Here is a reason the Man Made Global Warming Crowd needs to move so fast.

[billvon 2,997]

>Strong leadership and the power of thinking got us out of that waste of time and
>money treaty.

The power of thinking got us the wind and solar energy sources that are allowing your company to move away from coal. Strong leadership drove your company to implement such technologies.

Equating Trump to leadership is like equating Kim Jong Un to human rights. Makes sense if you choose your media sources very carefully, I suppose.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

Makes sense if you choose your media sources very carefully, I suppose.

says the one who has started a thread and them posts regularly un-sourced news lies!!

You gotta love it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,997]

>says the one who has started a thread and them posts regularly un-sourced news
>lies!!

Ah. So the things I post that I attribute to another source are "unsourced."

I'll add that to the RushMC translation table.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>says the one who has started a thread and them posts regularly un-sourced news
>lies!!

Ah. So the things I post that I attribute to another source are "unsourced."

I'll add that to the RushMC translation table.

Not so fast oh slippery one.

you know full well that nearly all the Russiagate links you provided have un-named sources.

Keep up the good work

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,997]

>you know full well that nearly all the Russiagate links you provided have un-named sources.

Unnamed sources != unsourced news.

But such tricks are all you've got left, I suppose.

[gowlerk 2,198]

rushmc

***Gee Marc, it almost seems like Trump's position on the Paris accord is meaningless. He's only the President. Fortunately adults with long term outlooks are running the power industry! Too easy!

Strong leadership and the power of thinking got us out of that waste of time and money treaty. Good for Trump!
Science prevails.

You must have found the link I posted huh?



Nice you caught up!


Once again your inability or unwillingness to understand issues shines through. The Paris accord is not a treaty. And the US was never bound by it. It is a set of aspirational goals. And the parts of the country that really matter in this millennium are all on board. Trump's petty positions will matter for nothing at all in this particular matter. The same as yours. Too easy.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 23]

DJL

Sorry man, I've wasted enough time putting holes in your sources big enough to drive...the planet...through.

The funniest f****** post of the month. You put holes in nothing. You posted your opinions but you ain't got nothing to back it up. Thanks for the big f****** laugh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[craddock 0]

rushmc

***Sorry man, I've wasted enough time putting holes in your sources big enough to drive...the planet...through.

The funniest f****** post of the month. You put holes in nothing. You posted your opinions but you ain't got nothing to back it up. Thanks for the big f****** laugh

ridicules? ain't got nothing? wtf!? Does it not jump off the page at you? It also really hurts your argument (whatever that may actually be).

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[billvon 2,997]

Quote

The funniest f****** post of the month. You put holes in nothing. You posted your opinions but you ain't got nothing to back it up. Thanks for the big f****** laugh

I have this image of you sitting at a computer somewhere, laughing hysterically every time something about science comes up.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

Quote

The funniest f****** post of the month. You put holes in nothing. You posted your opinions but you ain't got nothing to back it up. Thanks for the big f****** laugh

I have this image of you sitting at a computer somewhere, laughing hysterically every time something about science comes up.

I have always thought alarmist were delusional.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 235]

rushmc

***Sorry man, I've wasted enough time putting holes in your sources big enough to drive...the planet...through.

The funniest f****** post of the month. You put holes in nothing. You posted your opinions but you ain't got nothing to back it up. Thanks for the big f****** laugh

I'm content to know that you'll go to your grave not understanding the issues you post about the most often. It's fun talking to you about these things, it's sort of a therapeutic opportunity to vent towards the populace in this country that you represent. Cheers, amigo.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[tkhayes 348]

Sure, nothign to back it up except for the overwhelming evidence posted for the past 3 decades from the majority of the scientific world....

but of course, even if we posted a link to every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed papers and studies, you would still find a way to dismiss them with your 'several dozen' studies.... even when the last batch that you posted actually SUPPORT the argument that climate change is man-made - as I pointed out and as you summarily dismissed and sidetracked by never addressing that.

But of course you would, because you have a belief structure that does not allow you to examine any evidence that goes against your belief structure.And you enjoy being a shit disturber and nay-sayer no matter what anyway. Pointless drivel...trying to teach a pig to sing.

[DJL 235]

tkhayes

Sure, nothign to back it up except for the overwhelming evidence posted for the past 3 decades from the majority of the scientific world....

but of course, even if we posted a link to every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed papers and studies, you would still find a way to dismiss them with your 'several dozen' studies.... even when the last batch that you posted actually SUPPORT the argument that climate change is man-made - as I pointed out and as you summarily dismissed and sidetracked by never addressing that.

But of course you would, because you have a belief structure that does not allow you to examine any evidence that goes against your belief structure.And you enjoy being a shit disturber and nay-sayer no matter what anyway. Pointless drivel...trying to teach a pig to sing.

I've even agreed with him before on points just to have him rebuke what I said just because he's so hair-triggered to think I'm disagreeing with him.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

DJL

***...But of course you would, because you have a belief structure that does not allow you to examine any evidence that goes against your belief structure.And you enjoy being a shit disturber and nay-sayer no matter what anyway. Pointless drivel...trying to teach a pig to sing.

I've even agreed with him before on points just to have him rebuke what I said just because he's so hair-triggered to think I'm disagreeing with him.

Do you think he actually reads the posts on here before he replies?
Any more than he reads the articles he links?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

******

Quote

As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming.

I stopped here.

No reason to go further as you show no ability to reason on this topic anymore

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"; Upton Sinclair.

Is the company that pays your salary still spewing 30 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year?

FAIL again
We are building another 300 plus meg of wind

Feel silly?





Is that a "YES" or "NO" to the question asked?

(Your lame attempt at diversion noted).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Now the oceans have doubled down on the conspiracy.

www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-seas-idUSKBN19H1SB

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,997]

Quote

I've even agreed with him before on points just to have him rebuke what I said just because he's so hair-triggered to think I'm disagreeing with him.

That's not surprising.

The one consistent characteristic of climate change deniers is that they deny climate change. One day they may accept that the planet is warming - but then claim that man had nothing to do with it. ("The science isn't settled! The 97% is a lie!") The next day they may claim that man MIGHT have had something to do with it, but all the changes will be good ("the forests are LOVING all this excellent fertilizer! We are saving them!") The day after that they will go back to denying that the planet is warming ("There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!") The only constant is denial.

So it's not surprising that someone like that would automatically disagree with you. You, after all, do not share that constant denial - so you are the enemy, a heretic whose views must be defended against at all costs. Because even if you agree with them today, you may disagree with them tomorrow when their denial takes on another form.

[gowlerk 2,198]

About the only thing they are constant about is that nothing should be done to control CO2 emissions. Everything else they say revolves around finding ways to defend that position. The ground they stand on is constantly shifting, so they constantly adapt their words. Belief? Who knows what they really believe, and who cares!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Scientists ARE looking at the data and the models.

Yes, they are. Here's a recent study:
======================
New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

Although there’s some uncertainty in the distribution among Earth’s ocean basins, there’s no question that the ocean is heating rapidly

The Guardian
John Abraham
Monday 26 June 2017 06.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 26 June 2017 06.01 EDT

As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.

The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.” If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established.

These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming.
===================

So, I thought I would take a page from your (and kallend's) tactic book.

You like this study as you posted it here.
Must be true in your mind.
However, had their conclusions been at odds with your faith you would have posted something like the following in reply.


John P. Abraham
One of the co-authors of this study has what qualifications?

Is he a climate scientist, a meteorologist?

Nope
He is a mechanical engineer who an activist who writes political commentary for the Guardian and is a 97% consensus baiter.

Plenty of discrepancy in that study.

Was good for you though.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,997]

This is going to leave a mark:
==========================
Climate change sceptics suffer blow as satellite data correction shows 140% faster global warming

New research 'substantially undermines' claims that satellite data proved the Earth was not warming as quickly as thought, Dr Zeke Hausfather says

Ian Johnston
The Independent
Friday 30 June 2017 13:57 BST

Climate change deniers and sceptics have long pointed to satellite data showing lower temperatures than those recorded on the ground.

However, new research has found an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

The orbit of satellites around the Earth gradually decays over time due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere and this gradually changes the time they pass over any one spot and this obviously has a significant effect on the temperature.

Using information from the satellites, the scientists, Dr Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, of Remote Sensing Systems, a California-based research company, developed a new method of correcting for the changes.

And what they found was startling.

The rate of warming was about a third higher at 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade between 1976 and 2016, compared to 0.134C per decade.

Writing in the Journal of Climate, the scientists said: “The changes result in global-scale warming … about 30 per cent larger than our previous version of the dataset.

“This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde [weather balloon] data.”
. . .

“Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced that observational data collected on the Earth’s surface,” he said.

“This new correction to the … data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than predicted in most climate models.”
=======================

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

***>Scientists ARE looking at the data and the models.

Yes, they are. Here's a recent study:
======================
New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

Although there’s some uncertainty in the distribution among Earth’s ocean basins, there’s no question that the ocean is heating rapidly

The Guardian
John Abraham
Monday 26 June 2017 06.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 26 June 2017 06.01 EDT

As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.

The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.” If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established.

These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming.
===================

So, I thought I would take a page from your (and kallend's) tactic book.

You like this study as you posted it here.
Must be true in your mind.
However, had their conclusions been at odds with your faith you would have posted something like the following in reply.


John P. Abraham
One of the co-authors of this study has what qualifications?

Is he a climate scientist, a meteorologist?

Nope
He is a mechanical engineer who an activist who writes political commentary for the Guardian and is a 97% consensus baiter.

Plenty of discrepancy in that study.

Was good for you though.....

Why do you think a mechanical engineer should not be involved in designing and constructing measuring equipment? Typically stupid argument from you.

Are you aware that more engineers were involved in discovering the Higgs particle than physicists? That more engineers are involved in constructing giant telescopes than astronomers?

Jeez!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 235]

Quote

John P. Abraham
One of the co-authors of this study has what qualifications?

"Abraham is professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota.[1][2] His area of research includes thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, numerical simulation, and energy. After gaining his doctorate at the University of Minnesota in 2002, he joined St. Thomas as an adjunct instructor, later becoming a full-time member of the faculty. He has published over 200 papers in journals and conferences, and since 1997 has also been an engineering consultant working on industrial research in aerospace, biomedical, energy and manufacturing industries. He works on clean and renewable wind and solar projects in the developing world, and has also produced numerous books, such as a 2014 text on small-scale wind power[3] and a 2010 groundbreaking text on laminar-to-turbulent fluid flow.[4][5][6]"

So, what issue do you take with his qualifications? I actually AM a mechanical engineer so I understand what he does and has studied. If you don't then that's fine. Do you feel that an engineer is not qualified to understand these things? Let's take the design of a submarine, are they going to grab a Navy Helmsman to design it or an engineer who is a professional in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics? How about other complex modeling?

Any by the way....

Is he a climate scientist, a meteorologist?

Nope
He is a mechanical engineer who an activist who writes political commentary for the Guardian and is a 97% consensus baiter. ***

You didn't happen to just copy that over from your wattsupwiththat website did you? Looks remarkably similar to the statement about him just a couple of paragraphs down: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/30/claim-oceans-are-warming-rapidly-study-says/

Way to come up with your own material....

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I am still trying to figure out what this means:

Quote

a 97% consensus baiter

lol

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

SkyDekker

I am still trying to figure out what this means:

Quote

a 97% consensus baiter

lol

I think that it's a derogatory term used by the denier crowd to indicate that anyone who claims the "97% consensus" is just baiting them.

'Cuz they've proven* that the 97% claim is not true.

*"Proven" in this case meaning "I don't like it so it can't be true."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,997]

One of the claims of the climate change deniers that keeps reappearing is that "year X was an El Nino year; it's totally unfair to claim that it's hot because of climate change!" And then when the next cycle of the ENSO brings colder temps (which it usually does) they cry "SEE? It's COLDER! There's no such thing as AGW!"

Some actual claims:

==========
Stunning Drop In Global Temperatures As El Niño Warming Ends
Posted: November 28, 2016

The controversial global warming aka climate change “hiatus/pause”, lingering like a bad smell to climate alarmists for nearly two decades, is back in play with a record drop in global temperatures since the middle of the year.

Temperatures are heading south rapidly. The latest huge drop despite record and increasing CO2 emissions.

Must be nearing revision time for the theory of Catastrophic Global Warming with regards to CO2-sensitivity?
===========
Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s [sic] climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.
=============

Given that, this is going to give deniers some serious heartburn. From SciAm:

==============
2017 Could Be among Hottest on Record

Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average

By Scott Waldman
July 20, 2017

This year is on track to be the second-hottest on record, surprising climate scientists who thought natural weather patterns could break a multiyear trend of record-breaking temperature increases.

Global temperatures this year have been 1.64 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average of 56.3 F, according to NOAA. That's second only to last year, by a difference of about 0.29 F. Last year is the warmest on record.

Each of the last three years have broken global high temperatures records. But temperatures since January have caught some researchers off guard, because they expected that the tapering off of an El Niño period, which typically raises temperatures, would hold down global heat levels. Instead, this year is on pace to top every record except the one set in 2016, researchers found. At this point in the year, 2015 was the third-hottest on record. It ended up breaking every heat record — until being topped by 2016.

There is a greater than 57 percent chance that 2017 will turn out to be the second-hottest year on record, according to Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. There are greater odds that 2017 will be one of the top three hottest years ever recorded.

. . . .

High temperatures, like those occurring now, are linked to rising CO2 levels, said Pieter Tans, lead scientist at NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.

. . .

The observatory in Hawaii has recorded five consecutive years of CO2 increases of at least 2 ppm, an unprecedented rate of growth, according to NOAA. Since 1960, CO2 has increased more than 30 percent, or 100 ppm. About 150 years ago, before the age of industrialization, atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm. It had been at that level for about 10,000 years.

Sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic are also near record lows. Sea ice cover in Antarctica is now 6.3 percent below average from 1981 to 2010. That's the second-lowest ever observed for this time of year over 40 years of record-keeping. In the Arctic, sea ice cover is 7.5 percent below average, the sixth-smallest ever recorded.

Heat spiked in spots across the globe. Africa saw its hottest June ever recorded. Europe and South America were much warmer than average. The American Southwest saw a heat wave break multiple temperature records, as well. Eastern Russia was an anomaly, with cooler-than-average conditions, even as the rest of the country was much warmer than average.
=============

Sorry deniers.