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

There is no climate change

reason10

Governor
Just to bring the idiots up to speed. (And here there seems to be SOOOOOO many idiots.)

IF IT SNOWS IN KEY WEST FLORIDA FOR JUNE AND JULY FOR ONE SUMMER, THAT IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF IT SNOWS IN KEY WEST FLORIDA FOR FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, THAT'S A CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF WINTER TEMPERATURES IN ALASKA REACH 100 DEGREES IN THE SHADE FOR JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST FOR ONE SUMMER, THAT IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF WINTER TEMPERATURES IN ALASKA REACH 100 DEGREES IN THE SHADE FOR JUNE, JULY AND AUGUST FOR FIVE YEARS IN A ROW, THAT'S A CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF THESE INCIDENTS OCCUR ONLY IN THOSE REGIONS WITH ZERO EFFECT ON THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT'S NOT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Got it, idiots?

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT WHERE YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING (and you bitches certainly lost that [Unwelcome language removed] argument) AND JUST TRIED TO GIVE IT ANOTHER NAME. CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS WEATHER PATTERNS HAVE CHANGED AND THE CHANGE HAS REMAINED CONSTANT OVER SEVERAL YEARS. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS THIS HAPPENS ALL OVER THE WORLD, NOT JUST IN A SINGLE AREA.


NOW YOU MORONS KNOW THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE CHANGE. IF YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO RAISE YOUR GASOLINE TAXES BASED ON ANYTHING ELSE, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
 

EatTheRich

President
1. All caps does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it look as if you are compensating for a lack of strong evidence.
2. What exactly are winter temperatures in Alaska in June, July, and August? It is spring/summer in Alaska in those months.
3. There have been dramatic departures, all over the world, from the long-term equilibrium of weather patterns. These departures occurred in just the specified ways scientists predicted they would occur as a result of the warming they predicted and then observed. Alternative explanations for these departures have been thoroughly explored and rejected based on the evidence.
4. We have not reached a new equilibrium in part because the warming is continuing.
 

reason10

Governor
]1. All caps does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it look as if you are compensating for a lack of strong evidence.

FACTS make my argument stronger. All I've done is give FACTS. I have presented the defined weather patterns and what the defined climate would be if those weather patterns were consistent. I don't need some idiot from SLATE telling me how not to think.

2. What exactly are winter temperatures in Alaska in June, July, and August? It is spring/summer in Alaska in those months.

In Anchorage, Alaska, it is between 68-51 in July. For the weather to change, it would have to jump to 100 for one summer. For the climate to change, that 100 would have to remain constant for several summers, or don't you even [Unwelcome language removed] know what the definition of "climate" is?'

3. There have been dramatic departures, all over the world, from the long-term equilibrium of weather patterns. These departures occurred in just the specified ways scientists predicted they would occur as a result of the warming they predicted and then observed. Alternative explanations for these departures have been thoroughly explored and rejected based on the evidence.

The idiotic concept of "equilibrium" of weather patterns exists only in those moronic flawed computer models that those hacks you call scientists rely on. Weather is ANYTHING but constant. Nothing stays the same, so there is no way physically for the climate to CHANGE. One year, Florida has four hurricanes hit our coast. Another year, NONE. That is not equilibrium by any stretch of the imagination.



4. We have not reached a new equilibrium in part because the warming is continuing.

The only reason you idiots are calling it climate change is because the planet DID NOT [Unwelcome language removed] WARM when you morons said it would. You have no [Unwelcome language removed] idea what you're talking about. You believe if you just slap a different label on a problem that never existed, you can get carbon taxes on all Americans who drive SUVs.

And you wonder why everybody says you liberals are such delusional idiots.
 

reason10

Governor
Oh, by the way boys and girls: The planet DID warm in the past. The climate DID change. At one time, the land mass known as Florida was completely under water.

And that was long before the appearance of human life on this planet.

Since then, the climate is pretty much defying all those idiotic computer models your hack scientists rely upon. The planet is not warming. PERIOD.

I gave the criteria in the first post for a textbook change of the climate. And I REALLY had to simplify it for the idiot liberals around here, (apparently not simple enough, as I have just learned.)
 

EatTheRich

President
The planet definitely did warm. The evidence for that is overwhelming. Which is why Alaska had just the sorts of temperature anomalies you arbitrarily asserted would inevitably be the effects of “climate change.”
 

reason10

Governor
The planet definitely did warm. The evidence for that is overwhelming. Which is why Alaska had just the sorts of temperature anomalies you arbitrarily asserted would inevitably be the effects of “climate change.”
Jeez! You must be a Downs Syndrome adult.

(Or maybe, you're just ten, both in age and IQ).

https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/07/new-paper-why-the-planet-did-not-warm-from-1998-to-2008/

New paper: Why the planet did not warm from 1998 to 2008
A firecracker of a scientific paper was released today …


The new work attempts to explain why the global temperature did not rise between 1998 and 2008. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see abstract), the paper begins with a few somewhat startling admissions from the authors:


  • Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008.
  • Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008.

This is notable because many climate scientists, including James Hansen, have argued that temperatures did not stop rising during the first decade of the 21st century.


Here’s some data from Britain’s Hadley Center that shows this leveling off of temperatures.


ALGORE PREDICTED THAT THE PLANET WOULD WARM SO MUCH THAT BY THE YEAR 2000 FLORIDA WOULD BE TOTALLY UNDER WATER. I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND WORK ON THE WEST COAST SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK. THE COASTLINE HAS NOT CHANGED ONE [Unwelcome language removed] IOTA.

 

EatTheRich

President
Jeez! You must be a Downs Syndrome adult.

(Or maybe, you're just ten, both in age and IQ).

https://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/07/new-paper-why-the-planet-did-not-warm-from-1998-to-2008/

New paper: Why the planet did not warm from 1998 to 2008
A firecracker of a scientific paper was released today …



The new work attempts to explain why the global temperature did not rise between 1998 and 2008. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (see abstract), the paper begins with a few somewhat startling admissions from the authors:





    • Data for global surface temperature indicate little warming between 1998 and 2008.
    • Furthermore, global surface temperature declines 0.2 °C between 2005 and 2008.

This is notable because many climate scientists, including James Hansen, have argued that temperatures did not stop rising during the first decade of the 21st century.


Here’s some data from Britain’s Hadley Center that shows this leveling off of temperatures.

ALGORE PREDICTED THAT THE PLANET WOULD WARM SO MUCH THAT BY THE YEAR 2000 FLORIDA WOULD BE TOTALLY UNDER WATER. I LIVE IN FLORIDA AND WORK ON THE WEST COAST SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK. THE COASTLINE HAS NOT CHANGED ONE [Unwelcome language removed] IOTA.
1. “Little warming” does not mean no warming.
2. A short period with just the right endpoints may show little warming or even cooling. A longer period definitely shows appreciable warming.
3. Al Gore (not a scientist) never predicted anything of the sort. However, tidal flooding in Florida is common in places it was unheard of 15 years ago.
 
1. All caps does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it look as if you are compensating for a lack of strong evidence.
2. What exactly are winter temperatures in Alaska in June, July, and August? It is spring/summer in Alaska in those months.
3. There have been dramatic departures, all over the world, from the long-term equilibrium of weather patterns. These departures occurred in just the specified ways scientists predicted they would occur as a result of the warming they predicted and then observed. Alternative explanations for these departures have been thoroughly explored and rejected based on the evidence.
4. We have not reached a new equilibrium in part because the warming is continuing.
Your point number three is a blatant lie. Every word of it. Point number four is also a lie.
The predictions have been wrong. There are no "dramatic departures", only the media hyping to extremes weather events that have occurred before.
The entire "climate change" meme is a fraud designed to scare people into giving government control of their private property and the energy they use.
 
1. “Little warming” does not mean no warming.
2. A short period with just the right endpoints may show little warming or even cooling. A longer period definitely shows appreciable warming.
3. Al Gore (not a scientist) never predicted anything of the sort. However, tidal flooding in Florida is common in places it was unheard of 15 years ago.
Well, yes he did. He said that and more:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Recent independent studies have shown that sea ice is actually increasing.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
1. All caps does not make your argument stronger. It just makes it look as if you are compensating for a lack of strong evidence.
2. What exactly are winter temperatures in Alaska in June, July, and August? It is spring/summer in Alaska in those months.
3. There have been dramatic departures, all over the world, from the long-term equilibrium of weather patterns. These departures occurred in just the specified ways scientists predicted they would occur as a result of the warming they predicted and then observed. Alternative explanations for these departures have been thoroughly explored and rejected based on the evidence.
4. We have not reached a new equilibrium in part because the warming is continuing.
To sum up your speculation...You are an idiot.

Science says for every action,(like warming) there is an equal but opposite reaction.

You left out science 101.

If warming is continuing, so is cooling.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
1. “Little warming” does not mean no warming.
2. A short period with just the right endpoints may show little warming or even cooling. A longer period definitely shows appreciable warming.
3. Al Gore (not a scientist) never predicted anything of the sort. However, tidal flooding in Florida is common in places it was unheard of 15 years ago.
Posting of a lunatic, not a scientist.
 

EatTheRich

President
Your point number three is a blatant lie. Every word of it. Point number four is also a lie.
The predictions have been wrong. There are no "dramatic departures", only the media hyping to extremes weather events that have occurred before.
The entire "climate change" meme is a fraud designed to scare people into giving government control of their private property and the energy they use.
The collected data say otherwise. Which is why every scientific body that has based its opinion on looking at the data has come to the same conclusion.
 

EatTheRich

President
To sum up your speculation...You are an idiot.

Science says for every action,(like warming) there is an equal but opposite reaction.

You left out science 101.

If warming is continuing, so is cooling.
That is not what balance of forces mean. Yes, there is energy conservation. And what that means is that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling and less heat is radiated into space.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
That is not what balance of forces mean. Yes, there is energy conservation. And what that means is that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling and less heat is radiated into space.
Then your science is flawed.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
1. This link doesn’t mention Florida.
2. The Arctic already has nearly ice-free summers.
3. Sea ice is increasing because the glaciers are breaking up as they melt.
Arctic Sea Ice Is Growing Faster Than Before, But There's ...
https://forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/12/10/arctic-sea-ice-is...
Dec 10, 2018 · The story lies in the magnitudes of both changes. While the Arctic sea ice is growing faster and higher during the winter months, it is more than offset by the melting in the summer months.

  • Author: Trevor Nace
Trevor Nace is a PhD geologist, founder of Science Trends, Forbes contributor, and explorer. Follow his journey @trevornace.

Quartz Vs. Granite Countertops - A Geologist's Perspective
www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/10/26/quartz-vs-granite-countertops-geologists-perspective/

A Scientist says other wise.
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
The Oil and Energy lobbyists spend millions to convince people global warming is a hoax. Ok, then if it is not true then why do they spend so much money to convince people otherwise?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#277023657c4f


Niall McCarthy
Contributor
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topicsa report from InfluenceMapused a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change.

BP has the highest annual expenditure on climate lobbying at $53 million, followed by Shell with $49 million and ExxonMobil with $41 million. Chevron and Total each spend around $29 million every year. InfluenceMap states that part of the lobby spend goes towards sophisticated efforts to engage politicians and the general public on environmental policies that could impact fossil fuel usage. A recent example of this is BP coordinating messages across its social media channels and advertising platforms that reframe the climate crisis as a "dual" energy challenge.

The research also found that the five companies listed support their lobbying expenditures with a financial outlay of $195 million annually for focused branding activities which suggest they support action against climate change. The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects. Both Shell and Chevron rejected the report's findings and reinforced their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change.
 

Drumcollie

* See DC's list of Kook posters*
The Oil and Energy lobbyists spend millions to convince people global warming is a hoax. Ok, then if it is not true then why do they spend so much money to convince people otherwise?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#277023657c4f


Niall McCarthy
Contributor
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topicsa report from InfluenceMapused a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change.

BP has the highest annual expenditure on climate lobbying at $53 million, followed by Shell with $49 million and ExxonMobil with $41 million. Chevron and Total each spend around $29 million every year. InfluenceMap states that part of the lobby spend goes towards sophisticated efforts to engage politicians and the general public on environmental policies that could impact fossil fuel usage. A recent example of this is BP coordinating messages across its social media channels and advertising platforms that reframe the climate crisis as a "dual" energy challenge.

The research also found that the five companies listed support their lobbying expenditures with a financial outlay of $195 million annually for focused branding activities which suggest they support action against climate change. The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects. Both Shell and Chevron rejected the report's findings and reinforced their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change.
That from not a scientist.
 
Top