Do We even want solve climate change?

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?

James_ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone is not being depleted.

James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

CO2 doesn't do anything to ozone, nor is it involved in the Chapman cycle at all.

James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

What data??? What method??? You mean the bad math you idiots keep trying to use?

James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

The ozone is not being depleted. You don't know the surface temperature of Earth.

James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

Of course they are. They are trying to justify expanding their budgets.

Science is not NASA, the IPCC, or NOAA. Science is not a government agency or a political group.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

UV-B doesn't warm anything. It does help COOL the atmosphere though, by converting oxygen into ozone.

James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

Refraction does not change it's wavelength (except while in the refracting medium itself, the frequency still does not change).

James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Chocolate is food. It is good for you (once you process the revolting nut).

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

I'll go with ozone depletion. ...deleted Holy Link...

The ozone is not being depleted.

James_ wrote:
The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels....deleted Holy Links...

CO2 doesn't do anything to ozone, nor is it involved in the Chapman cycle at all.

James_ wrote:
And until the method in which data was collected for global warming

What data??? What method??? You mean the bad math you idiots keep trying to use?

James_ wrote:
ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase.

The ozone is not being depleted. You don't know the surface temperature of Earth.

James_ wrote:
And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.

Of course they are. They are trying to justify expanding their budgets.

Science is not NASA, the IPCC, or NOAA. Science is not a government agency or a political group.

James_ wrote:
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming.

UV-B doesn't warm anything. It does help COOL the atmosphere though, by converting oxygen into ozone.

James_ wrote:
After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.

Refraction does not change it's wavelength (except while in the refracting medium itself, the frequency still does not change).

James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.


Au Revoir

Chocolate is food. It is good for you (once you process the revolting nut).

I think someone has been sniffing spray paint again.

James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

Inversion fallacy. YOU don't get it.

James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

Fine. No problem. It is not a personal message board here.

James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

So did I.

James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

You didn't use any science. He was specifically asking for the science.

James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

You are wanting to confuse religion with science.

James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE reaching with that one!

James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

You never did anyway. Meh.

James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

Typical liberal line. "Lock 'em up! Punish them for their opinion!".

James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of your religion.

James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

I am.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, it appears our new friend Climatepolutions really has no interest in participating here. It actually looks like he was just dropping in to scare up a couple of bucks. Follow me....

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

If he had done any reading here at all he would have known that the Church of Global Warming is swimming upstream on this forum. So why would he come here to farther "diminish the issue"? As with most issues in life, if you want answers, follow the money.

I went to the website and the above posting from Climatepolutions is only a preamble to a longer article. And at the bottom of the article...Wala!

Author: Craig Harewood/ OurInterest Investment Director

Seems as though the lost cause is broke and someone needs some money to invest. Maybe Greenman will give up his bomb shelter money this week and give his tithe to the Church.

GreenMan wrote:

climatesolutions wrote:
I paused and reflected for just a brief moment after Hurricane Irma and then Hurricane Maria, do we even want to solve climate change ? Scientists already know and constantly remind us that climate change is real and is starting to affect the world. From Neil deGrasse Tyson to James Hansen, "the father of climate change awareness," they tap us on our shoulder and whisper "climate change is real buddy!" Sometimes they even shout it.


Man on moon, Pluto

The two aren't directly connected, but, if we can put a man on the moon and send satellites deep within the solar system ... we can solve climate change. For me it isn't even a question, we just have to determine who is interested in solving it and working backwards. For example, Russia and the USA were both interested in going to the moon to prove their superiority so scientists worked night and day to see how they could do this. Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point, particularly in American politics. I for one don't care too much for American politics (beyond American bombing nations and being one of the chief proponents of climate change - ok, so maybe I do care). However, there is no immediate economic incentive for America to act and we should stop expecting them to. ....


https://www.ourinterest.org/single-post/2017/09/29/Do-we-Even-want-to-solve-Climate-Change

So do we ?

Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change. No one is serious about it on our side of the pond. It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us. That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

I haven't looked at the responses from others to your introduction, but I'm sure it will be hilarious. We are trolled quite a bit by the Deniers here. Their game is to see how long a newbe can tolerate their constant barrages from multiple angles. Then they have their little circle jerk upon the newbe's surrender declaration, usually in the form of one last desperate post.

So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

Climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.

GasGuzler wrote:

Climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.

I see, well thanks for the clarification.

I'll make you a deal. I will join arms and stand with you, and work with you to help solve climate change IF, and only IF you can solve the puzzle below. Can you do it?

James_ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

I'll go with ozone depletion. https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/ozone-layer-and-causes-of-ozone-depletion.php

The record amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is helping to preserve and should allow for the ozone layer to recover to post 1980 industrial levels. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7

And until the method in which data was collected for global warming ozone depletion did match the surface temperature increase. And scientists at NASA, the IPCC and NOAA are relying on more CO2 being "dumped" into our atmosphere to allow the ozone layer to recover.
One unanswered question is if the amount of UV-B radiation contains enough energy to help with warming. After all once it's refracted it changes it's wavelength.
Who knows, maybe saying CO2 is harmful to our atmosphere is like saying eating chocolate is bad for your health. In the movie Sleeper by Woody Allen he had a man wake up 20 years into the future only to find out that eating chocolate was good for your health. Today doctors say eating chocolate can be beneficial to one's own health.

James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked. I thought it was a good question. He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.
You're wanting control. Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you. Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you. That is something that should never be allowed.
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question. You need to stick to the topic.

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Tim the plumber wrote:
Can you tell us what the actual biggest problem with a slightly warmer world would be?

Please choose a single issue, then explain how this will come about in your own words, the mechanism. That's the bit between the warming and the problem.

Then cite some sort of science to support this mechanism. The mechanism causing the trouble.

Then we can look at it and see if it is actually going to be more expensive for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than it's traffic light budget. If you can pass this test you win. If not you join all the rest.

What problem?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, it appears our new friend Climatepolutions really has no interest in participating here. It actually looks like he was just dropping in to scare up a couple of bucks. Follow me....

Climatepolutions wrote:
Likewise environmentalists and whoever else believes in climate change simply need to band together and work on the solution instead of having long winded conversations with climate change deniers across all sections of the internet. This has quite literally only diminished the issue into a talking point.

If he had done any reading here at all he would have known that the Church of Global Warming is swimming upstream on this forum. So why would he come here to farther "diminish the issue"? As with most issues in life, if you want answers, follow the money.

I went to the website and the above posting from Climatepolutions is only a preamble to a longer article. And at the bottom of the article...Wala!

Author: Craig Harewood/ OurInterest Investment Director

Seems as though the lost cause is broke and someone needs some money to invest. Maybe Greenman will give up his bomb shelter money this week and give his tithe to the Church.

GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?

Inversion fallacy. YOU don't get it.

James_ wrote:
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked.

Fine. No problem. It is not a personal message board here.

James_ wrote:
I thought it was a good question.

So did I.

James_ wrote:
He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.

You didn't use any science. He was specifically asking for the science.

James_ wrote:
You're wanting control.

You are wanting to confuse religion with science.

James_ wrote:
Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE reaching with that one!

James_ wrote:
Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you.

You never did anyway. Meh.

James_ wrote:
That is something that should never be allowed.

Typical liberal line. "Lock 'em up! Punish them for their opinion!".

James_ wrote:
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of your religion.

James_ wrote:
You need to stick to the topic.

I am.

ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" wrote: Can you tell us....

climatesolutions wrote:
I'm not the author .... just meant to reflect on lol.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffs: You can't come up with an argument of your own....

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" wrote: Can you tell us....

Ya been told before & you deny.....thus part of yer name, "old sick silly sleepy AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger".

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

Serious about what? You can't even define it!

GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

Solve what? Something you can't define?

GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

Random phrases.

GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

There is NO 'solution' to something you can't define!

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

But I do. If you figure that length of time on a forum determines that, I would say it is YOU that probably has no life.

Into the Night wrote:

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Welcome to the forum Craig. We should be, but you are probably right about people not wanting to solve Climate Change.

Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

GreenMan wrote:
No one is serious about it on our side of the pond.

Serious about what? You can't even define it!

GreenMan wrote:
It is like we fully expect the rest of the world to solve it for us.

Solve what? Something you can't define?

GreenMan wrote:
That will be easier than removing all of our baggage at one time. Or even lightening the load along the way just doesn't sound appealing to a nation that leads the world in fearlessness. Remember, fools dance where angels fear to tread.

Random phrases.

GreenMan wrote:
So what do you bring to the table? Do you have a solution for Climate Change that we can talk about?

There is NO 'solution' to something you can't define!

Global Warming is the reason why the earth is not 33C colder than it is right now.

GreenMan wrote:
If it were not for Global Warming, the planet would be an ice ball,

GreenMan wrote:
because the it is too far from the Sun to be as warm as it is

GreenMan wrote:
Some guy figured that out quite a long time ago,

GreenMan wrote:
and it isn't even contested.

GreenMan wrote:
It has to do with math though, so you probably don't agree.

GreenMan wrote:
Climate Change is a term being used to indicate that Global Warming is increasing, and that our climate is changing because of that.

GreenMan wrote:
It is a slow process, so it is difficult for some people to discern.

GreenMan wrote:
It's easier to see if you take snap shots over time for comparison.

GreenMan wrote:
Of course, that is too complicated for some people, because they get confused about the type of photographic material that was available for use 100 years ago, when they first started taking snapshots, and they went from just black and white to color along the way, so the snapshots taken back then might be as clear as the ones taken recently.

GreenMan wrote:
It doesn't mean that you have to do anything different. Those who make it through will know what caused the problem, and when they rebuild society, they will keep that in mind, and figure out some other way to generate energy.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
ITN,
You've been in this forum for what ? 5 years? That's sad. It tells me that you don't have a life because this is it.

But I do. If you figure that length of time on a forum determines that, I would say it is YOU that probably has no life.

I think James is right, Parrot. Your activity here does indicate an obsession. You must spend most of your time normally spent working, to make all the posts you make. You might want to seek counseling, before this thing goes too far, and they have to admit you for treatment. I saw those episodes on House, where they had to admit him, and that didn't look like no fun. Maybe if you go now, they can start treatments right away, and do it outpatient.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.

How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

GreenMan wrote:
What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

GreenMan wrote:
Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show.

GreenMan wrote:
They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves.

GreenMan wrote:
What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side?

GreenMan wrote:
Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:Circular definition. Not allowed.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.

How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.

climatesolutions wrote:
Because storms didn't hit USA means nothing to me. Could care less about the USA actually. As a Canadian expat, I care about the innocent countries ...

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climatesolutions wrote:
Stronger more frequent hurricanes for one ...

Hurricanes are not stronger or more frequent. You can look up the historical hurricane data from the National Hurricane Center.

Remember we went 12 years without a storm ever touching the United States mainland. That was blamed on 'global warming' too.

How could we forget that, with you Deniers using it to clobber poor ole Al Gore every time he opens his mouth, or makes another movie.

What you guys like to do is forget about other things, like Harvey and Irma, both record breaking storms, and coming in so close together that they could have been siblings.

Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Do you have evidence that suggests that the overall amount of storms or the amount of energy in then has increased?

Given that we have yet to have this temperature rise why would any such increase be anything other than the normal level of variability of storms?

Can you cite some sort of science, physics type, paper which shows the mechanism for this supposed (well hyped) increase in storms?

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:
Pourquoi tu ne comprends pas au revoir ?
Tu n'est pas tres intelligent ? Je sais, tu est un Americain, il est vrais ?

You really don't get it, do you ?
My post was in response to what Tim the Plumber asked. I thought it was a good question. He also did not ask anyone to elaborate, just post a link to some science that supports that person's opinion.
You're wanting control. Also people have committed suicide because of idiots like you. Kind of why I have absolutely no respect for you. That is something that should never be allowed.
And I have noticed that you're querying me rather than responding to Tim the Plumber's question. You need to stick to the topic.

Are you saying that ozone depletion is caused by CO2?

If so you must link to and quote from that link some sort of science that backs that.

Start from appreciating that I can understand basic science and can read a science paper.