Al Gore gonna have a global warming telethon in December, during one of the coldest winters on record LOL
These people are stupid.
These people are stupid.
Thanksgiving coldest on record in the NEast
- Thread starter nail1988
- Start date
Heard that someone challenged Al Gore to give up his private jet and 'go green' on his travel.
He of course refused.
He of course refused.
Gore is the same guy that predicted in 2009 that the North Pole would melt by 2014. It's LARGER today than it was in 2009.
@BSC911 @nwflcock @SoProudNole how did you guys get so easily suckered in by this man-made climate change nonsense? LOL
@BSC911 @nwflcock @SoProudNole how did you guys get so easily suckered in by this man-made climate change nonsense? LOL
Well there you have it. Find a few guys that go against the vast majority and your good. Just ignore all the rest.
Listen.Learn @BSC911
John Coleman ( scientist ) and former founder of the weather channel destroys CNN couple years back over the GlowBAll warming hoax. He explains the fraud of the so called consensus of the 97%
I’ve seen it. That doesn’t mean the vast majority don’t recognize it. The evidence is so strong at this point that only Luddites won’t admit it at this point.
The old “ reds “ are the new “ greens” bent on using the hoax of man made GlowBAll warming to run the world.
@BSC911
Opinion is not evidence. Especially when it is politically motivated.
These people are stupid.
Except there is both scientific and empirical evidence to support it. By all means, continue to delude yourself. It won’t be you that pays the price for the most part, only our children and grandchildren. But rather than clinging on to dubious claims, just be honest and say you just don’t care.
Wrong about empirical evidence.... none of the prediction models work. It’s because they incorrectly model (and overstate) delta-increase of average radiation adsorption of carbon dioxide in the solar radiation bands of note, remember that CO-2 is only 0.3% of our atmosphere and an increase of 15% of 0.3% of average radiation absorption isn’t really a lot. The models also understate the effect of water vapor albedo in the same bands as CO-2
I’m not talking about the models, they are by their very nature in exact. What is undeniable is that the earth’s temperatures are getting warmer, the ocean waters are getting warmer, the seas are rising, and catastrophic events are incresing, all of which means that a lot of money will be spent to adapt to these changes. I won’t opine what to do about it though, I will let the politicians argue that.
BTW, I see that CO2 figure bandied about without ever explain that small changes in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere can cause significant changes in the weather. The water vapor argument has also been disproven but is a common red herring that is used by certain climate change deniers.
The acidation of rain due to a 25-50 parts/million increase in atmospheric concentrations is what is highly overstated .... and if you ever spent the time looking at the actual radiation bands at which CO-2 is primarily active, you’ll see that water vapor is also active in the exact bands.... however some models assign a 50/50 split between CO-2 and water vapor, when in fact it should be more like 9/91 spilt as water vapor on average should approach 9200 parts/million
..... So that “common red herring” is what YOU are eating from the folk pushing the current politically chosen stance
.....I will state that the thermal power cycles that man employs are indeed adding heat to the atmosphere, which is undeniable. It is overstated, but is in fact an imbalance to the radiation homeostasis between earth and the sun. However, carbon dioxide is an inappropriate surrogate to this effect, and in many circles, causing a dangerous and invalid conversation as to the response. Until the proper models are constructed that rely upon sound heat rejection and radiation absorption constants, resistance to blind knee-jerk reactions must occur
Yeah, what a revelation. I’m sure all of those NASA scientists never considered water vapor in the atmosphere. For some reason, You guys so want climate change not to be real that you keep coming up with new theories that continue to get shot down time after time. It’s called confirmation bias, or head in the sand if you prefer. Look at the OP. He thinks one cold day in November disproves it. Genius.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Climate change is real and proven. Man-made climate change is a theory.
Critical thinkers get this. Sheep do not.
That’s the first semi intelligent thing you’ve said OTB. Don’t let it go to your head.
I've told you repeatedly that climate change is real and that man-made climate change (ie global warming) is a hoax,. Several other posters here have as well.
You don't listen, so you don't learn.
Please try to differentiate between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ in your arguments. Irrefutable that the average global temperature has steadily increased for over a decade. Global warming is real and is in consensus in the scientific community. To argue over this fact is silly.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/
“Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations—like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter—do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.”
What could still be open for debate is if global warming is truly human-induced and, more specifically, due to our carbon emissions. However, scientific, peer-reviewed consensus has moved clearly to the side of ‘global warming is a man-made outcome”.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/
“Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations—like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter—do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.”
What could still be open for debate is if global warming is truly human-induced and, more specifically, due to our carbon emissions. However, scientific, peer-reviewed consensus has moved clearly to the side of ‘global warming is a man-made outcome”.
Same scientific community that told us in the 70s that we would be in an ice age by now.
Man-made climate change is an idea, not fact. If it were fact, then it could be proven. This isn't that hard.
Read a little closer... I alluded to 'man made' as being still open for debate (although consensus will soon come for that as well). What is FACT is global warming is occuring. Irrefutable.
What do you 'believe' are the predominant reasons for global warming, if not man-made?
Coldest November on record in the NE. How does that happen if the globe is warming?
Please read the article I linked previously. 'Weather' does not equal 'climate'. Irrefutable that average global temperature continues to increase, regardless of localized weather/temperature anomalies. The article actually is a response to nearly your exact question from a reader of Scientific American...
But if global temperatures were truly increasing uniformly, as you claim, then it would be all but impossible to be seeing record low temperatures, even on a localized level.
This is just common sense.
Not 'as I claim'... 'as has been proven'.
Localized weather temps in the US Northeast are negated by record highs in other areas of the world. 'Global' warming requires a view of temps not in isolated parts of the world, but across the 'globe'.
From 6 days ago in Australia:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/australia-braces-record-breaking-temperatures-heatwave-hits/
If you look at it holistically on a global scale, what you theorize isn't common sense, but rather just isolated and narrow in assessment.
Last edited:
Saying it has been proven doesn't prove it. Neither does citing a study. There are numerous studies that claim that global warming fears are either completely overblown, or completely unfounded. Something man-made climate change believers forget when claiming there is a 'consensus' among scientists for the idea of global warming.
As for your claim that record high temps negate record low ones, the low ones also negate the high temps, by that logic. Which means we are back to having a normal climate that changes. Not global warming.
If you want to believe that man-made climate change is real and that the world will be inhabitable in 10 years as Al Gore claims every few years, knock yourself out.
Critical thinkers go on fact, not politically-driven theories.
Ok, I'll leave it here then, since you have declared yourself to not be a 'critical thinker' by opposing facts. Nothing politically driven by my statements.
I just hope that you do more holistic research, and not feel empowered and stop researching after discovering narrowly focused studies that support your theory that nothing is happening... Instead, I'm hoping you make the time to review a larger sample of what is out there, especially from what politically-neutral folks who are more knowledgeable than you and I have assessed on global warming. In this information age where everyone can be a content creator, you can always find some supporting 'study' for just about every theory out there (eg. 'flat-earthers'). But these 'minority reports' are overwhelmed by the mountains of legitimate, thorough research to support that global warming is a reality. It's been proven. Next step is to determine why--which is where we should focus our energy now instead of debating a fact.
Good luck in your research!
We know why temperatures go up and down. It's called climate change. Not sure why you are denying science, but whatever.
You have more research to do than I thought... Temperatures going up and down is not 'climate change'. Here's the Simple Wikipedia definition for you on what 'climate change' is...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
"Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time."
Again, good luck in your future research...
He's actually right... but only because he didn't understand what 'climate change' means. He thought climate change was 'changes in weather'.
Ah yes, citing Wikipedia. This is almost as good as citing Snopes.
If you want to believe that global warming is real, knock yourself out.
Speaking of climate change, what's the deal with the Paris Climate Accord? We were told that these countries were all coming together to save the planet by committing to lowering emissions.
How many of those countries have met the levels they committed to?
Critical thinkers can spot the disconnect between political rhetoric and concrete action. If man-made climate change was real, then the countries championing it the loudest would be adjusting their behavior accordingly.
Just common sense. I'd ask Al Gore what he think but he just drove off in a fleet of SUVs pumping pollution into the air...
I used Simple Wikipedia (for kids) to help you out with this basic concept to feed into your non-critical thinking, but go ahead and use whatever sources you choose to research the definition of 'climate change'. It will be consistent.
Even the NY Post (ie. Rupert Murdoch) article mentioned earlier in this thread acknowledges average global temps increasing by 5-10 degrees by the end of the century (article leans more towards the 5 degree end)--aka 'global warming'. It's a fact.
Like I mentioned before, what's not in consensus is what causes it (carbon emissions? deforestation? whale farts?). But also what's not clear is how much of an increase to the average global temperature the planet can withstand (THIS is what that NY Post article actually focuses on, making fun of the grandiose 'sky is falling' response to the global warming consensus, and not refuting global warming itself). So Rupert's publication acknowledges that the average global temperature will continues to rise anywhere from 5-9 degrees by the end of the century--ie. Global Warming. A five degree increase on the average is massive, btw.
Just hoping you'll do more seeking to understand, because your current library of sources seems too narrow and politically motivated.
