New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

There is no climate change

reason10

Governor
Feel free to publish peer-reviewed research upending accepted scientific practice and refuting the idea that math can be used to help reach conclusions in science.
In other words, other idiot computer nerds who are on George Soro's payroll?

Not a chance. Only idiots trust those hacks.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
No one with any brains ever said that the climate can't change. Thing is, only a total fcking MORON thinks human activity has anything to do with it.
Actually there are a lot of people who say that the climate is not changing at all.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Feel free to publish peer-reviewed research upending accepted scientific practice and refuting the idea that math can be used to help reach conclusions in science.
Look you simpleton, you quoted physics yourself, said that scientist use physics to come to both facts and conclusions. Your babble seems to imply that you do not even have the rudimentary understanding that physics is math. Why would I have to refute that physics is math when you can't do Geometry or Algebra?

Again no math can determine the temps present at the freezing year of the ice in a glacier. I personally doubt that any year can be determined since surface ice melts unpredictably and sporadically and this happens thru the glacier. Why? combination of weather and climate variability

Seriously you would stand out as stupid at a Down Syndrome barbeque
 
Last edited:

reason10

Governor
Boys and girls, it's really simple. (And with the liberals here, it may be almost impossible to make this simple enough.)
I live in Florida and work on the coast. I have a vested interest in whether or not the poles are melting because of Algore's global warming scare.
(Oh, by the way, those of you who are ignorant [Unwelcome language removed] not doing anything with your lives but keeping your nose on that computer screen and throwing that dumbass "anecdotal evidence" bullshit at me, just eat shit and die. You aren't smart enough for this conversation.)

Want some numbers?

1. Hurricane Charley (first major Cat 3 storm to hit Florida's west coast since Hurricane Donna in 1960) cost me a house and almost a livelihood. The local alleged scientists predicted it would hit St. Petersburg, which is why they were evacuating the barrier islands. It hit my area instead and I had maybe 20 minutes' notice. So much for weather and climate scientists.

2. Hurricane Irma cost me around $1000. That was in lost work as a multi-billion dollar resort had to shut down for almost a month, as did the many public schools I was supposed to work at as a sub. Forecasters gave us predictions that were all over the place. Nobody knew if the storm would hit the east coast or the west. It wasn't until landfall in Naples that the talking heads on TV actually got it right, and all they were doing was reporting what they were seeing.

(Like somehow these same weathermen can predict a complete change in the climate ion 40 years? Seriously?)

3. Last fall, the Red Tide (which originates far out into the Gulf) cost me around $2000 in lost work. The local idiot enviro-Nazis blamed the mythical Big Sugar for causing Lake O releases into the Calossahatchie. A totally NATURAL event, cost me a small fortune.

That means I already have more practical field research than ALL those idiot computer nerd hacks who are predicting climate change. I watch the shoreline almost every day. The water is not rising. By 2000 the whole state was supposed to be under water.

I live in HURRICANE ALLEY. The storms which cost me thousands and make my life miserable. The only REAL fact my experience has been in this matter (and by the way, I went through Hurricane Alicia in Houston Texas in the early 80s, a little Cat3 storm which stalled in the Gulf and gained strength, TOTALLY unbeknownst to the weather scientists who were watching it) is that modern science CANNOT predict these storms, their occurrence, their path, or their intensity. Only a total [Unwelcome language removed] MORON would think these same idiot scientists can somehow look at a computer screen, cash a George Soros check and accurately predict a complete change in the climate in 40 years.

The enviro-Nazis got it wrong. The climate is not changing. You can't spin this. You'll only look like a [Unwelcome language removed] idiot. Facts are facts. I just gave you facts, something your idiotic left wing opinion rags have not. I'm here where it matters.

And I don't care what you think. If you're not here, you don't know.
 

reason10

Governor
Actually there are a lot of people who say that the climate is not changing at all.
I'll go a step further. Here in Florida, there is scant evidence of any kind of predictable climate at all, much less it changing.

We know it gets a little cool in the winter, gets hot in the summer. Maybe a rainy season during the first part of a summer, (although we've had dry summers). Maybe tropical activity from August to the end of October. If that is a climate (and it would be a very LOOSE one according to the definition of the word) then from personal experience I can guarantee it is NOT changing, at least not here in Florida.

We recently got a nice cold snap (because of that bitter winter blizzard from the Midwest that froze everybody's nuts off up there and landed us a few million more welcome snowbirds than we were expecting). The local hotels here did very well with the extra business.

I know this will run counter to the left wing anti-American propaganda the liberals here seem to be taking intravenously on a daily basis, but the term CLIMATE is defined as a set of similar weather conditions over a specific period of time.

That's CLIMATE.

Cold in winter, warm in summer, rains once in a while. That's a VERY loose definition of Florida's CLIMATE and it hasn't changed since I first came here in 1978.

As I tried to point out in the first post, for Florida's climate to change, it would have to SNOW IN KEY WEST more than a couple of years in a row. THAT would be a change in the climate.

Everything else is just bullshit, from a bunch of morons still holding their dicks because the earth did NOT warm when Algore said it would and Florida is NOT under water.

PERIOD.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I'll go a step further. Here in Florida, there is scant evidence of any kind of predictable climate at all, much less it changing.

We know it gets a little cool in the winter, gets hot in the summer. Maybe a rainy season during the first part of a summer, (although we've had dry summers). Maybe tropical activity from August to the end of October. If that is a climate (and it would be a very LOOSE one according to the definition of the word) then from personal experience I can guarantee it is NOT changing, at least not here in Florida.

We recently got a nice cold snap (because of that bitter winter blizzard from the Midwest that froze everybody's nuts off up there and landed us a few million more welcome snowbirds than we were expecting). The local hotels here did very well with the extra business.

I know this will run counter to the left wing anti-American propaganda you seem to be taking intravenously on a daily basis, but the term CLIMATE is defined as a set of similar weather conditions over a specific period of time.

That's CLIMATE.

Cold in winter, warm in summer, rains once in a while. That's a VERY loose definition of Florida's CLIMATE and it hasn't changed since I first came here in 1978.

As I tried to point out in the first post, for Florida's climate to change, it would have to SNOW IN KEY WEST more than a couple of years in a row. THAT would be a change in the climate.

Everything else is just bullshit, from a bunch of morons still holding their dicks because the earth did NOT warm when Algore said it would and Florida is NOT under water.

PERIOD.
The climate is always changing, however it does not change on a scale that any human can observe in a lifetime. If it started snowing in Florida this would be weather, but if the rate of snowfall over a hundred years triple this would not be observable to any human. Furthermore the snow would be climate change, how dramatic would depend upon for how long it continued. Further evidence is the northern ranges of tropical fish moving North.

I agree that there is no evidence of agw but agw should not be confused with natural change which began on the Earth before the Earth had a climate.
 

EatTheRich

President
No one with any brains ever said that the climate can't change. Thing is, only a total fcking MORON thinks human activity has anything to do with it.
Feel free to explain how morons came to dominate every scientific body in the world, and why they’re all so wrong about what the evidence shows.
 

EatTheRich

President
Look you simpleton, you quoted physics yourself, said that scientist use physics to come to both facts and conclusions. Your babble seems to imply that you do not even have the rudimentary understanding that physics is math. Why would I have to refute that physics is math when you can't do Geometry or Algebra?

Again no math can determine the temps present at the freezing year of the ice in a glacier. I personally doubt that any year can be determined since surface ice melts unpredictably and sporadically and this happens thru the glacier. Why? combination of weather and climate variability

Seriously you would stand out as stupid at a Down Syndrome barbeque
You said that math should be disregarded because it proves you wrong. Then you pretended I said something I never said because if I had said it I wohld’ve looked almost as stupid.
 

EatTheRich

President
Boys and girls, it's really simple. (And with the liberals here, it may be almost impossible to make this simple enough.)
I live in Florida and work on the coast. I have a vested interest in whether or not the poles are melting because of Algore's global warming scare.
(Oh, by the way, those of you who are ignorant [Unwelcome language removed] not doing anything with your lives but keeping your nose on that computer screen and throwing that dumbass "anecdotal evidence" bullshit at me, just eat shit and die. You aren't smart enough for this conversation.)

Want some numbers?

1. Hurricane Charley (first major Cat 3 storm to hit Florida's west coast since Hurricane Donna in 1960) cost me a house and almost a livelihood. The local alleged scientists predicted it would hit St. Petersburg, which is why they were evacuating the barrier islands. It hit my area instead and I had maybe 20 minutes' notice. So much for weather and climate scientists.

2. Hurricane Irma cost me around $1000. That was in lost work as a multi-billion dollar resort had to shut down for almost a month, as did the many public schools I was supposed to work at as a sub. Forecasters gave us predictions that were all over the place. Nobody knew if the storm would hit the east coast or the west. It wasn't until landfall in Naples that the talking heads on TV actually got it right, and all they were doing was reporting what they were seeing.

(Like somehow these same weathermen can predict a complete change in the climate ion 40 years? Seriously?)

3. Last fall, the Red Tide (which originates far out into the Gulf) cost me around $2000 in lost work. The local idiot enviro-Nazis blamed the mythical Big Sugar for causing Lake O releases into the Calossahatchie. A totally NATURAL event, cost me a small fortune.

That means I already have more practical field research than ALL those idiot computer nerd hacks who are predicting climate change. I watch the shoreline almost every day. The water is not rising. By 2000 the whole state was supposed to be under water.

I live in HURRICANE ALLEY. The storms which cost me thousands and make my life miserable. The only REAL fact my experience has been in this matter (and by the way, I went through Hurricane Alicia in Houston Texas in the early 80s, a little Cat3 storm which stalled in the Gulf and gained strength, TOTALLY unbeknownst to the weather scientists who were watching it) is that modern science CANNOT predict these storms, their occurrence, their path, or their intensity. Only a total [Unwelcome language removed] MORON would think these same idiot scientists can somehow look at a computer screen, cash a George Soros check and accurately predict a complete change in the climate in 40 years.

The enviro-Nazis got it wrong. The climate is not changing. You can't spin this. You'll only look like a [Unwelcome language removed] idiot. Facts are facts. I just gave you facts, something your idiotic left wing opinion rags have not. I'm here where it matters.

And I don't care what you think. If you're not here, you don't know.
1. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence.
2. It is much easier to predict long-term climate trends than to predict short-term weather events, just as it is easier to predict that average winter temperatures will be higher than average summer temperatures than to predict whether it will be windier an hour from now or not.
3. Feel free to link to any scientist saying Florida would be underwater by 2000.
4. The projections of climate scientists have been very accurate and much more accurate than those by researchers committed to the hypothesis that AGW doesn’t exist, who were laughably off in every prediction.
 

EatTheRich

President
The climate is always changing, however it does not change on a scale that any human can observe in a lifetime. If it started snowing in Florida this would be weather, but if the rate of snowfall over a hundred years triple this would not be observable to any human. Furthermore the snow would be climate change, how dramatic would depend upon for how long it continued. Further evidence is the northern ranges of tropical fish moving North.

I agree that there is no evidence of agw but agw should not be confused with natural change which began on the Earth before the Earth had a climate.
The current very rapid warming and its effects are obvious.

1. Rate of setting local warm temperature records outpace rate of setting local cold temperature records more than 2:1
2. With very low p-values, hypothesis that the local average mean temperature almost anywhere in the world has not risen in the last 50 years is rejected.
3. Total global precipitation up more than 20% over the last century.
4. “1000-year storms” based on the weather patterns of 50 years ago are “150-year storms” based on weather patterns today.
5. Ranges of nearly every plant and animal species have moved poleward and upward in altitude.
 

reason10

Governor
Feel free to explain how morons came to dominate every scientific body in the world, and why they’re all so wrong about what the evidence shows.
a. People who take checks from George Soros do NOT dominate every scientific body in the world. That's just too [Unwelcome language removed] stupid a statement not to respond to.

b. The EVIDENCE shows there IS NO [Unwelcome language removed] CLIMATE CHANGE. The EVIDENCE shows these same communists who were embarrassed by losing the argument on global warming have changed the issue to Climate Change to save face. They have offered ZERO facts or evidence to back up this lie. In the first post in this thread I correctly defined a climate change according to the definition of the [Unwelcome language removed] word. So far, NOTHING even remotely resembling that scenario is taking place, or WILL take place any time soon.

You aren't talking science. You never have.
You're talking politics.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
You said that math should be disregarded because it proves you wrong. Then you pretended I said something I never said because if I had said it I wohld’ve looked almost as stupid.
When did I say that math should be disregarded?

Be specific.

Coming from the simpleton who babbles about the math that other people do and will not even dispute that he can not do fundamental Geometry or Algebra.

Play with this Dumbo
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
The current very rapid warming and its effects are obvious.

1. Rate of setting local warm temperature records outpace rate of setting local cold temperature records more than 2:1
2. With very low p-values, hypothesis that the local average mean temperature almost anywhere in the world has not risen in the last 50 years is rejected.
3. Total global precipitation up more than 20% over the last century.
4. “1000-year storms” based on the weather patterns of 50 years ago are “150-year storms” based on weather patterns today.
5. Ranges of nearly every plant and animal species have moved poleward and upward in altitude.
There is no very rapid warming.

Why do you care if there is if the World ends in 12 years anyway?

Go get laid, there is a first time for everything, hell you might even like it

 

EatTheRich

President
a. People who take checks from George Soros do NOT dominate every scientific body in the world. That's just too [Unwelcome language removed] stupid a statement not to respond to.

b. The EVIDENCE shows there IS NO [Unwelcome language removed] CLIMATE CHANGE. The EVIDENCE shows these same communists who were embarrassed by losing the argument on global warming have changed the issue to Climate Change to save face. They have offered ZERO facts or evidence to back up this lie. In the first post in this thread I correctly defined a climate change according to the definition of the [Unwelcome language removed] word. So far, NOTHING even remotely resembling that scenario is taking place, or WILL take place any time soon.

You aren't talking science. You never have.
You're talking politics.
a. Of course they don’t. People who accept the IPCC’s position summarizing the current position of top scientists do dominate every scientific body in the world.
b. No, it doesn’t, which is why those who base their positions on evidence (the scientists) disagree with you. The evidence is elementary and includes the fact that average global temperatures today are about a full degree warmer than 50 years ago.
c. The fact that people who accept the consensus of the evidence-based community are found across the political spectrum and in every country, while those who accept your conspiracy theory are all found on the American/British/Australian right, suggests that it is you who are talking politics and not science. The fact that I keep pointing to data and you keep ranting about Soros does the same.
 

EatTheRich

President
When did I say that math should be disregarded?

Be specific.

Coming from the simpleton who babbles about the math that other people do and will not even dispute that he can not do fundamental Geometry or Algebra.

Play with this Dumbo
“Math infers nothing.”

I am a math major, I’m pretty sure my math skills are on par with yours. But I am not an expert on paleoclimatology, as you are not, and your stupid assertions about what I can or can’t do are not relevant to the methods used by those who are experts to arrive at the robust consensus they have.
 

EatTheRich

President
There is no very rapid warming.

Why do you care if there is if the World ends in 12 years anyway?

Go get laid, there is a first time for everything, hell you might even like it

The temperature record says there is very rapid warming.

AOC was referring to the disastrous effects for human civilization of greatly accelerating that warming.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
“Math infers nothing.”

I am a math major, I’m pretty sure my math skills are on par with yours. But I am not an expert on paleoclimatology, as you are not, and your stupid assertions about what I can or can’t do are not relevant to the methods used by those who are experts to arrive at the robust consensus they have.
If you are a math major, then you are also a kid, who has been brainwashed by retarded liberal professors who are now actually claiming that the entire Universe is not real, but is a computer simulation, presumably like the matrix. Which by the way infers that a programmer created the Universe itself, which is actually really similar to the book of Genesis

Got that kid, go ahead try to argue if you want to be destroyed again
 

reason10

Governor
1. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence.

So far, it is more accurate that ANY bullshit claims you have vomited on this thread.

2. It is much easier to predict long-term climate trends than to predict short-term weather events, just as it is easier to predict that average winter temperatures will be higher than average summer temperatures than to predict whether it will be windier an hour from now or not.

In the case of predicting climate change taking place in 50 years, that's the easiest prediction of all. There are no consequences when the prediction is WRONG. It takes NO brains whatsoever to make such a prediction.


3. Feel free to link to any scientist saying Florida would be underwater by 2000.


Where do I start? First, no SCIENTIST ever said that. No SCIENTIST is predicting any kind of climate change whatsoever. But to answer your request: https://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/10-global-warming-doomsday-predictions/

https://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/10-global-warming-doomsday-predictions/

10) According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Oh, speaking of Algore:
https://www.independentsentinel.com/climate-crisis-inventor-al-gore-predicts-trumps-early-doom/
Sea levels were supposed to have risen 20 feet by now thanks to the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Al Gore said it was to take place in the “near future.” As it turns out, sea levels appear to be rising at about three millimetres per year. At that rate, with twenty feet a little more than six thousand millimeters, we have a good 200 years. A lot can change in that amount of time.


Al Gore reported over and over that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in the summer by now. Snopes found, “In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.” They then concluded that while “Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend,” Al Gore “definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.”


4. The projections of climate scientists have been very accurate and much more accurate than those by researchers committed to the hypothesis that AGW doesn’t exist, who were laughably off in every prediction


They have NOT been anywhere NEAR accurate. They have ALL been wrong. And had these hacks been working in a REAL business, (one that affects the real world) they would have been FIRED.

And George Soros keeps paying these clowns.
 

EatTheRich

President
1. Yes, it is anecdotal evidence.

So far, it is more accurate that ANY bullshit claims you have vomited on this thread.

2. It is much easier to predict long-term climate trends than to predict short-term weather events, just as it is easier to predict that average winter temperatures will be higher than average summer temperatures than to predict whether it will be windier an hour from now or not.

In the case of predicting climate change taking place in 50 years, that's the easiest prediction of all. There are no consequences when the prediction is WRONG. It takes NO brains whatsoever to make such a prediction.


3. Feel free to link to any scientist saying Florida would be underwater by 2000.


Where do I start? First, no SCIENTIST ever said that. No SCIENTIST is predicting any kind of climate change whatsoever. But to answer your request:

https://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/10-global-warming-doomsday-predictions/

10) According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

Oh, speaking of Algore:
https://www.independentsentinel.com/climate-crisis-inventor-al-gore-predicts-trumps-early-doom/
Sea levels were supposed to have risen 20 feet by now thanks to the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Al Gore said it was to take place in the “near future.” As it turns out, sea levels appear to be rising at about three millimetres per year. At that rate, with twenty feet a little more than six thousand millimeters, we have a good 200 years. A lot can change in that amount of time.


Al Gore reported over and over that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in the summer by now. Snopes found, “In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.” They then concluded that while “Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend,” Al Gore “definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.”


4. The projections of climate scientists have been very accurate and much more accurate than those by researchers committed to the hypothesis that AGW doesn’t exist, who were laughably off in every prediction


They have NOT been anywhere NEAR accurate. They have ALL been wrong. And had these hacks been working in a REAL business, (one that affects the real world) they would have been FIRED.

And George Soros keeps paying these clowns.
Scientists 40-50 years ago made accurate claims about how the climate would change between them and now. In particular, they predicted a huge disruption of the dynamic equilibrium that had been in place for thousands of years, and predicted with great accuracy what the new emerging equilibrium would look like.
2. “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” does not say the same thing as “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 if the global warming trend is not reversed.”
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Scientists 40-50 years ago made accurate claims about how the climate would change between them and now. In particular, they predicted a huge disruption of the dynamic equilibrium that had been in place for thousands of years, and predicted with great accuracy what the new emerging equilibrium would look like.
2. “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” does not say the same thing as “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 if the global warming trend is not reversed.”
Scientist in the 70's were predicting another ice age.

https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/

Give up kid, you lose at everything
 
Top