Maybe NOAA should talk to FEMA given FEMA is removing properties from VE zones and putting them in AE zones all up and down the coast of SC. But that’s none of my business.
So wise. It’s almost like this is the only solution to a very complex problem.
Not converting energy grids over to widely available renewable energy sources instead of aging, dirty, and less profitable coal plants. Not pushing for higher fuel economy standards and increased efficiency standards for home appliances, furnaces and air conditioners.
No, folks, let’s just keep pretending this isn’t a problem. Expect to see several more 100, 500, and 1000-year floods this year. It’s the new normal.
Expect to see more begging from liberals to have everyone else pay for their delusions. The usual compassionate response from the left: Someone ELSE pay for my compassion and concern about Climate Change.
Expect liberals to continue to pretend Climate Science isn’t complicated, but “Settled Science”.
Expect the public to continue to yawn. (Nearly every poll of Americans about the top 20 issues puts Climate Change at number 19 or 20.) Very convincing, you Zealots are.
Expect the liberal insistence on refusing to be honest about the failures of anyone to accurately predict Climate Change impact so far to result in apathy from everyone else.
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. Nothing but Insults. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
Nearly half (48.8%) of the survey participants chose climate change as their top concern, and 78.1% said they would be willing to change their lifestyle to protect the environment.
Survey respondents were also in near unequivocal agreement over the cause of climate change. Over 91% of respondents answered “agree” and “strongly agree” with the statement “science has proven that humans are responsible for climate change.”
The survey is from WHERE? “Business Insider”. What the heck is there circulation, 16?
Remember that businesses are now the home of Political Correctness.
Let me know when these “business insiders” actually really DO “change their lifestyle”. Like shutting off air conditioning. ZZZZZZZ. All happy talk, no walk. The usual leftist blah blah.
June 11, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
Craig – I see you have a problem with Planet’s source. Well, at least he gave a source!
You wrote (Nearly every poll of Americans about the top 20 issues puts Climate Change at number 19 or 20.) but didn’t bother to list ANY sources at all to back up your post.
Give us at least ONE source to support your argument, please.
NASA, many charts but I just want one. Land-Ocean temperatures 1880 to present.
1880 is -.1.
1949 is -.11
Then that whole time it is somewhat flat up to 1975 roughly, at roughly -.02.
1975 to 2017 is .9.
Now combine a few factors, the earliest years are unreliable, but even such, 1880 to 1949 difference is .01. 1949 to 1975 difference is .09 here. 1975 to 2017 difference is: .88. That is nearly a 10 times difference 1975 to 2017.
This is important when looking at C02 PPM. Coming next from NASA as well.
The first one without a chart. Thank God. One of the posts I put in the wrong spot, it’s crucial bias.
This is why I’m smarter than you, and I am. I don’t take someone else’s conclusion, I reference them sometimes from people who speak more plainly than I do who arrived at the same conclusion, but that’s to make it easier on you. Not to have you mock it as far right conspiracy theory.
PPM 1850: 285. PPM 1930: 307.5 PPM 1949: 310 PPM 1975: 331 PPM 2017: Not listed but it ended up being about 410.
I’ll go over some temps next. In the first point: 1850 to 1930 shows an interesting occurrence. It’s a band. It’s roughly the same at the beginning as the end. So a 285 band ends up the same as 307.5 band for temps. One might ask, is this solar activity? Well, this is where we encounter something interesting: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION ON HOW TO MONITOR SOLAR ACTIVIY AND FLARES. In other words, when Ron in the past and Planet posted a link showing record low amounts of flares or hot spot activity, this does not necessarily mean low activity. So, whose model do we use there? Whose was used? Do you even know? I’ll give a link from someone who goes over a bit about it, in an actual study. This is not at all settled science, it proves again that we are taking several theories and are staking them in global warming with the preconceived notion that global warming must equal true. I see half of the papers saying there was solar activity which caused the heating in the 1800’s and the cooling afterward as C02 went up. I’ve seen half saying that is absolutely not true. I’ve seen many say sun activity is down (more so than the 1800 argument) and others say it is high. In the past when Agent said it was high, Ron showed ONE SOURCE saying they were record lows and then proceeded to call Agent an idiot. No, that was one source, as you Bias and Ron tend to do a lot, and think you know much more than you do. This is how you break down data, you don’t do it, I do.
The 1990’s 350 to 360 from 1970 shoot up insanely high. .3 increase for an increase of carbon which is 40 ppm. 2000’s increase another 40 and it’s another .3 of an increase. Almost precisely. Now what about 1880 to 1949?
25 ppm if this is like clockwork should have had some results much higher, a bit over .15 to be precise. But in fact, as per my lost post, the difference was .01.
So what caused this 10 times difference? Measure it whichever way you want, I believe my showing two warming periods separately at 40PPM vs the .01 at 25PPM over 69 years, is a satisfactory comparison. Is the affect of carbon getting larger? What’s worse, if it is true that solar activity was not remarkable during that warming band, which is possible depending on which scientist you talk to, then that warming band makes no sense at all to have then cooled back down entirely to make a total 69 year period remain .01 different with an increase of 25PPM, and then remain flat after that for many years before exploding from 40 PPM. The time it remained flat by the way was all the way to the mid 70’s, with the C02 PPM rising another 20 at that time. So where is that explosion? Why didn’t it occur? The sun cycles? The funny thing is you mock Agent for talking about sun cycles, and he talks about them, because that was your side’s excuse for this data. One of many excuses they came up with to account for it. The next was that the ocean ate the C02, which was why they combined the oceanic data to begin with. When that didn’t match up they started combining the ocean rises, and predicting explosions in the growth, by some 400%, (hasn’t happened) and then when that didn’t pan out they just said well we are right, we are right, we are right.
I told you Bias, no one, literally no one on this site, goes over numbers like I do.
I care about nothing but numbers.
And you have not made your case. You have not proven global warming. You have simply stomped your feet and said a bunch of baloney while calling the other side anti science, anti earth, anti common sense, and mocked their reading comprehension and data research skills.
You have not done any of this research to fact check and question the theory, why the heck are you on board and shaming people who don’t buy into it?
As per this site, and what most climate change deniers point out in terms of surface warming as well which shows CO2 levels are not the primary factor here, and makes cutting them back potentially have little or no affect which is the primary point of argument, (yet in Canada many areas with green energy laws have electricity at THREE TIMES the cost of the U.S. which is not ok, and is the real goal here)
“How can any rational human being believe this kind of nonsense? The CO2 has been rising strongly since about 1940 or so … but in that 75 year period, the rate of sea level rise is basically unchanged. If CO2 were going to do something to sea level rise, it would have happened long ago.
I weep for the death of science … of course, this claim will be used to force people to do all kinds of crazy things if they want to build near the coast.”
This is likely the conservative conspiracy theory site you said I quoted before, rather than calling them that again, do you take issue with the concept and commentary regarding 1940, and the rate of rise for 75 years? Does that make sense to you?
Do you not believe this climate change should be questioned and be suspect by a bunch of folks who are instituting policies which explode energy cost and thus harms the middle class?
This isn’t even the first time the NOAA has made claims that would necessitate a 400% explosion in sea levels over say a decade. They’ve said it before.
Sea levels continue to rise, but they are not rising in line with rates of increase of co2.
And I’m sure we will see Planet say something about science deniers, Bias say something about then let’s ignore all science and just not be cautious, labeling anyone who doesn’t want to take extreme action here with exploding costs as basically not cautious, and Ron will say something about the same as that. Why don’t we go back to the heart disease analogy again.
And none of those three will respect or listen to the comments of people like Agent, myself, or Craig, and will mock the living daylights out of them, and when I point that out, they will call me the king of insults.
Then we will circle around again, you three having learned nothing from me, yet claiming that I’m arrogant. Those two statements don’t add up. What have you three learned from my posts?
You liberals are such amateurs and childish folks on this page. In this case the “you liberals” I mean, is a very specific group, so don’t accuse me of applying labels.
Ron, Rosenblatt, and Bias. I noticed you probably all downvoted the posts without rebuttal.
How about we go over this with data? Bias, I said I would own you, now it’s time to do it. I quote right wing sites eh?
Let’s start here. This is the NOAA. It’s important to note that the NOAA makes an average including oceanic temperatures. This is important because this is where we have the least reliable data, so they use an equation to compensate for this which is based on the hypothesis that global warming = true. This is a monumental flaw. This is why I say it’s based on a theory of a theory. If their underlying equations are wrong to correct this, the global averages are wildly inaccurate. It leaves a huge margin of error. Why does that matter? Because the margin of error could be several degrees Celsius and we are talking a graph which shows from -.4 to 1 degree Celsius. They try to make it look like a huge increase by manipulating the chart, but look at the numbers on the left for god’s sakes.
So that is point one. Do you debate this point? Is it inaccurate? The water measurements which they use include several different monitoring methods. Some modern, some note so much. If I recall correctly it was 3 or 4. Some are surface monitors, some go down lower, and monitoring locations and rules have changed a lot since 1850.
Next will be PPM C02 from NASA, this is important because it shows 1850 to 1950 PPM increased 285 to 311. We then from that point to 2011 went from 311 to 391.5. But when looking at the temps, and sea rising, you see something interesting. They pull the same bull with the charts, and I’ll point that out by showing the chart which looks like a huge swing, but then I’ll quote the actual numbers and why they don’t make sense.
As stated numerous times on a myriad of articles, I DO NOT UP-VOTE NOR DOWN-VOTE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS SITE. I only posted once in this thread … and if you have a problem with what I said to Craig, I’m all ears.
I have a problem with your general unwillingness to agree with Craig, your general over exaggerations that he doesn’t use numbers, and your general lack of putting Planet in his place. If Craig even with numbers insinuated there was a problem with democrats, you would not back it up, and you would use the “not all democrats” comment. Planet repeatedly uses this though, repeatedly, with anti science global warming denial folks.
With is recent link, it is a simple break down. “Would be willing” as in they are not presently, altering their lifestyle. Talk is cheap, and Craig is right, most people who advocate for climate change do nothing, and are all talk, having someone else pay (corporate charges for carbon, carbon taxes, or similar methods, or green energy credits which have others pay). The fact is this actually is why areas in Canada have much higher costs of electricity, a focal point in talking about these laws, which can inflate energy costs by 3 times, and you gloss it over with Ron when talking about climate change, saying we should just pass them, anything helps.
Helps what?
Rosenblatt, your climate agenda is poorly researched, poorly debated, and while you only posted once here, and it was also a poor comment, I’m directing your side’s general issues with climate change, which Craig did as well.
If you want to make your climate change point, I’m all ears. But you haven’t to date. You’ve instead shamed and insulted the other side.
June 12, 2018 at 6:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
with *His recent link*
June 12, 2018 at 6:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
And do not tell me you have been sympathetic to those who deny climate change here. You haven’t.
Act like a moderate, and treat conservatives here better, and I won’t complain.
It’s disgusting Rosenblatt. It sickens me.
June 12, 2018 at 6:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Also:
Come the heck on, you have numerous times generalized about conservatives the same way Craig just did.
And here you are whining he didn’t give numbers for his commentary that many climate change warriors are not walking the walk?
I would think even a moderate would agree with this statement, whether they agreed with climate change or not, and even more so if they agreed with the mainstream climate change agenda.
I mentioned my brother is a PHD, and some of his friends advocate climate change and they have the education for it.
THEY make this same comment about climate change advocates, infuriated that most do not walk the walk on limiting their impact on the environment.
And you’re saying Craig was unreasonable for stating this?
I don’t.
All the while Planet repeatedly talks about science deniers, and says class who can define climate, and change? And mocks Agent, and other times mocks anti science bible thumpers, in very vulgar sense, and you do NOT condemn it!
I have to come to no other conclusion that you have an extreme bias!
The slightest remark from Craig triggers your need to intervene. Planet though, walks around, and parades like a jack, and you do nothing.
I have a considerable problem with this. If the left wants to grow, people like that, or attitudes like that, need to be purged.
It’s quite simple bob … if someone posts a statistic, they better be able to back it up with source data to prove they didn’t just pull it out of thin air. Not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.
June 8, 2018 at 9:42 pm
Agency says:
Like or Dislike:
6
5
NOAA has has a record of missed predictions. This is a government agency and is driven by politics.
It’s not even just that. When I debated confused and finally found their data don’t you recall what happened?
There is a legal disclosure which threatens a lawsuit if you use the data AT ALL. Not only this, many records which were linked at other sites are now broken, and the source material moved. NOAA clearly put that warning in after they got tired of people referencing their data, and they cut the links. What do they have to hide?
At which point Confused asked me who to believe. I said how about the people who make their numbers available for us to debate?
I don’t go by the who. I go by the data.
I’m tired of this argument. I’m tired of trying to source NOAA data only to have threats of lawsuits for doing so!!!!
All the while those like Bias, who are supposedly trying to cut the bias, refuse to acknowledge there is any problem at all, no no no, it’s just those science deniers like agent right bias?
retired, the Climate Change Hoaxters continue to push their failed agenda and have for years. I have yet to see NYC flooded from the bay or the river. Miami is not having issues with rising waters either. All a hoax perpetrated by fat boy Gore.
Climate change is true. We affect climate We do not cause disastrous change, only possibly speed up cycles. That’s it, the extent of which is questionable.
We will never cause catastrophic damage. If there is a huge flood 100 years early, it doesn’t matter, it’s a thousand year cycle. It would still occur. And I’m giving huge leeway. At this point mankind would need to move around again, and Canada would probably be largely inhabitable.
Forcing people into poverty to try and control world climate is insane, and allowing any government the ability to try and control climate and control of people to do so, or business to do so, is just a bad idea given government tract records of poor management, racism, genocide, and doing whatever it takes to have power.
This is ignorant. When did liberals get this stupid? I would be one, if it were not for this mandated support tyranny thing which happened in my generation and later. I have said several times, I will support democrats the moment I see the following things:
Colleges take seriously debate on both sides, without locking out one (clearly conservative as of now)
Colleges stop liberal bias.
Media stop liberal bias.
People like Bias, Ron, and Rosenblatt, properly criticize the issues with the left.
If these things happen, I will vote democrat. Until they do, I never will.
Look in the mirror guys, I became a Trump supporter due to you folk. I also said at one point I would vote Bernie if Trump got conservative plans in place and they didn’t work. I asked Ron to commit to the other side: That if they did, he would vote Trump. Unfortunately, even on the economy issue, he refused to commit to that, saying essentially high growth with poor consumer protection is bad, even when it cannot be quantified.
This is hogwash.
You four are not independent thinkers, you clearly have an anti right bias, and you pretend as if everyone else on the right has some huge issues.
Look inward. I’m tired of dealing with you. You should be pulling me to your side, not shaming, insulting, etc to your side.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
And stop flying on vacations,etc.
Maybe NOAA should talk to FEMA given FEMA is removing properties from VE zones and putting them in AE zones all up and down the coast of SC. But that’s none of my business.
So wise. It’s almost like this is the only solution to a very complex problem.
Not converting energy grids over to widely available renewable energy sources instead of aging, dirty, and less profitable coal plants. Not pushing for higher fuel economy standards and increased efficiency standards for home appliances, furnaces and air conditioners.
No, folks, let’s just keep pretending this isn’t a problem. Expect to see several more 100, 500, and 1000-year floods this year. It’s the new normal.
Expect to see more begging from liberals to have everyone else pay for their delusions. The usual compassionate response from the left: Someone ELSE pay for my compassion and concern about Climate Change.
Expect liberals to continue to pretend Climate Science isn’t complicated, but “Settled Science”.
Expect the public to continue to yawn. (Nearly every poll of Americans about the top 20 issues puts Climate Change at number 19 or 20.) Very convincing, you Zealots are.
Expect the liberal insistence on refusing to be honest about the failures of anyone to accurately predict Climate Change impact so far to result in apathy from everyone else.
MAY 23, 2018 AT 11:41 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Boring. Nothing but Insults. No insights whatsoever. Just Boring.
You must not be very smart. Sorry. (Have you heard of MIT?)
From Business Insider:
Nearly half (48.8%) of the survey participants chose climate change as their top concern, and 78.1% said they would be willing to change their lifestyle to protect the environment.
Survey respondents were also in near unequivocal agreement over the cause of climate change. Over 91% of respondents answered “agree” and “strongly agree” with the statement “science has proven that humans are responsible for climate change.”
The survey is from WHERE? “Business Insider”. What the heck is there circulation, 16?
Remember that businesses are now the home of Political Correctness.
Let me know when these “business insiders” actually really DO “change their lifestyle”. Like shutting off air conditioning. ZZZZZZZ. All happy talk, no walk. The usual leftist blah blah.
Craig – I see you have a problem with Planet’s source. Well, at least he gave a source!
You wrote (Nearly every poll of Americans about the top 20 issues puts Climate Change at number 19 or 20.) but didn’t bother to list ANY sources at all to back up your post.
Give us at least ONE source to support your argument, please.
Ok, so next:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/graphing-sea-level-trends/
NASA, many charts but I just want one. Land-Ocean temperatures 1880 to present.
1880 is -.1.
1949 is -.11
Then that whole time it is somewhat flat up to 1975 roughly, at roughly -.02.
1975 to 2017 is .9.
Now combine a few factors, the earliest years are unreliable, but even such, 1880 to 1949 difference is .01. 1949 to 1975 difference is .09 here. 1975 to 2017 difference is: .88. That is nearly a 10 times difference 1975 to 2017.
This is important when looking at C02 PPM. Coming next from NASA as well.
The first one without a chart. Thank God. One of the posts I put in the wrong spot, it’s crucial bias.
This is why I’m smarter than you, and I am. I don’t take someone else’s conclusion, I reference them sometimes from people who speak more plainly than I do who arrived at the same conclusion, but that’s to make it easier on you. Not to have you mock it as far right conspiracy theory.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt
PPM 1850: 285. PPM 1930: 307.5 PPM 1949: 310 PPM 1975: 331 PPM 2017: Not listed but it ended up being about 410.
I’ll go over some temps next. In the first point: 1850 to 1930 shows an interesting occurrence. It’s a band. It’s roughly the same at the beginning as the end. So a 285 band ends up the same as 307.5 band for temps. One might ask, is this solar activity? Well, this is where we encounter something interesting: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION ON HOW TO MONITOR SOLAR ACTIVIY AND FLARES. In other words, when Ron in the past and Planet posted a link showing record low amounts of flares or hot spot activity, this does not necessarily mean low activity. So, whose model do we use there? Whose was used? Do you even know? I’ll give a link from someone who goes over a bit about it, in an actual study. This is not at all settled science, it proves again that we are taking several theories and are staking them in global warming with the preconceived notion that global warming must equal true. I see half of the papers saying there was solar activity which caused the heating in the 1800’s and the cooling afterward as C02 went up. I’ve seen half saying that is absolutely not true. I’ve seen many say sun activity is down (more so than the 1800 argument) and others say it is high. In the past when Agent said it was high, Ron showed ONE SOURCE saying they were record lows and then proceeded to call Agent an idiot. No, that was one source, as you Bias and Ron tend to do a lot, and think you know much more than you do. This is how you break down data, you don’t do it, I do.
The 1990’s 350 to 360 from 1970 shoot up insanely high. .3 increase for an increase of carbon which is 40 ppm. 2000’s increase another 40 and it’s another .3 of an increase. Almost precisely. Now what about 1880 to 1949?
25 ppm if this is like clockwork should have had some results much higher, a bit over .15 to be precise. But in fact, as per my lost post, the difference was .01.
So what caused this 10 times difference? Measure it whichever way you want, I believe my showing two warming periods separately at 40PPM vs the .01 at 25PPM over 69 years, is a satisfactory comparison. Is the affect of carbon getting larger? What’s worse, if it is true that solar activity was not remarkable during that warming band, which is possible depending on which scientist you talk to, then that warming band makes no sense at all to have then cooled back down entirely to make a total 69 year period remain .01 different with an increase of 25PPM, and then remain flat after that for many years before exploding from 40 PPM. The time it remained flat by the way was all the way to the mid 70’s, with the C02 PPM rising another 20 at that time. So where is that explosion? Why didn’t it occur? The sun cycles? The funny thing is you mock Agent for talking about sun cycles, and he talks about them, because that was your side’s excuse for this data. One of many excuses they came up with to account for it. The next was that the ocean ate the C02, which was why they combined the oceanic data to begin with. When that didn’t match up they started combining the ocean rises, and predicting explosions in the growth, by some 400%, (hasn’t happened) and then when that didn’t pan out they just said well we are right, we are right, we are right.
And as promised, a Sanford research paper on Solar activity.
The scientists do not agree there was an increase in solar activity corresponding with the increase in temps temporarily in the 1800’s time frame.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
So, which of these is the “far right” theory quoting and conspiracy theory quoting Bias?
I’m getting a little tired of your hyper down voting of my links when I point out you’re being foolish about global warming.
I told you Bias, no one, literally no one on this site, goes over numbers like I do.
I care about nothing but numbers.
And you have not made your case. You have not proven global warming. You have simply stomped your feet and said a bunch of baloney while calling the other side anti science, anti earth, anti common sense, and mocked their reading comprehension and data research skills.
You have not done any of this research to fact check and question the theory, why the heck are you on board and shaming people who don’t buy into it?
Nothing new to see here.
As per this site, and what most climate change deniers point out in terms of surface warming as well which shows CO2 levels are not the primary factor here, and makes cutting them back potentially have little or no affect which is the primary point of argument, (yet in Canada many areas with green energy laws have electricity at THREE TIMES the cost of the U.S. which is not ok, and is the real goal here)
“How can any rational human being believe this kind of nonsense? The CO2 has been rising strongly since about 1940 or so … but in that 75 year period, the rate of sea level rise is basically unchanged. If CO2 were going to do something to sea level rise, it would have happened long ago.
I weep for the death of science … of course, this claim will be used to force people to do all kinds of crazy things if they want to build near the coast.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/02/dialing-back-the-the-10-foot-hype-noaa-tide-gauge-data-shows-no-coastal-sea-level-rise-acceleration/
This is likely the conservative conspiracy theory site you said I quoted before, rather than calling them that again, do you take issue with the concept and commentary regarding 1940, and the rate of rise for 75 years? Does that make sense to you?
Do you not believe this climate change should be questioned and be suspect by a bunch of folks who are instituting policies which explode energy cost and thus harms the middle class?
This isn’t even the first time the NOAA has made claims that would necessitate a 400% explosion in sea levels over say a decade. They’ve said it before.
Sea levels continue to rise, but they are not rising in line with rates of increase of co2.
And I’m sure we will see Planet say something about science deniers, Bias say something about then let’s ignore all science and just not be cautious, labeling anyone who doesn’t want to take extreme action here with exploding costs as basically not cautious, and Ron will say something about the same as that. Why don’t we go back to the heart disease analogy again.
And none of those three will respect or listen to the comments of people like Agent, myself, or Craig, and will mock the living daylights out of them, and when I point that out, they will call me the king of insults.
Then we will circle around again, you three having learned nothing from me, yet claiming that I’m arrogant. Those two statements don’t add up. What have you three learned from my posts?
You liberals are such amateurs and childish folks on this page. In this case the “you liberals” I mean, is a very specific group, so don’t accuse me of applying labels.
Ron, Rosenblatt, and Bias. I noticed you probably all downvoted the posts without rebuttal.
How about we go over this with data? Bias, I said I would own you, now it’s time to do it. I quote right wing sites eh?
How about NASA and the NOAA?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Let’s start here. This is the NOAA. It’s important to note that the NOAA makes an average including oceanic temperatures. This is important because this is where we have the least reliable data, so they use an equation to compensate for this which is based on the hypothesis that global warming = true. This is a monumental flaw. This is why I say it’s based on a theory of a theory. If their underlying equations are wrong to correct this, the global averages are wildly inaccurate. It leaves a huge margin of error. Why does that matter? Because the margin of error could be several degrees Celsius and we are talking a graph which shows from -.4 to 1 degree Celsius. They try to make it look like a huge increase by manipulating the chart, but look at the numbers on the left for god’s sakes.
So that is point one. Do you debate this point? Is it inaccurate? The water measurements which they use include several different monitoring methods. Some modern, some note so much. If I recall correctly it was 3 or 4. Some are surface monitors, some go down lower, and monitoring locations and rules have changed a lot since 1850.
Next will be PPM C02 from NASA, this is important because it shows 1850 to 1950 PPM increased 285 to 311. We then from that point to 2011 went from 311 to 391.5. But when looking at the temps, and sea rising, you see something interesting. They pull the same bull with the charts, and I’ll point that out by showing the chart which looks like a huge swing, but then I’ll quote the actual numbers and why they don’t make sense.
As stated numerous times on a myriad of articles, I DO NOT UP-VOTE NOR DOWN-VOTE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS SITE. I only posted once in this thread … and if you have a problem with what I said to Craig, I’m all ears.
Rosenblatt,
I have a problem with your general unwillingness to agree with Craig, your general over exaggerations that he doesn’t use numbers, and your general lack of putting Planet in his place. If Craig even with numbers insinuated there was a problem with democrats, you would not back it up, and you would use the “not all democrats” comment. Planet repeatedly uses this though, repeatedly, with anti science global warming denial folks.
With is recent link, it is a simple break down. “Would be willing” as in they are not presently, altering their lifestyle. Talk is cheap, and Craig is right, most people who advocate for climate change do nothing, and are all talk, having someone else pay (corporate charges for carbon, carbon taxes, or similar methods, or green energy credits which have others pay). The fact is this actually is why areas in Canada have much higher costs of electricity, a focal point in talking about these laws, which can inflate energy costs by 3 times, and you gloss it over with Ron when talking about climate change, saying we should just pass them, anything helps.
Helps what?
Rosenblatt, your climate agenda is poorly researched, poorly debated, and while you only posted once here, and it was also a poor comment, I’m directing your side’s general issues with climate change, which Craig did as well.
If you want to make your climate change point, I’m all ears. But you haven’t to date. You’ve instead shamed and insulted the other side.
with *His recent link*
And do not tell me you have been sympathetic to those who deny climate change here. You haven’t.
Act like a moderate, and treat conservatives here better, and I won’t complain.
It’s disgusting Rosenblatt. It sickens me.
Also:
Come the heck on, you have numerous times generalized about conservatives the same way Craig just did.
And here you are whining he didn’t give numbers for his commentary that many climate change warriors are not walking the walk?
I would think even a moderate would agree with this statement, whether they agreed with climate change or not, and even more so if they agreed with the mainstream climate change agenda.
I mentioned my brother is a PHD, and some of his friends advocate climate change and they have the education for it.
THEY make this same comment about climate change advocates, infuriated that most do not walk the walk on limiting their impact on the environment.
And you’re saying Craig was unreasonable for stating this?
I don’t.
All the while Planet repeatedly talks about science deniers, and says class who can define climate, and change? And mocks Agent, and other times mocks anti science bible thumpers, in very vulgar sense, and you do NOT condemn it!
I have to come to no other conclusion that you have an extreme bias!
The slightest remark from Craig triggers your need to intervene. Planet though, walks around, and parades like a jack, and you do nothing.
I have a considerable problem with this. If the left wants to grow, people like that, or attitudes like that, need to be purged.
Purge it!
As I just said to Craig over here — https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2018/06/06/491414.htm?comments#comment-4842854
It’s quite simple bob … if someone posts a statistic, they better be able to back it up with source data to prove they didn’t just pull it out of thin air. Not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand.
NOAA has has a record of missed predictions. This is a government agency and is driven by politics.
It’s not even just that. When I debated confused and finally found their data don’t you recall what happened?
There is a legal disclosure which threatens a lawsuit if you use the data AT ALL. Not only this, many records which were linked at other sites are now broken, and the source material moved. NOAA clearly put that warning in after they got tired of people referencing their data, and they cut the links. What do they have to hide?
At which point Confused asked me who to believe. I said how about the people who make their numbers available for us to debate?
I don’t go by the who. I go by the data.
I’m tired of this argument. I’m tired of trying to source NOAA data only to have threats of lawsuits for doing so!!!!
All the while those like Bias, who are supposedly trying to cut the bias, refuse to acknowledge there is any problem at all, no no no, it’s just those science deniers like agent right bias?
Climate change? What a crock. Only Al Gore still pushes it.
retired, the Climate Change Hoaxters continue to push their failed agenda and have for years. I have yet to see NYC flooded from the bay or the river. Miami is not having issues with rising waters either. All a hoax perpetrated by fat boy Gore.
Climate change is true. We affect climate We do not cause disastrous change, only possibly speed up cycles. That’s it, the extent of which is questionable.
We will never cause catastrophic damage. If there is a huge flood 100 years early, it doesn’t matter, it’s a thousand year cycle. It would still occur. And I’m giving huge leeway. At this point mankind would need to move around again, and Canada would probably be largely inhabitable.
Forcing people into poverty to try and control world climate is insane, and allowing any government the ability to try and control climate and control of people to do so, or business to do so, is just a bad idea given government tract records of poor management, racism, genocide, and doing whatever it takes to have power.
This is ignorant. When did liberals get this stupid? I would be one, if it were not for this mandated support tyranny thing which happened in my generation and later. I have said several times, I will support democrats the moment I see the following things:
Colleges take seriously debate on both sides, without locking out one (clearly conservative as of now)
Colleges stop liberal bias.
Media stop liberal bias.
People like Bias, Ron, and Rosenblatt, properly criticize the issues with the left.
If these things happen, I will vote democrat. Until they do, I never will.
Look in the mirror guys, I became a Trump supporter due to you folk. I also said at one point I would vote Bernie if Trump got conservative plans in place and they didn’t work. I asked Ron to commit to the other side: That if they did, he would vote Trump. Unfortunately, even on the economy issue, he refused to commit to that, saying essentially high growth with poor consumer protection is bad, even when it cannot be quantified.
This is hogwash.
You four are not independent thinkers, you clearly have an anti right bias, and you pretend as if everyone else on the right has some huge issues.
Look inward. I’m tired of dealing with you. You should be pulling me to your side, not shaming, insulting, etc to your side.