Do We even want solve climate change?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Do We even want solve climate change? > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

01-10-2017 21:21
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/
01-10-2017 21:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	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. No one else has a reasonably complete record of hurricane activity. Like it not, you're gonna have to deal with the U.S. records if you want to claim there is more hurricane activity. If you want to just toss those, then you just put yourself in the position that you have no idea what is going on. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2017 21:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: 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? ...deleted Holy Link... Science isn't a government agency, dude. Funny how NASA doesn't agree with the record on file at the National Hurricane Center. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2017 21:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: 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. CO2 supports the occurrence of stratospheric ozone. half way down the page. CO2 has nothing to do with the formation or destruction of ozone. Only oxygen and UV light are involved. The ozone layer is not depleting. THAT is easily measured since ozone reflects radio waves. James_ wrote: Reducing CO2 levels now would most likely cause more serious problems than anything a little warming would cause. Crops and marine life would both be threatened. Today, not decades in the future. We don't have the power to reduce CO2. Our little fires are nothing compared to natural sources such as the ocean, decaying vegetation, and volcanic activity. We don't have the power to reduce the ozone layer either. James_ wrote: Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing There is no such thing as climate 'forcing'. These gases are not a force. James_ wrote: and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). ...deleted remaining propaganda quote from NOAA... These gases don't have anything to do with stratospheric ozone. Only oxygen and UV light have anything to do with it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-10-2017 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

02-10-2017 07:57
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: 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. This old number again? Argument from randU, based on another argument from randU. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. No, it is not a random number. The emissivity of Earth is close enough to 1 to consider it a black body. Granted, it does vary, but it typically varies from .95 ~ .99, depending on what is growing, laying, or built on the surface. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: If it were not for Global Warming, the planet would be an ice ball, Really??? The ISS is not an ice ball...the Moon is not an ice ball...not even Mars is an ice ball. Yes, really. There is no water on the moon, and what water is on Mars is frozen under the surface. There is evidence of water having been on the surface of Mars in the distant past. Not sure why you think the space station has anything to do with it. It is not shielded from the Sun's radiation, as the earth is by its atmosphere. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: because the it is too far from the Sun to be as warm as it is Mars is even further from the Sun. The Moon and the ISS are essentially the same distance from the Sun. The daylit side of the skin temperature of the ISS can reach 250 deg F. It has no Holy Gas keeping it warm. Why is Earth, with it's Holy Gas COLDER than the ISS during the day? All of the Sun's radiation is allowed to warm ISS. Much of that radiation is not allowed to reach the surface of the earth, due to the atmosphere. Your arguments indicate a very shallow minded individual. Most people eventually realize that they can figure some things out on their own, without having to ask stupid questions about everything they encounter. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Some guy figured that out quite a long time ago, Can you be a little more vague? You know who I'm talking about. Is there some reason I need to go look up his name for you? Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: and it isn't even contested. Argument of the Stone. The contest is right in front of you. I'm not the only one. Just because some idiot doesn't understand Global Warming, it doesn't mean that Global Warming is contested. It just means that said idiot isn't smart enough to understand that contesting things he doesn't understand is a waste of time. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It has to do with math though, so you probably don't agree. What math is that? Vague claims like this mean nothing. It just means that the reason you challenge Global Warming is because you don't understand math. If you did understand math, then you would be able to see for yourself, and prove to yourself, that Global Warming is real, and is a natural part of our climate. Into the Night wrote: 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. So, 'climate change' is defined as 'climate change', using the intermediary undefined term 'global warming' to try to separate it. Circular definition. Not allowed. You must define 'global warming' or 'climate change' using something other than a circular definition if you want to build any theory for it. No theory can exist based on a void argument. Climate Change isn't actually a "theory." It's just a term that indicates that the climate of the earth is changing. No definition required, since the term is self defined by the words used. Global Warming is a Theory. It explains why the average temperature of earth is above what it should be, based on its distance from the Sun. Nothing circular. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It is a slow process, so it is difficult for some people to discern. What process??? You haven't described one! It doesn't take much to confuse you, does it? I was talking about the process of Climate Change. It is a slow process. That means that it will take many moons to get done. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It's easier to see if you take snap shots over time for comparison. Cameras don't measure temperature. You can take "snapshots" of anything, without a camera. The term just indicates the recording of something. Into the Night wrote: 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. I know the chemistry behind both types of film. I don't even see the point you are trying to make here. Are you trying to claim that it's possible to measure global temperature? No, genius. I am saying that we can record what the temperature was years ago, and compare it to what it is today. And including that some stupid people wouldn't want to use the temperatures derived 100 years ago, because the recording methods have changed. They would rather argue over the details of how the recording methods have changed, than just use the data given. Into the Night wrote: 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. Gasoline has the highest BTU per volume of any common chemical fuel. Kerosene has the highest BTU by weight. There is not substitute for these fuels. They are the best bang per buck. Why abandon them? Are you trying to make the case between 'evil' fuels and 'good' fuels? You aren't really that clever, are you Parrot? Do you really think you will ever convince anyone of anything, by equating anything as "good," or "evil" in your attempt to ridicule? There are only good, or evil people. Fuel is simply a mindless object we use to generate energy. It has no choice in the matter. Eventually, people will realize that the "best bang for the buck" isn't the best solution for energy generation, especially if part of the bang shortens the life expectancy of our planet. And you know what, it doesn't matter how many pork faced slobs are running around crying about how much they hate walking to town. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 09:18
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: 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. So you worship Al Gore, the Holy Son of the Church of Global Warming, politically crucified by the people, but rises from the dead from time to time to say something stupid? Nope, I don't worship Al Gore any more than I worship Jesus, or any other person who walks, or has walked on the planet. Al Gore did his job in raising the alarm. He did the best he could do, with the information at hand. He doesn't know that it's a hopeless cause, due to the current concentration levels or CO2. The things he warned us about are going to happen anyway, just not soon enough for people like you, who don't understand scientific predictions. Into the Night wrote: 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. No, what YOU forget is the record itself. Just because a storm occurs does NOT mean 'global warming'. You idiots practically peed yourselves over Irma and the devastation you were hoping to have happen in Miami. You really do have a screwed up mind. People who are concerned about Climate Change don't look forward to the destruction it causes, and will continue to cause. We are more interested in avoiding being killed by such. I have some family down in Florida, and am concerned about their well being, as well as their neighbors. It is people like you, who won't even admit to yourself there is a problem that are evil, especially the likes of you, who try to convince others that there is nothing to fear. And no one thinks that a storm occurring means "global warming." That's just your method of arguing. You have to twist things people say around, until they come out nonsensical, so you can poke fun at them. Those were two record breaking storms that you guys wish hadn't broken any records, so you could continue to claim none of Al Gore's predictions came true, as if what Al Gore predicted has to come true for sure reason. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Some people just don't get it. It's like a comedy show. You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force. Do you really think that I, or anyone else, should allow others to willfully destroy the habitat in which I live? I'm not sorry that you are too stupid to allow yourself to understand Global Warming or Climate Change, because that is your own fault. You can lead a horse to water, but he is still going to stink. So yeah, if you want to call it a religion, that changes nothing. You have no right to destroy our habitat. So you have one choice in the matter. Either get over it and learn what you need to survive, or get ready to vacate the planet. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: They have to have a complete idiot around, to make everyone feel good about themselves. Al Gore IS a complete idiot, that is true. I agree, he isn't that smart. But I was talking about people that make him look like a true genius. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? One sided. True that. It would be one sided. But it makes sense that the more intelligent people would want to be on the side that is right. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS. Actually, we do have a good idea about how may people are concerned about Climate Change. 67% overall are concerned. And how about this little trinket, 57% of Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, all of the sudden, following Harvey and Irma. Here's a link you can delete without reading. https://morningconsult.com/2017/09/14/more-republicans-concerned-climate-change-after-hurricanes/ OMG, please do NOT click on that link. It is horrible. And must have been written by one of those awful alarmists, trying to fool everybody into giving all their money to the UN, to solve the Climate Change Crisis Hoax. So, with those numbers, there should only be one of you idiots for every two that understand Global Warming and Climate Change [or at lease take the scientists' word for it]. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 10:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, what YOU forget is the record itself. Just because a storm occurs does NOT mean 'global warming'. You idiots practically peed yourselves over Irma and the devastation you were hoping to have happen in Miami. You really do have a screwed up mind. People who are concerned about Climate Change don't look forward to the destruction it causes, and will continue to cause. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that has the screwed up mind. Your posts said it all. You couldn't WAIT for Irma to hit Miami! GreenMan wrote: We are more interested in avoiding being killed by such. Simple. Stay out of the thing's way. GreenMan wrote: I have some family down in Florida, and am concerned about their well being, as well as their neighbors. As do I. It was a big yawn for them. They've been through worse hurricanes. They are located where Irma DID go, too. GreenMan wrote: It is people like you, who won't even admit to yourself there is a problem that are evil, especially the likes of you, who try to convince others that there is nothing to fear. There isn't. Hurricanes are pretty predictable. Stay out of their way. People in Florida have learned to cope with them. They're used to it. GreenMan wrote: And no one thinks that a storm occurring means "global warming." Okay. No 'global warming'. End of conversation. We agree. GreenMan wrote: That's just your method of arguing. No, that's the method of arguing used by the Church of Global Warming. GreenMan wrote: You have to twist things people say around, until they come out nonsensical, so you can poke fun at them. It is YOU doing that! Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Those were two record breaking storms that you guys wish hadn't broken any records, so you could continue to claim none of Al Gore's predictions came true, as if what Al Gore predicted has to come true for sure reason. Irma didn't break any records. Harvey only broke the raindump record because it wasn't moving. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force. Do you really think that I, or anyone else, should allow others to willfully destroy the habitat in which I live? No one is destroying habitat. You and your Church really like to make any Outsider an agent of evil, don't you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! GreenMan wrote: I'm not sorry that you are too stupid to allow yourself to understand Global Warming or Climate Change, because that is your own fault. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. You can start explaining it there. GreenMan wrote: You can lead a horse to water, but he is still going to stink. And now for another cliche. GreenMan wrote: So yeah, if you want to call it a religion, that changes nothing. You're right about that. Your religion means nothing as well. GreenMan wrote: You have no right to destroy our habitat. I'm not destroying anyone's habitat. You just consider an Outsider an agent of evil. Do you even realize how fundamentalist your Church really is? GreenMan wrote: So you have one choice in the matter. Either get over it and learn what you need to survive, or get ready to vacate the planet. I'm not going anywhere. I have no need to. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? One sided. True that. It would be one sided. But it makes sense that the more intelligent people would want to be on the side that is right. Another religious statement. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS. Actually, we do have a good idea about how may people are concerned about Climate Change. You haven't a clue. GreenMan wrote: 67% overall are concerned. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: And how about this little trinket, 57% of Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, all of the sudden, following Harvey and Irma. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: Here's a link you can delete without reading. ...deleted Holy Link...as requested...without reading it... So, with those numbers, there should only be one of you idiots for every two that understand Global Warming and Climate Change [or at lease take the scientists' word for it]. Consensus is not used in science. Quoting random numbers isn't helping your case. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-10-2017 11:21
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, what YOU forget is the record itself. Just because a storm occurs does NOT mean 'global warming'. You idiots practically peed yourselves over Irma and the devastation you were hoping to have happen in Miami. You really do have a screwed up mind. People who are concerned about Climate Change don't look forward to the destruction it causes, and will continue to cause. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that has the screwed up mind. Your posts said it all. You couldn't WAIT for Irma to hit Miami! You can't lie your way out of this one, dirtbag. My posts are still available for anyone interested in knowing the truth. I didn't even think Irma would hit Miami. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: We are more interested in avoiding being killed by such. Simple. Stay out of the thing's way. Wasn't really talking about being killed from just hurricanes. There are other things going on that are killing people, besides storm and floods. Forrest fires and heat waves are also already taking a toll on human lives, as well as setting new records for property loss. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I have some family down in Florida, and am concerned about their well being, as well as their neighbors. As do I. It was a big yawn for them. They've been through worse hurricanes. They are located where Irma DID go, too. It wasn't a "big yawn" for anyone who went through that. Just a big yawn for idiots like you. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It is people like you, who won't even admit to yourself there is a problem that are evil, especially the likes of you, who try to convince others that there is nothing to fear. There isn't. Hurricanes are pretty predictable. Stay out of their way. People in Florida have learned to cope with them. They're used to it. It would be great if Climate Change mitigation was solely about extreme weather. But its not just about avoiding record setting hurricanes, like Harvey and Irma. It's about building bigger highways, so we can evacuate regions of our country quickly, so people can get out of the way. It's about relocating populations out of harm's way, so they don't have to evacuate their home, every time a hurricane comes in. It's about preparing people for a future without the grid, which we all rely on for our daily dose of cheap energy. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And no one thinks that a storm occurring means "global warming." Okay. No 'global warming'. End of conversation. We agree. Global Warming is real. Just no one is trying to prove it, with storm activity. Just pointing out that they are getting more intense, and frequent, as predicted. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: That's just your method of arguing. No, that's the method of arguing used by the Church of Global Warming. Inversion Fallacy. You don't get to twist my accusation around by claiming that I do it too. Global Warming Alarmists don't have to twist the truth around, and into anything the want. They have solid evidence of Climate Change, and sound scientific reasoning behind the Global Warming Theory. It's the likes of you that don't have anything to argue with, so you have to resort to bull shit. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You have to twist things people say around, until they come out nonsensical, so you can poke fun at them. It is YOU doing that! Inversion fallacy. You are so stupid you don't even realize that you are trying to invert an argument against you, into one against me. You can accuse me all you want, but people reading this know who the twister is. Of course, your lame brain cohorts will try to rescue you from this complete loss. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Those were two record breaking storms that you guys wish hadn't broken any records, so you could continue to claim none of Al Gore's predictions came true, as if what Al Gore predicted has to come true for sure reason. Irma didn't break any records. Harvey only broke the raindump record because it wasn't moving. It set records for rainfall after it started moving inland, also. And Irma set the record for most powerful Atlantic storm, excluding gulf and Caribbean storms. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force. Do you really think that I, or anyone else, should allow others to willfully destroy the habitat in which I live? No one is destroying habitat. You and your Church really like to make any Outsider an agent of evil, don't you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I have no idea what the "Church" you are referring to does [I suppose you are talking about Global Warming Alarmists] but I'm not making you and your ilk anything. You do that yourself. I am just pointing out that what you are doing is evil. In fact, it is the most evil thing ever. It goes beyond Hitler, Stalin and even your mamma. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I'm not sorry that you are too stupid to allow yourself to understand Global Warming or Climate Change, because that is your own fault. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. You can start explaining it there. Why bother? An idiot like you still won't get it. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can lead a horse to water, but he is still going to stink. And now for another cliche. Ok, if I must, I will explain this one to you. You see, you can lead a horse to water, so he can swim around and take a bath, when he starts to stink. But the problem is, he doesn't know he stinks, to begin with. And he also doesn't know that taking a dip will remove the odor, so he isn't going to just jump in the water on his own. And, like you ignoring the proven science of Climate Change, he is just too stupid to be expected to bathe himself. So you have to drag his smelly ass in the water, and help him. It's not that simple of a solution, when dealing with morons though. You can't just crack their stupid heads open and pour in knowledge. You have to just keep presenting it to them, over and over again, until they can finally remember it. Don't worry Parrot. There is someone out there who has enough patience to teach even you. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: So yeah, if you want to call it a religion, that changes nothing. You're right about that. Your religion means nothing as well. GreenMan wrote: You have no right to destroy our habitat. I'm not destroying anyone's habitat. You just consider an Outsider an agent of evil. Do you even realize how fundamentalist your Church really is? I don't have a church. I don't believe in religion, or anything else that I can't prove. And before you ask it, I will answer your next stupid question. But before I do that, I gotta tell you the joke about the psychic deputy. So this psychic deputy pulls over two black guys for speeding one night. The deputy walks up to the driver window, and taps on it with his slap stick [that's a leather thingy with a piece of lead in the end of it. They hurt like hell, but won't break your head]. The driver rolls the window down, and the deputy reaches inside with his slap stick and smacks the hell out of the driver. The driver asks, "wazat foe?" The deputy says, "for not having your license and registration out when I walked up to your car." And then says, "the next time a law enforcement officer pulls you over and walks up to your car, you need to have that out and ready for him, because you know that's what he wants to see, first thing." So the driver says, "yessir." The deputy fills out the warming for speeding and gives it to the driver, and says "wait just a minute, I need to talk to your passenger." So the deputy walks around the car and pecks on the window with his slap stick. The passenger rolls down his window, and the deputy smacks the shit out of him with the slap stick. The passenger asks, "Wazat foe?" And the deputy says, "because I'm psychic, and I know that as soon as I got in my car and drove away, you was gonna say, 'I wish that mother focker would hit me with that slap stick, so I was just making your wish come true." Lol, isn't that funny? So anyway, back to God. I know God exists, because of things that happened to me that can't be explained. For example, I knew one time that I was about to be in an automobile accident. Actually, I didn't know I was about to be in an accident. I figured that part out, after having a vision of the accident, about 5 minutes before it would have happened, if not for the vision, which warned me of the situation that I was about to get into. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: So you have one choice in the matter. Either get over it and learn what you need to survive, or get ready to vacate the planet. I'm not going anywhere. I have no need to. I actually have no problem with that. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: What would a Climate Change Debate Forum be, without some idiots taking the stupid side? One sided. True that. It would be one sided. But it makes sense that the more intelligent people would want to be on the side that is right. Another religious statement. Says the idiot on the wrong side of the debate. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS. Actually, we do have a good idea about how may people are concerned about Climate Change. You haven't a clue. GreenMan wrote: 67% overall are concerned. Argument from randU. Why is every number used in Climate Change a random number? Can't you come up with a better argument, than trying to claim there is a conspiracy of liberals against you? Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And how about this little trinket, 57% of Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, all of the sudden, following Harvey and Irma. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: Here's a link you can delete without reading. ...deleted Holy Link...as requested...without reading it... So, with those numbers, there should only be one of you idiots for every two that understand Global Warming and Climate Change [or at lease take the scientists' word for it]. Consensus is not used in science. Quoting random numbers isn't helping your case. Not random numbers, and consensus is used in everything that opinions matter about. It's a person's way of knowing what the majority of others think. But your point is understood, after all, it wasn't that many years ago that the consensus was that the earth was flat, like your head. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
02-10-2017 22:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that has the screwed up mind. Your posts said it all. You couldn't WAIT for Irma to hit Miami! You can't lie your way out of this one, dirtbag. My posts are still available for anyone interested in knowing the truth. I didn't even think Irma would hit Miami. Yup. Your posts are all there for everyone to see, liar. You couldn't WAIT to see Miami devastated by Irma. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: We are more interested in avoiding being killed by such. Simple. Stay out of the thing's way. Wasn't really talking about being killed from just hurricanes. There are other things going on that are killing people, besides storm and floods. Forrest fires and heat waves are also already taking a toll on human lives, as well as setting new records for property loss. Just like every year. People die. No one gets out of this life alive, you know. Nothing new to see here. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I have some family down in Florida, and am concerned about their well being, as well as their neighbors. As do I. It was a big yawn for them. They've been through worse hurricanes. They are located where Irma DID go, too. It wasn't a "big yawn" for anyone who went through that. Just a big yawn for idiots like you. My brother WENT THROUGH THAT. To him it was a big yawn. Pay attention. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It is people like you, who won't even admit to yourself there is a problem that are evil, especially the likes of you, who try to convince others that there is nothing to fear. There isn't. Hurricanes are pretty predictable. Stay out of their way. People in Florida have learned to cope with them. They're used to it. It would be great if Climate Change mitigation was solely about extreme weather. There is nothing to mitigate. You don't have to mitigate something you can't define. GreenMan wrote: But its not just about avoiding record setting hurricanes, like Harvey and Irma. It's about building bigger highways, so we can evacuate regions of our country quickly, so people can get out of the way. Want bigger highways? So does everyone else. They cost money, you know. GreenMan wrote: It's about relocating populations out of harm's way, so they don't have to evacuate their home, every time a hurricane comes in. You don't get to dictate where people live. GreenMan wrote: It's about preparing people for a future without the grid, which we all rely on for our daily dose of cheap energy. You don't get to dictate what people use for energy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And no one thinks that a storm occurring means "global warming." Okay. No 'global warming'. End of conversation. We agree. Global Warming is real. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. GreenMan wrote: Just no one is trying to prove it, with storm activity. This is argument 1). GreenMan wrote: Just pointing out that they are getting more intense, and frequent, as predicted. This is argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: That's just your method of arguing. No, that's the method of arguing used by the Church of Global Warming. Inversion Fallacy. You don't get to twist my accusation around by claiming that I do it too. Fallacy fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Global Warming Alarmists don't have to twist the truth around, and into anything the want. You've done nothing but that. You are also in a load of paradoxes that you have not yet cleared. It is YOU that is being irrational. GreenMan wrote: They have solid evidence of Climate Change, Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. There is no evidence for something you can't define. GreenMan wrote: and sound scientific reasoning behind the Global Warming Theory. Define 'global warming'. There is no theory possible based on a void argument. GreenMan wrote: It's the likes of you that don't have anything to argue with, so you have to resort to bull shit. Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You have to twist things people say around, until they come out nonsensical, so you can poke fun at them. It is YOU doing that! Inversion fallacy. You are so stupid you don't even realize that you are trying to invert an argument against you, into one against me. Fallacy falllacy. GreenMan wrote: You can accuse me all you want, but people reading this know who the twister is. Some do. some don't. GreenMan wrote: Of course, your lame brain cohorts will try to rescue you from this complete loss. Thought terminating cliche...another fallacy. I don't need 'rescuing'. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Those were two record breaking storms that you guys wish hadn't broken any records, so you could continue to claim none of Al Gore's predictions came true, as if what Al Gore predicted has to come true for sure reason. Irma didn't break any records. Harvey only broke the raindump record because it wasn't moving. It set records for rainfall after it started moving inland, also. And Irma set the record for most powerful Atlantic storm, excluding gulf and Caribbean storms. Harvey set rainfall records for Houston only because it didn't move. Occasional records fell for other place the remnants passed over as well. It was a wet storm. Record breaking weather does not prove anything. Records are broken all the time. Have been since there have been records. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force. Do you really think that I, or anyone else, should allow others to willfully destroy the habitat in which I live? No one is destroying habitat. You and your Church really like to make any Outsider an agent of evil, don't you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I have no idea what the "Church" you are referring to does Liar. You COMMENTED on it! GreenMan wrote: [I suppose you are talking about Global Warming Alarmists] but I'm not making you and your ilk anything. I did not make you a member of the Church of Global Warming. You did that. GreenMan wrote: I am just pointing out that what you are doing is evil. Here comes the fundamentalist crap again. I'm the Great Satan...I'm worse than Hitler...yada yada. Remaining rant deleted. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I'm not sorry that you are too stupid to allow yourself to understand Global Warming or Climate Change, because that is your own fault. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. You can start explaining it there. Why bother? An idiot like you still won't get it. That you can't define it? I knew that already! GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can lead a horse to water, but he is still going to stink. And now for another cliche. Ok, if I must, I will explain this one to you. You see, you can lead a horse to water, so he can swim around and take a bath, when he starts to stink. But the problem is, he doesn't know he stinks, to begin with. And he also doesn't know that taking a dip will remove the odor, so he isn't going to just jump in the water on his own. And, like you ignoring the proven science of Climate Change, he is just too stupid to be expected to bathe himself. So you have to drag his smelly ass in the water, and help him. It's not that simple of a solution, when dealing with morons though. You can't just crack their stupid heads open and pour in knowledge. You have to just keep presenting it to them, over and over again, until they can finally remember it. Don't worry Parrot. There is someone out there who has enough patience to teach even you. I normally delete cliches like this. I'm letting this one stand to show how inane it is. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You have no right to destroy our habitat. I'm not destroying anyone's habitat. You just consider an Outsider an agent of evil. Do you even realize how fundamentalist your Church really is? I don't have a church. Liar. GreenMan wrote: I don't believe in religion, Liar. GreenMan wrote: or anything else that I can't prove. Liar. GreenMan wrote: And before you ask it, I will answer your next stupid question. But before I do that, I gotta tell you the joke about the psychic deputy. ...deleted joke... Lol, isn't that funny? No. GreenMan wrote: So anyway, back to God. Another one of your religions. GreenMan wrote: I know God exists, because of things that happened to me that can't be explained. For example, I knew one time that I was about to be in an automobile accident. Actually, I didn't know I was about to be in an accident. I figured that part out, after having a vision of the accident, about 5 minutes before it would have happened, if not for the vision, which warned me of the situation that I was about to get into. Not a proof. It is not possible to prove a god or gods exist or do not exist. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: So you have one choice in the matter. Either get over it and learn what you need to survive, or get ready to vacate the planet. I'm not going anywhere. I have no need to. I actually have no problem with that. Then why did you bring it up? GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS. Actually, we do have a good idea about how may people are concerned about Climate Change. You haven't a clue. GreenMan wrote: 67% overall are concerned. Argument from randU. Why is every number used in Climate Change a random number? Can't you come up with a better argument, than trying to claim there is a conspiracy of liberals against you? Because you have no data. You have to make it up. The Church of Global Warming IS a conspiracy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And how about this little trinket, 57% of Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, all of the sudden, following Harvey and Irma. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: Here's a link you can delete without reading. ...deleted Holy Link...as requested...without reading it... So, with those numbers, there should only be one of you idiots for every two that understand Global Warming and Climate Change [or at lease take the scientists' word for it]. Consensus is not used in science. Quoting random numbers isn't helping your case. Not random numbers, and consensus is used in everything that opinions matter about. It's a person's way of knowing what the majority of others think. Random numbers of type randU. You are using made up numbers as data. Consensus is not used in science at all. It is purely a political or religious term. It is not a way to know what others think. GreenMan wrote: But your point is understood, after all, it wasn't that many years ago that the consensus was that the earth was flat, like your head. Another cliche. People have known the Earth was round for thousands of years. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-10-2017 22:54
03-10-2017 08:32
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that has the screwed up mind. Your posts said it all. You couldn't WAIT for Irma to hit Miami! You can't lie your way out of this one, dirtbag. My posts are still available for anyone interested in knowing the truth. I didn't even think Irma would hit Miami. Yup. Your posts are all there for everyone to see, liar. You couldn't WAIT to see Miami devastated by Irma. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: We are more interested in avoiding being killed by such. Simple. Stay out of the thing's way. Wasn't really talking about being killed from just hurricanes. There are other things going on that are killing people, besides storm and floods. Forrest fires and heat waves are also already taking a toll on human lives, as well as setting new records for property loss. Just like every year. People die. No one gets out of this life alive, you know. Nothing new to see here. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I have some family down in Florida, and am concerned about their well being, as well as their neighbors. As do I. It was a big yawn for them. They've been through worse hurricanes. They are located where Irma DID go, too. It wasn't a "big yawn" for anyone who went through that. Just a big yawn for idiots like you. My brother WENT THROUGH THAT. To him it was a big yawn. Pay attention. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: It is people like you, who won't even admit to yourself there is a problem that are evil, especially the likes of you, who try to convince others that there is nothing to fear. There isn't. Hurricanes are pretty predictable. Stay out of their way. People in Florida have learned to cope with them. They're used to it. It would be great if Climate Change mitigation was solely about extreme weather. There is nothing to mitigate. You don't have to mitigate something you can't define. GreenMan wrote: But its not just about avoiding record setting hurricanes, like Harvey and Irma. It's about building bigger highways, so we can evacuate regions of our country quickly, so people can get out of the way. Want bigger highways? So does everyone else. They cost money, you know. GreenMan wrote: It's about relocating populations out of harm's way, so they don't have to evacuate their home, every time a hurricane comes in. You don't get to dictate where people live. GreenMan wrote: It's about preparing people for a future without the grid, which we all rely on for our daily dose of cheap energy. You don't get to dictate what people use for energy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And no one thinks that a storm occurring means "global warming." Okay. No 'global warming'. End of conversation. We agree. Global Warming is real. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. GreenMan wrote: Just no one is trying to prove it, with storm activity. This is argument 1). GreenMan wrote: Just pointing out that they are getting more intense, and frequent, as predicted. This is argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: That's just your method of arguing. No, that's the method of arguing used by the Church of Global Warming. Inversion Fallacy. You don't get to twist my accusation around by claiming that I do it too. Fallacy fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Global Warming Alarmists don't have to twist the truth around, and into anything the want. You've done nothing but that. You are also in a load of paradoxes that you have not yet cleared. It is YOU that is being irrational. GreenMan wrote: They have solid evidence of Climate Change, Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. There is no evidence for something you can't define. GreenMan wrote: and sound scientific reasoning behind the Global Warming Theory. Define 'global warming'. There is no theory possible based on a void argument. GreenMan wrote: It's the likes of you that don't have anything to argue with, so you have to resort to bull shit. Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You have to twist things people say around, until they come out nonsensical, so you can poke fun at them. It is YOU doing that! Inversion fallacy. You are so stupid you don't even realize that you are trying to invert an argument against you, into one against me. Fallacy falllacy. GreenMan wrote: You can accuse me all you want, but people reading this know who the twister is. Some do. some don't. GreenMan wrote: Of course, your lame brain cohorts will try to rescue you from this complete loss. Thought terminating cliche...another fallacy. I don't need 'rescuing'. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Those were two record breaking storms that you guys wish hadn't broken any records, so you could continue to claim none of Al Gore's predictions came true, as if what Al Gore predicted has to come true for sure reason. Irma didn't break any records. Harvey only broke the raindump record because it wasn't moving. It set records for rainfall after it started moving inland, also. And Irma set the record for most powerful Atlantic storm, excluding gulf and Caribbean storms. Harvey set rainfall records for Houston only because it didn't move. Occasional records fell for other place the remnants passed over as well. It was a wet storm. Record breaking weather does not prove anything. Records are broken all the time. Have been since there have been records. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are no comedy show. You are a religion, trying to impose your religious view upon others by force. Do you really think that I, or anyone else, should allow others to willfully destroy the habitat in which I live? No one is destroying habitat. You and your Church really like to make any Outsider an agent of evil, don't you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I have no idea what the "Church" you are referring to does Liar. You COMMENTED on it! GreenMan wrote: [I suppose you are talking about Global Warming Alarmists] but I'm not making you and your ilk anything. I did not make you a member of the Church of Global Warming. You did that. GreenMan wrote: I am just pointing out that what you are doing is evil. Here comes the fundamentalist crap again. I'm the Great Satan...I'm worse than Hitler...yada yada. Remaining rant deleted. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I'm not sorry that you are too stupid to allow yourself to understand Global Warming or Climate Change, because that is your own fault. Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. You can start explaining it there. Why bother? An idiot like you still won't get it. That you can't define it? I knew that already! GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can lead a horse to water, but he is still going to stink. And now for another cliche. Ok, if I must, I will explain this one to you. You see, you can lead a horse to water, so he can swim around and take a bath, when he starts to stink. But the problem is, he doesn't know he stinks, to begin with. And he also doesn't know that taking a dip will remove the odor, so he isn't going to just jump in the water on his own. And, like you ignoring the proven science of Climate Change, he is just too stupid to be expected to bathe himself. So you have to drag his smelly ass in the water, and help him. It's not that simple of a solution, when dealing with morons though. You can't just crack their stupid heads open and pour in knowledge. You have to just keep presenting it to them, over and over again, until they can finally remember it. Don't worry Parrot. There is someone out there who has enough patience to teach even you. I normally delete cliches like this. I'm letting this one stand to show how inane it is. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You have no right to destroy our habitat. I'm not destroying anyone's habitat. You just consider an Outsider an agent of evil. Do you even realize how fundamentalist your Church really is? I don't have a church. Liar. GreenMan wrote: I don't believe in religion, Liar. GreenMan wrote: or anything else that I can't prove. Liar. GreenMan wrote: And before you ask it, I will answer your next stupid question. But before I do that, I gotta tell you the joke about the psychic deputy. ...deleted joke... Lol, isn't that funny? No. GreenMan wrote: So anyway, back to God. Another one of your religions. GreenMan wrote: I know God exists, because of things that happened to me that can't be explained. For example, I knew one time that I was about to be in an automobile accident. Actually, I didn't know I was about to be in an accident. I figured that part out, after having a vision of the accident, about 5 minutes before it would have happened, if not for the vision, which warned me of the situation that I was about to get into. Not a proof. It is not possible to prove a god or gods exist or do not exist. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: So you have one choice in the matter. Either get over it and learn what you need to survive, or get ready to vacate the planet. I'm not going anywhere. I have no need to. I actually have no problem with that. Then why did you bring it up? GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Strange how there seems to be a few more idiots in this forum than the national average indicates there should be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Argument from randU. You have no idea what the 'national average' of believers of the Church of Global Warming IS. Actually, we do have a good idea about how may people are concerned about Climate Change. You haven't a clue. GreenMan wrote: 67% overall are concerned. Argument from randU. Why is every number used in Climate Change a random number? Can't you come up with a better argument, than trying to claim there is a conspiracy of liberals against you? Because you have no data. You have to make it up. The Church of Global Warming IS a conspiracy. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: And how about this little trinket, 57% of Republicans are concerned about Climate Change, all of the sudden, following Harvey and Irma. Argument from randU. GreenMan wrote: Here's a link you can delete without reading. ...deleted Holy Link...as requested...without reading it... So, with those numbers, there should only be one of you idiots for every two that understand Global Warming and Climate Change [or at lease take the scientists' word for it]. Consensus is not used in science. Quoting random numbers isn't helping your case. Not random numbers, and consensus is used in everything that opinions matter about. It's a person's way of knowing what the majority of others think. Random numbers of type randU. You are using made up numbers as data. Consensus is not used in science at all. It is purely a political or religious term. It is not a way to know what others think. GreenMan wrote: But your point is understood, after all, it wasn't that many years ago that the consensus was that the earth was flat, like your head. Another cliche. People have known the Earth was round for thousands of years. Yes, some people knew the earth was round, thousands of years ago. Do you know what a consensus is, idiot? You just repeat the same stupid arguments. You twist what people say around, and then call them a liar. You can't define Global Warming or Climate Change, because you are too thick skulled to understand either, so you try to convince other people that they are undefinable. You must think everyone is as stupid as you are, so they don't see through your bull shit. But that's all you are, and it flows from your lips without slowing down. Currently, you are a waste of air. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
03-10-2017 21:30
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Had a glance at it I see no bit where it shows any evidence of storms getting stronger. I see that it talks about it but beyond that....
03-10-2017 21:32
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	James_ wrote: 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. CO2 supports the occurrence of stratospheric ozone. half way down the page. Reducing CO2 levels now would most likely cause more serious problems than anything a little warming would cause. Crops and marine life would both be threatened. Today, not decades in the future. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html Can you quote from the relaventy bits of this link so I can understand more clearly. Thanks.
03-10-2017 21:34
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up.
03-10-2017 22:26
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: 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. CO2 supports the occurrence of stratospheric ozone. half way down the page. Reducing CO2 levels now would most likely cause more serious problems than anything a little warming would cause. Crops and marine life would both be threatened. Today, not decades in the future. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html Can you quote from the relaventy bits of this link so I can understand more clearly. Thanks. Tim, I think this is what got my attention >> additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels << if you read the section >> Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). << it is highly suggestive that atmospheric scientists expect CO2 levels to rise restoring the stratospheric ozone levels to what they were in 1980. This is also interesting >> The projection of CCl4 remains more uncertain than projections for other ODSs due to our incomplete understanding of the current CCl4 budget (likely a missing source; see Chapter 1) << With the experiment that I'm pursuing, if it's successful then I could suggest that those elements bond in the upper stratosphere and/or tropopause. >> CCl4 in terms of ODP-weighted emissions and are about 10% in terms of GWP-weighted emissions << It is a bit unusual for a scientific report to say that something has an unknown source. Heck, who knows, the work I've been pursuing might be important after all.

03-10-2017 22:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	GreenMan wrote: Yes, some people knew the earth was round, thousands of years ago. Welcome to your new paradox. GreenMan wrote: Do you know what a consensus is, idiot? An agreement between 2 or more people. It is a political or religious term. Consensus is not used in science. GreenMan wrote: You just repeat the same stupid arguments. Because you keep repeating the same stupid mistakes. GreenMan wrote: You twist what people say around, and then call them a liar. Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: You can't define Global Warming or Climate Change, because you are too thick skulled to understand either, so you try to convince other people that they are undefinable. Okay. Define wither 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. It is YOU that has to define it, if you want to build any kind of theory about it. I am not trying to define it. Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: You must think everyone is as stupid as you are, so they don't see through your bull shit. But that's all you are, and it flows from your lips without slowing down. Ad hominem fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-10-2017 22:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up. That does not cause the air to rise. There are many causes of rising air. What you are describing isn't even how the jet stream works. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-10-2017 23:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: 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. CO2 supports the occurrence of stratospheric ozone. half way down the page. Reducing CO2 levels now would most likely cause more serious problems than anything a little warming would cause. Crops and marine life would both be threatened. Today, not decades in the future. Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html Can you quote from the relaventy bits of this link so I can understand more clearly. Thanks. Tim, I think this is what got my attention >> additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels << if you read the section >> Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). << it is highly suggestive that atmospheric scientists expect CO2 levels to rise restoring the stratospheric ozone levels to what they were in 1980. This is also interesting >> The projection of CCl4 remains more uncertain than projections for other ODSs due to our incomplete understanding of the current CCl4 budget (likely a missing source; see Chapter 1) << With the experiment that I'm pursuing, if it's successful then I could suggest that those elements bond in the upper stratosphere and/or tropopause. >> CCl4 in terms of ODP-weighted emissions and are about 10% in terms of GWP-weighted emissions << It is a bit unusual for a scientific report to say that something has an unknown source. Heck, who knows, the work I've been pursuing might be important after all. This is not a 'scientific' report. It is a government report. No science is involved here at all. Ozone is produced by oxygen in the presence of UV light or some other energy source. No other gas is involved in the production of ozone. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 00:07
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Had a glance at it I see no bit where it shows any evidence of storms getting stronger. I see that it talks about it but beyond that.... That starts out with "rising sea levels". In over a century that sea levels have risen perhaps one inch and the rate of growth is slowing rapidly. So there is NO rising sea levels of significance. https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/15/florida-sea-level-rising-faster-average-not-climate-change/#a8d594e89572 More and more it appears that rather than rises in sea level we might have some sort of tidal oscillations that haven't been explained.
04-10-2017 01:00
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up. This has to do with storms and is from the link I posted a couple of days ago; During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php[/quote] There is this as well in the same link; Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 (111 to 130 mph) wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s.
04-10-2017 01:07
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up. This has to do with storms and is from the link I posted a couple of days ago; During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php There is this as well in the same link; Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 (111 to 130 mph) wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s.[/quote] Snorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.
04-10-2017 03:25
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up. This has to do with storms and is from the link I posted a couple of days ago; During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php There is this as well in the same link; Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 (111 to 130 mph) wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. Snorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.[/quote] You're not getting it, are you ? An increase of 0.2° F. per decade isn't something that will be readily noticeable. As you say Wake wrote: Snorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. And this is why I'm probably more concerned about the ozone layer, it's something that we can effect today and might allow for some cooling as well.
04-10-2017 03:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Had a glance at it I see no bit where it shows any evidence of storms getting stronger. I see that it talks about it but beyond that.... That starts out with "rising sea levels". In over a century that sea levels have risen perhaps one inch and the rate of growth is slowing rapidly. So there is NO rising sea levels of significance. ...deleted Holy Link... It is not possible to determine sea level. Science is not a news agency. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 04:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: 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? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php Falsified papers and data are becoming so common now that they even have journals that are designed for just such things. As we discussed before - IF there is more global warming storms will be less common and less severe. This is because storms are caused by temperature differentials between the tropics and the poles and the rotation of the Earth. http://retractionwatch.com/ Storms are caused by rising humid air, not because the pole is colder than the equator. It doesn't matter what causes the air to rise. The temperature difference between the equator/tropics and the region 40 degees North/South is what causes the air to rise. That colder air from the North/South is coming in sideways and pushing the tropical air up. This has to do with storms and is from the link I posted a couple of days ago; During the past 25 years, satellites have measured a 4 percent rise in water vapor in the air column. Satellites cannot measure the water vapor in the air. There is no 'column'. James_ wrote: In ground-based records, about 76 percent of weather stations in the United States have seen increases in extreme precipitation since 1948 ...deleted Holy Link... Wrong. Individual statement logs disagree with this NASA argument from randU. James_ wrote: There is this as well in the same link; Specifically, researchers found that storms attain Category 3 (111 to 130 mph) wind speeds nearly nine hours faster than they did in the 1980s. WRONG. National hurricane center data disagrees with this argument from randU. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 04:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: You're not getting it, are you ? An increase of 0.2° F. per decade isn't something that will be readily noticeable. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. James_ wrote: And this is why I'm probably more concerned about the ozone layer, it's something that we can effect today and might allow for some cooling as well. We can't change the ozone layer. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight, you WILL have ozone. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 06:31
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. Attached image: Edited on 04-10-2017 06:48
04-10-2017 06:50
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Yes, some people knew the earth was round, thousands of years ago. Welcome to your new paradox. You love that word, don't you. Everything isn't a paradox, just because you let new information fool you. Eventually, everyone started believing the world was round, even though there were some that thought they could prove beyond a doubt that it was flat. Some of the smarter ones figured it out, and one of them finally sailed towards what once was considered the edge of the world. After that, even the idiots discarded their old beliefs of a flat world. The church even finally gave up on it, even though they though they could prove it was flat with their Bible. It's no paradox that there are some like you, who cling to their false beliefs due to your desire to maintain your status quo. But we don't have to wait for the earth to become uninhabitable before we know for sure that what we are doing is not sustainable. Our society cannot continue to use fuels that cause Greenhouse Gas emissions as their energy source. Get over it, and start trying to figure out how to live without the grid. Or figure out how to power the grid without burning anything. Because guess what. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone else. It's up to the consensus of the world. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Do you know what a consensus is, idiot? An agreement between 2 or more people. It is a political or religious term. Consensus is not used in science. That's correct, but is irrelevant. Climate Change became a political issue when the Republicans decided to deny scientific research. So now it is a political issue, and those who would like to address the problem want others to know that there is an agreement in the scientific community that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It's not just Al Gore's imagination run wild. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You just repeat the same stupid arguments. Because you keep repeating the same stupid mistakes. No, it's because you learned to do that in Trolling School. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You twist what people say around, and then call them a liar. Inversion fallacy. And you use "inversion fallacy" to create an inversion fallacy. Did you know that you are just like talking to a woman, who doesn't give a damn about reasoning. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can't define Global Warming or Climate Change, because you are too thick skulled to understand either, so you try to convince other people that they are undefinable. Okay. Define wither 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. It is YOU that has to define it, if you want to build any kind of theory about it. I am not trying to define it. Inversion fallacy. I'm not trying to build any kind of theory. Someone already did that. I am merely trying to understand what is going on, so I can respond appropriately. Being in here is part of that learning process. Everyone brings something to the table, even though some of it has to be discarded at the end of the meal, because nobody wanted any of it. You know, stuff like what your nasty auntie would bring to the homecoming party. Do they still invite you to those things? Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You must think everyone is as stupid as you are, so they don't see through your bull shit. But that's all you are, and it flows from your lips without slowing down. Ad hominem fallacy. No, it's not a fallacy. If I can see through your bull shit, then others can also. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
04-10-2017 17:05
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago.
04-10-2017 19:10
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ?
04-10-2017 19:43
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ? It matters to me, Wake, ITN and the millions of others who will be asked (or forced) to pay for a solution to a problem that DOES NOT EXIST!

04-10-2017 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Yes, some people knew the earth was round, thousands of years ago. Welcome to your new paradox. You love that word, don't you. Everything isn't a paradox, just because you let new information fool you. ...deleted 'flat earther' ad hominem... Nah. It's just that you like to make so many paradoxes. You have 19 of the accumulated now. You have not cleared any of them. Denying that you make paradoxes does not clear them. GreenMan wrote: ...deleted redirection by inversion... We don't have to wait for the earth to become uninhabitable before we know for sure that what we are doing is not sustainable. Habitability and sustainability are two separate things. Non-sequitur. GreenMan wrote: Our society cannot continue to use fuels that cause Greenhouse Gas emissions as their energy source. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas has the ability to warm the Earth. GreenMan wrote: Get over it, and start trying to figure out how to live without the grid. You are free to live off the grid anytime you want to. The rest of us built it, and we like it. GreenMan wrote: Or figure out how to power the grid without burning anything. What's wrong with burning something? GreenMan wrote: Because guess what. It's not up to you, or me, or anyone else. It IS up to me. It IS up to a lot of people like me. It is up to all the customers of 'the grid'. GreenMan wrote: It's up to the consensus of the world. Nope. It's up to customers of the power grid. That is not the world. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Do you know what a consensus is, idiot? An agreement between 2 or more people. It is a political or religious term. Consensus is not used in science. That's correct, but is irrelevant. ??? Then why did you bring it up??? GreenMan wrote: Climate Change became a political issue when the Republicans decided to deny scientific research. GreenMan wrote: So now it is a political issue, and those who would like to address the problem want others to know that there is an agreement in the scientific community that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Science does not use consensus. GreenMan wrote: It's not just Al Gore's imagination run wild. True. The Church of Global Warming is a popular religion. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You just repeat the same stupid arguments. Because you keep repeating the same stupid mistakes. No, it's because you learned to do that in Trolling School. No, it's because you keep making the same mistakes. Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You twist what people say around, and then call them a liar. Inversion fallacy. And you use "inversion fallacy" to create an inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Did you know that you are just like talking to a woman, who doesn't give a damn about reasoning. Hey...YOU are the one with 19 paradoxes that you haven't cleared! YOU are the one being irrational! GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You can't define Global Warming or Climate Change, because you are too thick skulled to understand either, so you try to convince other people that they are undefinable. Okay. Define wither 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. It is YOU that has to define it, if you want to build any kind of theory about it. I am not trying to define it. Inversion fallacy. I'm not trying to build any kind of theory. Yes you are, liar. GreenMan wrote: Someone already did that. No one has done that. You can't build a theory out of something you can't define. GreenMan wrote: I am merely trying to understand what is going on, so I can respond appropriately. Liar. You are unwilling to learn anything. You are here to push your religion. GreenMan wrote: Being in here is part of that learning process. But you aren't learning. You have a long way to go, too. You first have to learn a lot more mathematics, learn formal and informal logic, learn philosophy, learn the theories of thermodynamics and their history, learn the theories of Max Planck and their history, learn the structure of the atmosphere, learn enough chemistry to understand the behavior of common materials such as water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. including studying the properties tables of those substances, for a start. You have to let go of The Church of Global Warming to do so. GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: You must think everyone is as stupid as you are, so they don't see through your bull shit. But that's all you are, and it flows from your lips without slowing down. Ad hominem fallacy. No, it's not a fallacy. If I can see through your bull shit, then others can also. Argument of the Stone, followed by a fallacy fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. You don't need to include the Holy Link (which is just a link for your argument rather than making your own argument). You have mentioned the source of your statement. That is sufficient. If anyone wants to research it, they can. You are quite right. This is normal for Thailand this time of year. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-10-2017 20:41
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ? Your interest in climate change is silly at best. Thinking that the values of CO2 affects the levels of Ozone despite the very simple chemistry involved just makes you look like an idiot.
04-10-2017 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ? Your interest in climate change is silly at best. Thinking that the values of CO2 affects the levels of Ozone despite the very simple chemistry involved just makes you look like an idiot. Heh. Remember you ARE discussing this with someone that never learned chemistry. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-10-2017 01:02
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ? Your interest in climate change is silly at best. Thinking that the values of CO2 affects the levels of Ozone despite the very simple chemistry involved just makes you look like an idiot. Heh. Remember you ARE discussing this with someone that never learned chemistry. From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other. All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!! How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!!
05-10-2017 18:12
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other. All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!! How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!! Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change. We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city. Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone. Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you. The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free.
05-10-2017 20:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: All this talk of global warming increasing storms is so ridiculous. There is so much more that goes into making a storm than some heat and humidity. For example, tonight in my state of Iowa, we currently have a strong cold front crashing the state. Temps ahead of the cold front are seasonably high, and dew points are unseasonably high. This is the classic "clash of the airmasses" that "climatologists" love to reference. We should be hiding in the basement kissing our asses goodbye, according to James and Greenthings. Yet, take a look at the radar and current conditions. This radar is far less than impressive and very disappointing given the dry stretch we've been in for a while. Are we short on CO2 around here? I want one of them "storms from hell" that Greenthings predicted. What's up??!!! This is a real yawner for sure. The Bangkok Newspaper predicts heavy rains over the entire extent of Thailand for the next week that will produce heavy flooding. Funny thing is that they did not blame it on global warming as james and greendeath would. This is normal to Thailand and they simply get on with life. This must drive those two insane with madness that the world doesn't care what they think. I'd include the link to the newspaper but then the moronic nightmare would refer to it as a "holy link". His brains have oozed out of his ears onto the floor long ago. Gosh Wake, I keep hoping you can do better. You really have no clue about my interest in climate change, do you ? Since it doesn't concern you then it really doesn't matter, does it ? Your interest in climate change is silly at best. Thinking that the values of CO2 affects the levels of Ozone despite the very simple chemistry involved just makes you look like an idiot. Heh. Remember you ARE discussing this with someone that never learned chemistry. From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Pay attention. Wake says the climate DOES change. I say there is no such thing as a global 'climate'. James_ wrote: All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are not circular arguments. Chemistry is not based on circular arguments. James_ wrote: I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Buzzword fallacy. You probably don't even know what most of the buzzwords you used even mean. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-10-2017 21:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other. All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!! How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!! Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change. I say there is no such thing as a global 'climate' to 'change'. It is simply their way of describing global 'warming' using another buzzword. It is the Church of Global Warming trying to change it's name because people aren't believing the religion anymore. Wake wrote: We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city. We really don't have any control over it even in a city. Wake wrote: Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone. Logic isn't here. This is a chemistry problem, not a logic one. He never learned chemistry. Wake wrote: Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you. He DOES seem to be one of the extra paranoid varieties of the Faithful. Wake wrote: The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free. Not lunatic...illiterate instead. The rest is accurate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-10-2017 02:28
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other. All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!! How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!! Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change. I say there is no such thing as a global 'climate' to 'change'. It is simply their way of describing global 'warming' using another buzzword. It is the Church of Global Warming trying to change it's name because people aren't believing the religion anymore. Wake wrote: We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city. We really don't have any control over it even in a city. Wake wrote: Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone. Logic isn't here. This is a chemistry problem, not a logic one. He never learned chemistry. Wake wrote: Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you. He DOES seem to be one of the extra paranoid varieties of the Faithful. Wake wrote: The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free. Not lunatic...illiterate instead. The rest is accurate. It's kind of sad that you can't accept that our planet has a climate and that it changes. From what you've posted your prefer psychology and with that nothing changes unless a person changes their mind. And with you, you can't accept change can you ?
06-10-2017 02:31
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: From the 2 people who say the climate doesn't change. Why does that not surprise me ? Are you 2 losing it ? You used to have some good insults and faulty logic that sounded good. I think the only people impressed by such poor attempts is the 2 of you impressing each other. All you 2 have now are your circular arguments that you think someone is silly. I mean you 2 macho libres are smoking hot when you say things like if he even learned simple chemistry but you 2 know that when the 2 of you hook up that synergy starts getting electric and the charge you 2 have for each other allows for you both to share a special chemistry that only the 2 of you can appreciate. Damn this is better than sex watching you 2 hunks get hot and heavy with each other !!! Encore, ENCORE I want to see MORE !!!! How bout some pics ? Please pretty please you 2 hot guys. Show everyone what you guys got !!! Lie #1 - no one said that the climate doesn't change. We just said that man hasn't any control over it on any scale larger than that surrounding a city. Lie #2 - We're using faulty logic when you are the one claiming that CO2 affects the levels of Ozone. Lie #3 - That because two people make a comment about your debilities they are together ganging up on you. The problem with you is that you are hugging and kissing greenman and his belief that the human race is going to kill itself and ignoring the fact that there has never been less hunger, lower diseases, more medical attention and fewer lunatics like you allowed to run free. It's in the 2013 IPCC report. It is an observation that scientists have made. Why do you ignore such observations for ? For me it is an opportunity to demonstrate that I know something. That is over your head, right ? You have said if it's not searchable on the net then it can't be considered. And yet for that it does require a person to accept that scientists put at least one observation in a report when they do not have the answer for it. That is why you reject it, right ? Right ! This has gotten old.

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate Do We even want solve climate change?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
How to solve climate change.	37	24-02-2024 18:47
I The Savior Do Have A Perfect Strategy To Help All National Government Solve Their Financial Issue	2	13-11-2023 15:37
The Fastest Way To Solve Climate Change Problem Is Making Plant Trees Become A Competitive Sport	22	29-01-2021 23:51
Want To Solve The Climate Change Problem, You Must Know What Is & Why Climate Change Occur	1	27-09-2020 03:35
You Must Seek Solutions From Outsiders To Solve The Geopolitical Problems In Your Conflict Game	1	27-09-2020 03:25