to
millennia".

• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000
years".

• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.

• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"

• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"

• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting
the rate and magnitude of climate change"

• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an
increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to
pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C
including climate uncertainty).

• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to
pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are
broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely"
chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to
below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.
Post by Michael Ejercito
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted
that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The
UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee
climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the
numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food
production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of
those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the
Pacific and Caribbean.
Post by Michael Ejercito
Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of
wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as
climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t
mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention
it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment.
Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic
named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.
Post by Michael Ejercito
And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad
prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to
2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific
prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was
a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly
alarmed.
Post by Michael Ejercito
How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming
that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering
national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that
second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate
policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this
they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it,
eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is
essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and
they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and
they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t
even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so
selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the
arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen.
Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
bigdog
2019-02-11 19:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
Poor Skippy has to reply to himself...….AGAIN!!!
benj
2019-02-11 22:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
Poor Skippy has to reply to himself...….AGAIN!!!
That's because nobody else wants to hear him repeat his lies over and
over. THERE IS NO INCREASE in either the frequency or intensity of
Hurricanes. That is simply a commie media and lefty warrior lie designed
to steal your money.
Snit
2019-02-12 00:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by bigdog
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog replied with attacks to try to hide his ignorance.
Poor Skippy has to reply to himself...….AGAIN!!!
That's because nobody else wants to hear him repeat his lies over and
over. THERE IS NO INCREASE in either the frequency or intensity of
Hurricanes. That is simply a commie media and lefty warrior lie designed
to steal your money.
There is evidence climate change is increasing storms and the polar vortex,
but there are still open questions.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-02-11 21:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Snit replies to himself again. LOL
Snit
2019-02-11 19:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by bigdog
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!! BULLSHIT!!!
You have no solution to reduce our harm so you deny it.
Time and time again.
Bigdog responded by crying about how he has been called out.

Hey, we know the facts of the consensus. No scientific body of national
or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any
of these conclusions:

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s,
many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia".

• "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last
800,000 years".

• Human influence on the climate system is clear. It is extremely likely
(95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of
global warming between 1951-2010.

• "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of
severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts"

• "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing
vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability"

• "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by
limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"

• Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest
an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C,
relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to
7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).

• The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not
consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative
to pre-industrial levels. Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements
are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a
"likely" chance (66-100% probability) of limiting global warming (in
2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.

We also know we have growing income inequality and a growing split
between productivity and financial gain.

The question is what do we do about these things? AOC has put out an
excellent conversation starter... and it would be great to see others
jump in. Some have... almost exclusively Democrats.

What is the Republican response? What is Bigdog's response?

So far: denial of the problem to try to hide the fact they have NO clue.
The American people deserve better than what the Republicans and Bigdog
can offer. At least Bigdog has no power.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
2019-02-11 15:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Fucking idiot! North America is experiencing one of
the coldest winters since the 1800's. But, you
glowball warmingtards seem to be able to say
it's glowball warming when it's hot and it's also
glowball warming when it's record cold. And, it's
record hurricanes when there are actually fewer
lately and they are actually not as strong as many
in the past.

You think if you lie often enough you will be believed.
Think again, you stupid cunt.
--
Everybody here likes Yours Truly,
Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
Steve Carroll
2019-02-11 16:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Post by kensi
Climate change has already made Atlantic hurricanes more fierce, driving
up the number of storms that rapidly intensify, become more lethal and
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2019/02/08/climate-change-is-already-making-atlantic-hurricanes-more-fierce-study-finds.html
Fucking idiot! North America is experiencing one of
the coldest winters since the 1800's. But, you
glowball warmingtards seem to be able to say
it's glowball warming when it's hot and it's also
glowball warming when it's record cold. And, it's
record hurricanes when there are actually fewer
lately and they are actually not as strong as many
in the past.
You think if you lie often enough you will be believed.
Think again, you stupid cunt.
--
Everybody here likes Yours Truly,
Gregøry Hall - Bombastic Loudmouth of the South
In spite of my reasoned experiences with Fedora, I even now continue to install it for users who have had difficulties with the Mac, especially if I know that they are not very competent at using MS Word and sending / receiving emails. Your system will crawl while this takes place. My view is that we should ALL report the flooding and then it will stop. The cult-like herd of convenient friends value being like everyone else more than they do productivity. All that bigdog cares about is that bigdog gets to inflict his prank call and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that mattb is a real person on the other end of the phone is what's funny. Just look at your posts and look at mattb's, there is nothing for anyone to learn from a mindless moron like bigdog. But hey, let him keep making a dunce of himself. He can make another sock to pat himself on the back. Lines of text containing numbers and symbols.
--
Get Rich Slow
http://www.5z8.info/killallimmigrants_t8w8io_asian-brides
https://www.facebook.com/JonasEklundh
Jonas Eklundh
Loading...