Thanksgiving coldest on record in the NEast

[BSC911]

Parts of the southwestern United States are under an excessive heat warning going into this weekend. Temperatures are forecast to reach as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas, and officials are urging people to take precautions as heat this high can turn deadly.

I’m not sure what the weather will be like in Waco. Can someone help me out there?

 

[GADAWGinIraq]

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Heat advisory through the weekend in Waco.

 

[BSC911]

Heat advisory through the weekend in Waco.

There you go. I’ll file that under WGAF.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Woke up to weather in the 60s. Middle of July. Will take this kind of global warming.

 

[nail1988]

Sunny

WBAP tells me we will not set any records today at 100 F the record is 107F in 1980

warmers will be upset

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Sunny

WBAP tells me we will not set any records today at 100 F the record is 107F in 1980

warmers will be upset

We've had nothing like the scorchers of 2011, 1980 and 1969. So far, 2020 is a picnic.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Warmists say these are the 5 hottest years in the history of the planet.

Then how is record high temps still from 1969 and 1980? Shouldn't all records be from the last 5 years?

Warmists want us to believe global warming doesn't happen across the globe.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Warmists say these are the 5 hottest years in the history of the planet.

Then how is record high temps still from 1969 and 1980? Shouldn't all records be from the last 5 years?

Warmists want us to believe global warming doesn't happen across the globe.

Warmists selected data from concrete jungles with large populations while making their claims.

 

[gatordad3]

Warmists say these are the 5 hottest years in the history of the planet.

Then how is record high temps still from 1969 and 1980? Shouldn't all records be from the last 5 years?

Warmists want us to believe global warming doesn't happen across the globe.

Sheiiiitt! Tell me when any warmist goes through a whole year without saying it's a record high. I can name one resident warmist who says the same crap every year.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Sheiiiitt! Tell me when any warmist goes through a whole year without saying it's a record high. I can name one resident warmist who says the same crap every year.

The glaciers are melting, that proves man-made climate change is real, stories never get old.

Ice melts in the summer. Some sheep haven't figured that out yet.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Sheiiiitt! Tell me when any warmist goes through a whole year without saying it's a record high. I can name one resident warmist who says the same crap every year.

considering a 1 to 2 degree change over a century, these claims at best are based on tenth of a degree change or even 1/100th a degree.

Sorry but measuring outdoor temps are not that precise.

So if, as an example only, average temps went from 70 to 72.5 from 1900 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2020 to 72.65, I am supposed to panic, ban fossil fuels, implement carbon taxes in the trillions, create new green regulations and change the society to socialism.

Hell all Carter wanted me to do was lower my thermostat and dress like an Eskimo in my own house. He was nuts. These people are psychopaths.

 

[BSC911]

considering a 1 to 2 degree change over a century, these claims at best are based on tenth of a degree change or even 1/100th a degree.

Sorry but measuring outdoor temps are not that precise.

So if, as an example only, average temps went from 70 to 72.5 from 1900 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2020 to 72.65, I am supposed to panic, ban fossil fuels, implement carbon taxes in the trillions, create new green regulations and change the society to socialism.

Hell all Carter wanted me to do was lower my thermostat and dress like an Eskimo in my own house. He was nuts. These people are psychopaths.

It seems like you have it all figured out. These heat waves, glaciers melting and rising seas are just a figment of our imagination.

why do you hate climate scientists.

 

[BamaFan1137]

why do you hate climate scientists.

Because many of them lie. A few have actually admitted as much.

Also, the cost of an AOC style solution would be starvation and death for the poorest people on earth. Seriously, that's the cost.

Another cost is that many of us actually do doubt scientists like never before....x1 billion when said scientists conclusions are in favor of one special interest group but against another. This is what happens when people are less than honest.

 

[BSC911]

Because many of them lie. A few have actually admitted as much.

Also, the cost of an AOC style solution would be starvation and death for the poorest people on earth. Seriously, that's the cost.

Another cost is that many of us actually do doubt scientists like never before....x1 billion when said scientists conclusions are in favor of one special interest group but against another. This is what happens when people are less than honest.

That’s just a deflection. Why should they lie more than any other scientist. And there’s just as much lying from the scientific research paid for by the oil companies. And with the overwhelming consensus, it’s not even a debate any more, even from the oil companies.

once we move past that strawman, which most already have, we can have a serious discussion on what to do about it. The AOC style reaction is on the fringes, but make a good byline for Fox News. Don’t be taken in.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

"In 2019, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.71°F (0.95°C) above the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C), making it the second-warmest year on record."

58.71F Hello

"The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (+0.18°C / +0.32°F) since 1981." - climate.gov

Such precision doesn't exist especially when comparing 1880 to today. Averages of averages are mixed in with measurements from crude instruments before the digital age.

58.7F is not a crisis.

As your boy Biden says "Come on man."

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

That’s just a deflection. Why should they lie more than any other scientist. And there’s just as much lying from the scientific research paid for by the oil companies. And with the overwhelming consensus, it’s not even a debate any more, even from the oil companies.

once we move past that strawman, which most already have, we can have a serious discussion on what to do about it. The AOC style reaction is on the fringes, but make a good byline for Fox News. Don’t be taken in.

Most of this retort is BS but you asked a question. Answer: Nothing . It is not a crisis and nothing needs to BE done.

 

[BamaFan1137]

That’s just a deflection.

I literally answered your question. How can that be a deflection?

Why should they lie more than any other scientist.

Political and ideological beliefs. FTR, I don't accept big oil scientists at face value either. That would be stupid.

Some of these people are true believers (see religion) and they, whether on purpose or not, suffer from confirmation bias...at best. Some are profiteers who are making money off the "oil solutions." Still others have seen what has happened to their peers when they denied the religion. Finally the money for grants goes towards proving crap like global warming WAY MORE OFTEN than it goes toward disproving global warming. Publish or perish.

 

[BSC911]

I literally answered your question. How can that be a deflection?



Political and ideological beliefs. FTR, I don't accept big oil scientists at face value either. That would be stupid.

Some of these people are true believers (see religion) and they, whether on purpose or not, suffer from confirmation bias...at best. Some are profiteers who are making money off the "oil solutions." Still others have seen what has happened to their peers when they denied the religion. Finally the money for grants goes towards proving crap like global warming WAY MORE OFTEN than it goes toward disproving global warming. Publish or perish.

You deflected by highlighting a few rouge scientists ( without providing any evidence btw), while ignoring the general consensus. The vast majority aren’t fudging the data. You are assuming these scientists are all on the take, and are willing to lie just because they receive grants. The data is all subject to peer review. There is little evidence it’s all bogus. Publish or perish doesn’t mean the data and conclusions are invalid.

 

[BSC911]

Most of this retort is BS but you asked a question. Answer: Nothing . It is not a crisis and nothing needs to BE done.

Well, most people disagree. But thanks for weighing in.

 

[instaGATOR]

BS-C911 = Yap-Yap-Yap,,, ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

 

[nail1988]

BS-C911 = Yap-Yap-Yap,,, ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Well, most people disagree. But thanks for weighing in.

LOL. You know some of the strawman stuff is irritating and I am like really? BUT as long as the voters have this last or near the bottom of priority and your side is busy fighting strawmen then I am content that you are stuck on 4th and 50 at the 1.

After I am dead and my kids and grandkids are comfortably protected from the serfdom of your socialist Utopian nonsense, then carry on with your regulations, green new deal, 80% tax rate nanny police state.

 

[BamaFan1137]

You deflected by highlighting a few rouge scientists ( without providing any evidence btw), while ignoring the general consensus. The vast majority aren’t fudging the data. You are assuming these scientists are all on the take, and are willing to lie just because they receive grants. The data is all subject to peer review. There is little evidence it’s all bogus. Publish or perish doesn’t mean the data and conclusions are invalid.

Some have admitted that they lied and fudged data...or didn't ask or answer questions that would challenge the desired conclusion. I read a piece a few weeks ago where the guy actually apologized. If you want proof, find it. If you think I'm lying, I can live with that.

The general consensus isn't fact. It's a general consensus. Further, I have explained why I believe that consensus exists. I'm not sure if I shared it on this board but my dad (who is a retired scientist) has a very good friend who was in a senior leadership position with NASA. He was forced into retirement because he wouldn't toe the line re: Global Warming. It made national news. To be clear, he was forced into early retirement for denying the religion. He isn't an unreasonable man. He didn't say global warming did or didn't exist. His position was that the debate had not been settled on whether man was the cause.

You're convinced and that's fine. I'm not convinced, either way ftr (which is why these are my first posts ITT), and to spend the kind of money we're talking about, and to upend human lives like we're talking about and to do the kind of damage to the American and world economy that we're talking about, I would need to be ENTIRELY convinced.

 

[instaGATOR]

Speaking of scientists: Make that 3 cures for the Communist Red Chinese Kung Flu.

Dr. Richard Bartlett’s COVID ‘Silver Bullet’
Budesonide Empties Hospital ICU

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 11:30 AM PT — Saturday, July 11, 2020


Dr. Richard Bartlett shared exclusive news with OAN about how asthma medicine Budesonide emptied a Texas hospital ICU after being used to treat coronavirus.

See the Vid for full details.

https://www.oann.com/dr-richard-bartletts-covid-silver-bullet-budesonide-empties-hospital-icu/

 

[BamaFan1137]

Publish or perish doesn’t mean the data and conclusions are invalid.

Nope but it does help to explain some of the general consensus that you mentioned. That is why I included it in my reply.

 

[BSC911]

Nope but it does help to explain some of the general consensus that you mentioned. That is why I included it in my reply.

Every research group must public or perish, and they all require funding. That doesn’t mean they all make shit up. Sorry, I’m not buying it,

 

[instaGATOR]

BS-C911 = Yap-Yap-Yap-Yap-Yap,,, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[BamaFan1137]

Every research group must public or perish, and they all require funding. That doesn’t mean they all make shit up. Sorry, I’m not buying it,

Cool because I'm not selling it.

If you don't believe that special interest groups fund research expecting a certain result, I don't know what to tell you.

And it's typically not as black and white as making shit up. Almost never imo. It's more nuanced than that. As I said above, sometimes it's just about not asking or answering certain questions that may cast doubt on the desired conclusion. That happens regularly on both sides.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

Every research group must public or perish, and they all require funding. That doesn’t mean they all make shit up. Sorry, I’m not buying it,

FDA puts out a notice that they are looking into 16 high end pet food brands linked to canine heart disease

Basis due to research by a well known veterinary college in NY. The veterinary cardiologist for the college quoted saying “owners should switch to a brand produced by a company with long standing history “

The only major manufacturer not listed..... donated HEAVILY to that college to where I think they built a building

You tell me

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Some have admitted that they lied and fudged data...or didn't ask or answer questions that would challenge the desired conclusion. I read a piece a few weeks ago where the guy actually apologized. If you want proof, find it. If you think I'm lying, I can live with that.

The general consensus isn't fact. It's a general consensus. Further, I have explained why I believe that consensus exists. I'm not sure if I shared it on this board but my dad (who is a retired scientist) has a very good friend who was in a senior leadership position with NASA. He was forced into retirement because he wouldn't toe the line re: Global Warming. It made national news. To be clear, he was forced into early retirement for denying the religion. He isn't an unreasonable man. He didn't say global warming did or didn't exist. His position was that the debate had not been settled on whether man was the cause.

You're convinced and that's fine. I'm not convinced, either way ftr (which is why these are my first posts ITT), and to spend the kind of money we're talking about, and to upend human lives like we're talking about and to do the kind of damage to the American and world economy that we're talking about, I would need to be ENTIRELY convinced.

I wasted my time siting a couple book titles and authors on these pages by leading climate scientists poo pooing the man made climate hoax. The Warmists don't read the opposition.

 

[BSC911]

FDA puts out a notice that they are looking into 16 high end pet food brands linked to canine heart disease

Basis due to research by a well known veterinary college in NY. The veterinary cardiologist for the college quoted saying “owners should switch to a brand produced by a company with long standing history “

The only major manufacturer not listed..... donated HEAVILY to that college to where I think they built a building

You tell me

See above. Again, I’m not say saying ALL research is unbiased. Nice anecdote though.

 

[BSC911]

Cool because I'm not selling it.

If you don't believe that special interest groups fund research expecting a certain result, I don't know what to tell you.

And it's typically not as black and white as making shit up. Almost never imo. It's more nuanced than that. As I said above, sometimes it's just about not asking or answering certain questions that may cast doubt on the desired conclusion. That happens regularly on both sides.

And I agreed that there is biased research. You’re proposition fall apart when there is as much consensus as there is about CC, with events which confirm the theory.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you. I don’t really care. I understand many conservatives have a hard time accepting change.

 

[BamaFan1137]

And I agreed that there is biased research. You’re proposition fall apart when there is as much consensus as there is about CC, with events which confirm the theory.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you. I don’t really care. I understand many conservatives have a hard time accepting change.

I require fact. If that makes me difficult to move, so be it.

 

[BSC911]

I require fact. If that makes me difficult to move, so be it.

There are plenty of facts regarding CC. You just won’t find them ITT.

 

[BamaFan1137]

There are plenty of facts regarding CC. You just won’t find them ITT.

False. There is some consensus but the ENTIRE climate change movement is extremely light on fact.

And by fact I mean actual, verifiable fact. Not opinion or hypothesis that is stated as fact. Science requires that scientists understand and respect the difference between hypothesis and fact....somehow we've lost that in this debate.

 

[BSC911]

False. There is some consensus but the ENTIRE climate change movement is extremely light on fact.

And by fact I mean actual, verifiable fact. Not opinion or hypothesis that is stated as fact. Science requires that scientists understand and respect the difference between hypothesis and fact....somehow we've lost that in this debate.

Wrong. If you choose to look, there are plenty of verifiable facts on temperature, sea levels, Carson dioxide levels, etc. But like I said, it’s not up to me to convince you if you don’t want to learn.

Now, what you may be referring to is the ultimate impact of these factors, and how we should respond to it. That is still subject to reasonable debate. I remember the same debates regarding the depletion of the ozone layer. That is no longer a debate.

 

[gatordad3]

@Sunburnt Indian @nail1988 to the head
You poor libtard warmists.
More bad news for libtards. Miley Cyrus refuses to have kids till climate change is resolved.

 

[IrishPokerDog]

Wrong. If you choose to look, there are plenty of verifiable facts on temperature, sea levels, Carson dioxide levels, etc. But like I said, it’s not up to me to convince you if you don’t want to learn.

Now, what you may be referring to is the ultimate impact of these factors, and how we should respond to it. That is still subject to reasonable debate. I remember the same debates regarding the depletion of the ozone layer. That is no longer a debate.

Ozone depletion by haloginated hydrocarbons is a debate. We are still looking at refrigerants being subject to EPA ozone depletion review when the science behind it was never settled. The physics that would explain how a molecule 5-6 times the weight of air makes it up to stratospheric ozone for depletion purposes doesn’t exist.... I’ve personally examined every transport model. The only way that the science could otherwise explain alternate transport means was that the molecules broke down into chlorine..... and we never saw governments ban chlorine usage.

The old refrigerants were solvents in their own right and it’s not a great idea to discharge solvents into the atmo.... but then, a key part of a refrigerant system is keeping the gas IN the system. In the 80’s, over 50% of refrigerant use was actually to expand foam in a ambient release for cartons,etc only 11% was in HVAC

Again, why was there a successful international push against refrigerants? Ask DuPont.... whose patents on those refrigerants were expired.... and who as the manufacturer was leading the band on their deleterious effects..... another example of ulterior motives in research

I can expound on this topic ad infinitum- so dont get me started

 

[nail1988]

@Sunburnt Indian @nail1988 to the head
You poor libtard warmists.
More bad news for libtards. Miley Cyrus refuses to have kids till climate change is resolved.

View embedded media

HAHAHAHA

these are the people my buddies @bradleygator @BSC911 agree with