According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year. I have lived on the beach in Florida since 1983 and I have seen zero change in sea level.
NASA recently reported that we are should expect significant lower temperatures as the Sun goes into a solar minimum reducing its heat output.
We know the insurance industry loves to push global warming so you can raise rates… but science is against you.
I couldn’t find NASA saying there would be lower temp’s due to the solar minimum – can you please cite that?
Also, I couldn’t find evidence that FL had below average temp’s most of the year either – actually found the opposite, so can you please cite that too?
Above- to much-above-average November temperatures were observed from the West Coast to the Rockies and across parts of southern Florida.
Much-above-average temperatures were observed from the South to the central Plains and into the Great Lakes as well as across much of the Tennessee Valley and Florida.
(Those last 3 can be found using my link and changing the month)
I’d love to know where you’re getting your NOAA report that FL was below-average most of the year. The NOAA reports I found for each month seem to be stating the complete opposite.
What’s wrong with you, Polar? I cited NOAA — and unlike you, my quotes can actually be found in the link I posted!!. NOAA didn’t show the info David said it did. Do you have anything to support David’s argument that “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” or troller’s just got to troll?
What’s wrong with you Rosenblatt? Haven’t you heard that we only have 12 years left?
February 10, 2020 at 2:57 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
11
8
What an interesting claim! Cite your source of that info please. :)
February 10, 2020 at 10:57 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
11
5
AND YET YOU POST NO SOURCE what a shock. Since just this week you posted a false citation and were caught you have zero credibility polar. You’re a proven liar, so if you want to make ridiculous claims, prove it.
Remember when you tried to tell us 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And then when it was pointed out that your link was a garbage conspiracy theory site you claimed the poll it was based on “from January” was real but then it was ACTUALLY January 2016 and said no such thing as your ridiculous claim? Yeah. You’re full of it and everyone here knows it dude.
The problem isn’t google, the problem is you post lies and claim them as fact. The problem is the things you consider “fact” don’t exist in reality. You make unverifiable claims, and then insist other people have to prove your points for you. You make false citations and then ghost the conversation, like in the above article. You have been caught lying over and over again, and yet you keep posting garbage on this board.
…..but I didn’t play the “what about” card ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, thank you for not denying you said I was in favor of pedophilia.
That was BY FAR the worst personal attack anyone has ever made on what’s supposed to be a site for insurance professionals. You should have been disgusted with yourself and apologized for that nonsense, but I’m sure you don’t see anything wrong with saying that about me.
Oh, Rosenblatt. Man up. My comment was in response to your attack on me for supposedly not caring about the girls who were sexually assaulted, for “victim blaming”.
What’s the difference between your first comment and my response. Geez.
I think the funniest thing about this “wrong search engine” distraction is Dave said NOAA reported FL had below average temp’s in 2019 and I cited NOAA.
Who cares what search engine someone might have used if the debate is about what data is being reported at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov?
February 10, 2020 at 1:41 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
Flawedlogic- If what you said was not flawed, my “bias” would be reflected in my google searches, would it not? Why would I feel the need to use other search engines if I felt like I got a “true” search? If you don’t think Google is directing thought, you might need to be a little more open minded.
February 10, 2020 at 1:54 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
3
Why are you guys focused on search engines?
Dave said NOAA data showed FL temp’s were below average for most of the year. The link to the NOAA data I provided shows otherwise. The link to the NOAA data that Polar provided also shows otherwise.
You should not be focused on search engines when the debate is about what the NOAA data showed. After all, it doesn’t matter what search engine you use when we’re all headed over to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov to prove or disprove the claim that started this debate.
I guess in my first post I should’ve said “Also, I couldn’t find evidence ***from NOAA’s data*** that FL had below average temp’s most of the year either – actually found the opposite ***on NOAA’s website***
February 11, 2020 at 11:58 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
12
From FoxNews.com:
Google human resources chief Eileen Naughton plans to step down later this year to be closer to her family, a Google spokesperson confirmed to FOX Business on Tuesday.
The news comes as Google employees express increasing dissatisfaction with the company’s handling of issues such as sexual harassment, free speech, climate change and pay discrimination.
LOL that Goo-gul is unbiased in search results and employee relations.
February 11, 2020 at 12:30 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
11
4
That doesn’t prove anything, and you STILL refuse to provide a link. What are you hiding, Trollerbear?
You’re welcome. Still waiting for Dave or Polar to provide any proof that “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year”. That seems to be factually and verifiably false.
What’s wrong with you, Polar #2? Are you REALLY now trying to argue my link — https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201909 — does not take you to NOAA and actually brings you to NASA? Your arguments are getting more absurd by the day.
I can’t find anything on it on the NASA website. Got a specific link on http://www.NASA.com?
February 11, 2020 at 8:08 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
11
3
What’s wrong with you Polar, #5? Dave said “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” so we’re talking about NOAA, not NASA. And I already posted that link. And you posted a link from NOAA supporting Florida did NOT have below average temp’s in 2019, so once again, thank you for agreeing with me that Dave was wrong when he said what I cited verbatim.
What’s wrong with you, Trollsenblatt? Only ONE Florida city was SIGNIFICANTLY above average temperature in 2019. I don’t care about the overall state average temperature if it WASN’T SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE AVG. Further, I don’t care about SHORT TIME PERIOD measures of changes in LONG CYCLE natural phenomena.
February 11, 2020 at 12:31 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
11
4
He provided proof of his statements, you have provided no proof of yours. Sounds like you’re a liar, Trollerbear.
February 11, 2020 at 12:33 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
Polar,
I know you don’t care about false statements because you have been making these every day. Let’s put this into a simplistic perspective that I know you like.
David said something that was not correct and Rosenblatt proved otherwise. Rosenblatt stated they didn’t change significantly, but they were opposite what David was stating. You made a false attribution to NASA when Rosen and David were discussing NOAA.
And you will continue to wait if you think you will drag me down your ‘rabbit hole’ to pursue a specific, meaningless stat.
BUT, here’s NOAA info, not NASA info, on temperature EXTREMES, which measures the 2019 results against a 20 year average (1981-2010) using a SD measure at 95% confidence level:
Above shows ONLY KEY WEST in FL was SIGNIFICANTLY above the 20 year avg temp in 2019…. of the 191 cities/metro areas listed. There are several other FL cities / metro areas which did not breach 2.5 SDs above the 20 year avg temp among the 191 cities / metro areas.
This link provides a 125 year ranking of avg temps in the SECOND graph (scroll down, or miss the point);
2019 is 10th warmest ranked year for Continental US states. Recent years are also highly ranked, which is consistent with above link. The flaw in these arguments about ‘warmest years’ is similar to the flaw in the CAPM modeling of individual stock prices; i.e. the units used are too small to measure the underlying trends without including noise due to random variance. Black-Scholes used portfolios of stocks to smooth the randomness and obtained more accurate results. Likewise, a year is too small a unit to measure long-term climate changes, as is the 20 year-based average used as the benchmark.
What’s wrong with you Polar, #3? Your first link, sorted by state, clearly shows (in every conceivable way) that
EVERY
SINGLE
FLORIDA
LOCATION
HAD
HIGHER
THAN
AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES
IN
2019
The issue I have with this reply is you moving the goalposts.
I provided proof that Dan’s argument of “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year.” was false.
You just just posted a NOAA link showing his statement was false, but now you’re changing the argument to say FL didn’t have SIGNIFICANT warming.
That’s not what Dave said and that’s not what I was out to prove, especially since “significant” is a subjective term (what’s significant? 0.5 degrees? 2 degrees? 10 degrees?)
Here’s what we just “debated”….
(1) Dave made a statement. (2) I proved it was false with NOAA data and asked him to back his argument up with data. (3) You tried to argue I was wrong but simply provided different NOAA data that proved my argument.
So we agree — NOAA did NOT report that Florida had below average temperatures for most of 2019 like Dave falsely claimed.
I’m not sure what you set out to prove, but you just proved me correct, so thanks for the reply!!
Apparently, Trollsenblatt, you’ve written to IJ staff to have them delete my post thoroughly rejecting your assertion above.
Here’s a repeat, condensed:
SIGNIFICANTLY
IS
MISSING
FROM
YOUR
POST
BETWEEN
YOUR
WORDS
‘HAD’
AND
‘HIGHER’
February 11, 2020 at 1:29 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
1
Go email Andrew and ask him when he has EVER received A SINGLE EMAIL from me asking that ANY post be removed. I have never done that, not even once.
I honestly don’t know what you’re still trying to argue here.
Dave said “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” (note he did not say significantly – simply that FL had below average temp’s for mos of the year)
I provided a NOAA link that proves temps across the state were actually above average, not below average.
YOU even provided a NOAA link that ALSO proves temps across the state were above average.
There should be no further debate on this matter.
We BOTH proved Dave’s comment was false.
February 7, 2020 at 2:14 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
Not sure about sea level rise but there has certainly been beach erosion in areas such as Cape San Blas (prior to hurricane Michael), Manasota Key, and Sanibel-Captiva. In the fact the erosion has been severe enough to eliminate beachfront and destroy homes & structures.
Once again…so what? What exactly are you going to do to stop the “rise of the oceans” in the next 20 years? And the people who wrote the reports flew on jets and drove cars to conferences…so why are they accelerating the problem? Where is there care and concern for the environment? NOAA actually owns and/or contracts aircraft that spew out tons of carbon dioxide. It looks like they don’t even believe the theory of man caused climate change. Not a word about the what scientific consensus really says: Since the beginning of the history of the earth, the planet has gotten colder and warmer, drier and wetter all without human intervention. And, as has been stated on this website many times, the earth will continue to get colder and warmer long after human beings have been extinguished.
Good questions. The answers is to take more of our money in taxes, raise gas and energy prices, ban fossil fuels, hurt the poor and middle class and tell us all what we can’t do.
The answer is always the same. Solve the problem? HA HA HA HA HA. The answer is always more government and lower standards of living for all.
FALSE STATEMENT ALERT
The answer doesn’t have to hurt the poor and middle class at all. You know it doesn’t. You just keep using this straw man argument to deny any attempts to push for change. It’s quite simple. Tax the mega-rich profiting from destroying the planet. Easy, if you’re not a member of the cowardly right.
The changes that you say would “hurt the poor and middle class” won’t really if the richest americans are paying for things. Capitalism has and continues to destroy our society, we don’t need billionaires and we will never prosper while we have them. We left kings, your party wants to create them again. No thanks.
February 7, 2020 at 4:59 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
13
I asked about your solution to Climate Change.
I already know about your Marxist interpretation of everything . . . show me for once you have actually thought about Climate Change and aren’t just a puppet for socialism.
February 11, 2020 at 12:27 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
5
8
Jon is the typical Climate Change “believer”. He knows nothing about the subject. Exposing his ignorance should make the other believers wake up; but they are also ignorant.
Anyone who rules out nuclear power as a major part of the solution doesn’t really believe it is all that urgent. Jon is typical; a religious believer who hasn’t even read their own Bible.
February 11, 2020 at 1:19 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
(No one was talking about nuclear power, we had a conversation going and you’re goalpost shifting once again. You know all these argument tricks and you keep trying them over and over, cowardly cornell.)
February 11, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
6
6
So, you are against nuclear power, you lying dog faced pony soldier?
February 11, 2020 at 5:14 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
LOL you post yours and we’ll meet in the middle bud how about that?
February 11, 2020 at 5:15 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
Jon,
your comment was very disturbing. Stop it and just get off of here if you are going to continue these antics.
Craig,
Your response I can understand, but the address is too far. Stop it and just get off of here if you are going to continue these antics.
“Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization that conducts independent research into environmental, energy and natural resource issues.”
Resources for the Future… via Taxes for the current set of Global Hoaxers to use to control the citizens of any state or nation foolish enough to believe them.
We don’t need R4TF because private energy industries will follow all necessary regulations to protect the environment to the extent possible, and not pay fake carbon taxes to burden their customers with excessive costs.
According to the R4TF website, less than 25% of their funding comes from government grants. So some tax money, but funded mostly from other sources. Organization was created in 1952, so been around awhile. Yes, most of their staff are academics, and they often have a liberal bias, but don’t know for sure.
Cite your source, Polar. Since on the article I linked above you purposefully misquoted something to try and make it sound like it proved your point, and then when pressed refused to link a source that your altered quote was from. That’s called lying, when you post a false citation, FYI. Your posts have zero credibility, nothing you say can be taken as truth because you have been shown to lie. Prove it, provide a link for anything you post, coward.
ANY Govt funding allows a research organization to stay afloat despite lack of support by the public. As such, they need to find & publish… or create… controversial results to continue their govt grants.
I won’t explain again that R4TF is earning money from biased sources; e.g. environmental, energy, natural resources. No need to cite sources because regulations are adequate, if not excessive, to protect the public.
Remember your claims about 26/27 of the last mass murderers that you swore up and down on and then was found to be false? I do.
Remember your claim that the biggest source of CO2 emissions was air conditioners? And then it turned out they don’t actually emit CO2? I do.
Remember your claims about marijuana where you “quoted” an article after posting four links, and none of the four links contained your “quote” and two of the links actually refuted your claims? I do.
One of us is definitely a liar. Problem is, that liar is also a coward who can’t admit he’s lying and now just wants to reply “Liar” to my posts. So you’re a liar and a hypocrite. Grow up, boomer.
Flood insurance premiums in Florida are 20% less than the national average. There would be only one reason for this. Pick one of the 2 below.
1. FEMA doesn’t even believe this article.
2. Crooked politicians think they should not suffer from decisions they make about you. Example – they don’t have to use Obamacare
Yes, Florida, and all 49 other states will see climate change over the next 20 years.
So, why would anyone with any common sense and moral conscience try to impose punitive carbon taxes on hard-working citizens when hundreds of hypocrite Climate Scientists and thousands of their Global Warming Hoaxer suporters fly on private jets to meetings and conferences thousands of miles from their homes on shorelines?
And why worry about CO2 emissions (most of which are due to China and India ignoring calls for their redux) when millions more trees will be planted by WISE leaders?
No one believes you that climate scientists are “hypocrites” when you’ve been nothing but hypocritical on these forums. You can not prove a single one of your statements, you are spouting conspiracy theories as fact. We can do a lot more than you would lead us to believe, since five years ago you were denying climate change at ALL why should anyone believe you now that you’ve changed your story?
“No one believes you that climate scientists are “hypocrites” when you’ve been nothing but hypocritical on these forums.”
Because you made your assertion conditional on the qualifier ‘when’, i.e. hypocrisy on my part, which is not true, it implies someone believes my statement that ‘Climate Change Global Warming CAUSED BY MAN Hoax Scientists’ are ‘Mad Scientists’.
There is no hypocrisy on my part because I’ve been consistent in asserting MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is a hoax intended to enrich the hoaxers and award research grants to MAN MADE Climate Warming Hoaxer Mad Scientists.
Wow, this post is still up? Well, one more time…”Oh no…we’re all going to die! If only the climate scientist would take some leadership and…stop flying on planes, driving to work, exhaling then and ONLY THEN will we be saved!”
Yeah…whatever and seriously, the world with or without humans gets warmer and colder always has, always will. Dear God, get back to selling insurance everyone.
Your dismissive condescending response does nothing to hide your lack of knowledge on the subject. Why don’t you try to actually contribute something instead of spreading false condescension? Or are you another cowardly member of the right, posting angry thoughts with nothing verifiable or interesting? Boring.
Andrew are you going to allow Jon to talk like this? ” LOL keep insulting me you pathetic old wretch, at least I kept my kids alive LOLOL at least you’ll never be as big a failure here as you were as a parent, right? Is that your motivator to keep trying so hard on here? Keep trying to insult me and go ahead and whine now that I’ve actually insulted you, you’re out of your league here old man LOL”
He’s hit an all time low. Disappointing that anyone stoops this low. I’ve called him a “little man” before and this is why.
I hope karma isn’t in your future, Jon. Wow.
Andrew kept up Craig’s post where he said I was apparently okay with sexual abuse of a child, so at least he’s being even-handed. Granted I don’t lobby him to remove posts, but I do completely agree with you that the comment Jon made was horrible
I feel for you right now because Jon was out of line, but you directing this anger towards me is again misplaced sir.
I cannot back these things up, because of the article comments being shut down, much like this one most likely will be due to what has been said. Additionally, as you know yourself on this the article article about frankenstein, you do not always need to back up your claim (you literally did that on the article I have just linked) https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/02/07/557743.htm
Now one thing is saying how Rosen supported the systematic abuse of the kids with the gymnastics. Additionally, you have made many stoner and you have mentioned about deaths in there it was more or less okay since they were cannabis users.
I agree you never blamed his dead mother on him, but every situation is different, and I just agreed that Jon was out of line, but you cannot shrug off your own comments that have been made Craig. If you would like us to admit Jon’s comments were far out of line, then we must admit yours at times have been as well.
Thanks for confirming what Craig said about me so there’s no need for me to respond to his absurdist comment that I am “…mak[ing] [a] false charge…” about it. And he honestly wonders why Jon keeps calling him a liar ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Show me I lied, or shut it Craig. Again, you are misdirecting your anger at those who are agreeing Jon stepped out of line, but that you have also done so on multiple occasions.
Apologize for all of your false claims, saying Rosen supported systematic abuse of kids, and then I will apologize for pointing out your false statements multiple times, which seems to be too much for you to handle.
Thank GOD you figured out the heating/cooling cycles of Earth. I can’t believe the scientists never thought of this. You should really reach out to the scientific community, you could get a Nobel Prize for this unprecedented discovery!!!
Well…. I agree CHIP should get the Nobel Prize, he’s bombed less people and been at his position a lot longer than Obama was, and he got one. Who should we contact to get the nomination started?
Everyone serious about Climate Change should read the February 14th Wall Street Journal supplement on the future of Energy. It runs about 10 pages and includes amazing news you will have read nowhere else, including:
1. Solar has been a joke because there is virtually no belief there will be breakthroughs in battery technology that would allow for solar to power over night. A new idea, weight transfer technology may be a new solution to allow solar to be a much greater solution.
2. Fusion technology has been the ultimate energy solution forever, but never a scientific possibility. Until now, perhaps in 10 years. The ultimate cheap, safe, carbon-free power.
3. Carbon capture technology is advancing rapidly. This would allow us to buy as much time as we need to develop carbon-free energy globally.
There is more. But here is the point: you won’t read it in the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC or the Insurance Journal. And it is all GOOD news.
According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year. I have lived on the beach in Florida since 1983 and I have seen zero change in sea level.
NASA recently reported that we are should expect significant lower temperatures as the Sun goes into a solar minimum reducing its heat output.
We know the insurance industry loves to push global warming so you can raise rates… but science is against you.
I couldn’t find NASA saying there would be lower temp’s due to the solar minimum – can you please cite that?
Also, I couldn’t find evidence that FL had below average temp’s most of the year either – actually found the opposite, so can you please cite that too?
Georgia and Florida had their warmest January–September on record (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201909)
Florida ranked second warmest during October,
Above- to much-above-average November temperatures were observed from the West Coast to the Rockies and across parts of southern Florida.
Much-above-average temperatures were observed from the South to the central Plains and into the Great Lakes as well as across much of the Tennessee Valley and Florida.
(Those last 3 can be found using my link and changing the month)
I’d love to know where you’re getting your NOAA report that FL was below-average most of the year. The NOAA reports I found for each month seem to be stating the complete opposite.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s wrong with you, Polar? I cited NOAA — and unlike you, my quotes can actually be found in the link I posted!!. NOAA didn’t show the info David said it did. Do you have anything to support David’s argument that “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” or troller’s just got to troll?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What an interesting claim! Cite your source of that info please. :)
AND YET YOU POST NO SOURCE what a shock. Since just this week you posted a false citation and were caught you have zero credibility polar. You’re a proven liar, so if you want to make ridiculous claims, prove it.
Remember when you tried to tell us 91% of Americans were more afraid of terrorism than climate change? And then when it was pointed out that your link was a garbage conspiracy theory site you claimed the poll it was based on “from January” was real but then it was ACTUALLY January 2016 and said no such thing as your ridiculous claim? Yeah. You’re full of it and everyone here knows it dude.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2020/01/30/556580.htm/?comments
The problem isn’t google, the problem is you post lies and claim them as fact. The problem is the things you consider “fact” don’t exist in reality. You make unverifiable claims, and then insist other people have to prove your points for you. You make false citations and then ghost the conversation, like in the above article. You have been caught lying over and over again, and yet you keep posting garbage on this board.
…..but I didn’t play the “what about” card ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, thank you for not denying you said I was in favor of pedophilia.
That was BY FAR the worst personal attack anyone has ever made on what’s supposed to be a site for insurance professionals. You should have been disgusted with yourself and apologized for that nonsense, but I’m sure you don’t see anything wrong with saying that about me.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Not my favorite Iggy Pop album, but a good one nonetheless.
Polarbearepeal is correct, you have to use other search engines like duckduckgo.
if the 2 thumbs down people would simply do their own test, they would find plenty of bias in their searches. They probably live on planet denial.
There is bias in any search engine, so by you using other search engines, guess what it aligns more with the bias you have.
You are not better then anyone else simply because you use a different search engine. Google is actually not as biased as you believe: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/08/30/googling-the-news
I think the funniest thing about this “wrong search engine” distraction is Dave said NOAA reported FL had below average temp’s in 2019 and I cited NOAA.
Who cares what search engine someone might have used if the debate is about what data is being reported at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov?
Flawedlogic- If what you said was not flawed, my “bias” would be reflected in my google searches, would it not? Why would I feel the need to use other search engines if I felt like I got a “true” search? If you don’t think Google is directing thought, you might need to be a little more open minded.
Why are you guys focused on search engines?
Dave said NOAA data showed FL temp’s were below average for most of the year. The link to the NOAA data I provided shows otherwise. The link to the NOAA data that Polar provided also shows otherwise.
You should not be focused on search engines when the debate is about what the NOAA data showed. After all, it doesn’t matter what search engine you use when we’re all headed over to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov to prove or disprove the claim that started this debate.
I guess in my first post I should’ve said “Also, I couldn’t find evidence ***from NOAA’s data*** that FL had below average temp’s most of the year either – actually found the opposite ***on NOAA’s website***
From FoxNews.com:
Google human resources chief Eileen Naughton plans to step down later this year to be closer to her family, a Google spokesperson confirmed to FOX Business on Tuesday.
The news comes as Google employees express increasing dissatisfaction with the company’s handling of issues such as sexual harassment, free speech, climate change and pay discrimination.
LOL that Goo-gul is unbiased in search results and employee relations.
That doesn’t prove anything, and you STILL refuse to provide a link. What are you hiding, Trollerbear?
Thanks for giving it the scientific eye test.
You’re welcome. Still waiting for Dave or Polar to provide any proof that “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year”. That seems to be factually and verifiably false.
NOAA or NASA? LOL!
RE-read your post.
What’s wrong with you, Polar #2? Are you REALLY now trying to argue my link — https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201909 — does not take you to NOAA and actually brings you to NASA? Your arguments are getting more absurd by the day.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s wrong with you Polar, #5? Dave said “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” so we’re talking about NOAA, not NASA. And I already posted that link. And you posted a link from NOAA supporting Florida did NOT have below average temp’s in 2019, so once again, thank you for agreeing with me that Dave was wrong when he said what I cited verbatim.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
He provided proof of his statements, you have provided no proof of yours. Sounds like you’re a liar, Trollerbear.
Polar,
I know you don’t care about false statements because you have been making these every day. Let’s put this into a simplistic perspective that I know you like.
David said something that was not correct and Rosenblatt proved otherwise. Rosenblatt stated they didn’t change significantly, but they were opposite what David was stating. You made a false attribution to NASA when Rosen and David were discussing NOAA.
Stop being deceitful.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What’s wrong with you Polar, #3? Your first link, sorted by state, clearly shows (in every conceivable way) that
EVERY
SINGLE
FLORIDA
LOCATION
HAD
HIGHER
THAN
AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES
IN
2019
The issue I have with this reply is you moving the goalposts.
I provided proof that Dan’s argument of “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year.” was false.
You just just posted a NOAA link showing his statement was false, but now you’re changing the argument to say FL didn’t have SIGNIFICANT warming.
That’s not what Dave said and that’s not what I was out to prove, especially since “significant” is a subjective term (what’s significant? 0.5 degrees? 2 degrees? 10 degrees?)
Here’s what we just “debated”….
(1) Dave made a statement. (2) I proved it was false with NOAA data and asked him to back his argument up with data. (3) You tried to argue I was wrong but simply provided different NOAA data that proved my argument.
So we agree — NOAA did NOT report that Florida had below average temperatures for most of 2019 like Dave falsely claimed.
I’m not sure what you set out to prove, but you just proved me correct, so thanks for the reply!!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Go email Andrew and ask him when he has EVER received A SINGLE EMAIL from me asking that ANY post be removed. I have never done that, not even once.
I honestly don’t know what you’re still trying to argue here.
Dave said “According to NOAA this year, Florida was below average temperature most of the year” (note he did not say significantly – simply that FL had below average temp’s for mos of the year)
I provided a NOAA link that proves temps across the state were actually above average, not below average.
YOU even provided a NOAA link that ALSO proves temps across the state were above average.
There should be no further debate on this matter.
We BOTH proved Dave’s comment was false.
Not sure about sea level rise but there has certainly been beach erosion in areas such as Cape San Blas (prior to hurricane Michael), Manasota Key, and Sanibel-Captiva. In the fact the erosion has been severe enough to eliminate beachfront and destroy homes & structures.
Geology classes will edify you to the shifts of shorelines on all bodies of water over time.
Once again…so what? What exactly are you going to do to stop the “rise of the oceans” in the next 20 years? And the people who wrote the reports flew on jets and drove cars to conferences…so why are they accelerating the problem? Where is there care and concern for the environment? NOAA actually owns and/or contracts aircraft that spew out tons of carbon dioxide. It looks like they don’t even believe the theory of man caused climate change. Not a word about the what scientific consensus really says: Since the beginning of the history of the earth, the planet has gotten colder and warmer, drier and wetter all without human intervention. And, as has been stated on this website many times, the earth will continue to get colder and warmer long after human beings have been extinguished.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
FALSE STATEMENT ALERT
The answer doesn’t have to hurt the poor and middle class at all. You know it doesn’t. You just keep using this straw man argument to deny any attempts to push for change. It’s quite simple. Tax the mega-rich profiting from destroying the planet. Easy, if you’re not a member of the cowardly right.
“Tax the rich”. And then what, Einstein?
The changes that you say would “hurt the poor and middle class” won’t really if the richest americans are paying for things. Capitalism has and continues to destroy our society, we don’t need billionaires and we will never prosper while we have them. We left kings, your party wants to create them again. No thanks.
I asked about your solution to Climate Change.
I already know about your Marxist interpretation of everything . . . show me for once you have actually thought about Climate Change and aren’t just a puppet for socialism.
Jon is the typical Climate Change “believer”. He knows nothing about the subject. Exposing his ignorance should make the other believers wake up; but they are also ignorant.
Anyone who rules out nuclear power as a major part of the solution doesn’t really believe it is all that urgent. Jon is typical; a religious believer who hasn’t even read their own Bible.
(No one was talking about nuclear power, we had a conversation going and you’re goalpost shifting once again. You know all these argument tricks and you keep trying them over and over, cowardly cornell.)
So, you are against nuclear power, you lying dog faced pony soldier?
LOL you post yours and we’ll meet in the middle bud how about that?
Jon,
your comment was very disturbing. Stop it and just get off of here if you are going to continue these antics.
Craig,
Your response I can understand, but the address is too far. Stop it and just get off of here if you are going to continue these antics.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
According to the R4TF website, less than 25% of their funding comes from government grants. So some tax money, but funded mostly from other sources. Organization was created in 1952, so been around awhile. Yes, most of their staff are academics, and they often have a liberal bias, but don’t know for sure.
Cite your source, Polar. Since on the article I linked above you purposefully misquoted something to try and make it sound like it proved your point, and then when pressed refused to link a source that your altered quote was from. That’s called lying, when you post a false citation, FYI. Your posts have zero credibility, nothing you say can be taken as truth because you have been shown to lie. Prove it, provide a link for anything you post, coward.
Say what you want about Jon calling you guys liars all the time, but at least he backs up his stance with evidence that proves his argument.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You also couldn’t care less about things like facts, data, or honesty. Why don’t you answer Rosenblatt, troll?
No, I said ‘what you think, not ‘truth, facts….’.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Craig, over the last three months:
Remember your claims about 26/27 of the last mass murderers that you swore up and down on and then was found to be false? I do.
Remember your claim that the biggest source of CO2 emissions was air conditioners? And then it turned out they don’t actually emit CO2? I do.
Remember your claims about marijuana where you “quoted” an article after posting four links, and none of the four links contained your “quote” and two of the links actually refuted your claims? I do.
One of us is definitely a liar. Problem is, that liar is also a coward who can’t admit he’s lying and now just wants to reply “Liar” to my posts. So you’re a liar and a hypocrite. Grow up, boomer.
Snore
Flood insurance premiums in Florida are 20% less than the national average. There would be only one reason for this. Pick one of the 2 below.
1. FEMA doesn’t even believe this article.
2. Crooked politicians think they should not suffer from decisions they make about you. Example – they don’t have to use Obamacare
I pick #2, although I am disappointed that I couldn’t pick both. Reason: I consider FEMA to be indirectly in the control of politicians.
Yes, Florida, and all 49 other states will see climate change over the next 20 years.
So, why would anyone with any common sense and moral conscience try to impose punitive carbon taxes on hard-working citizens when hundreds of hypocrite Climate Scientists and thousands of their Global Warming Hoaxer suporters fly on private jets to meetings and conferences thousands of miles from their homes on shorelines?
And why worry about CO2 emissions (most of which are due to China and India ignoring calls for their redux) when millions more trees will be planted by WISE leaders?
No one believes you that climate scientists are “hypocrites” when you’ve been nothing but hypocritical on these forums. You can not prove a single one of your statements, you are spouting conspiracy theories as fact. We can do a lot more than you would lead us to believe, since five years ago you were denying climate change at ALL why should anyone believe you now that you’ve changed your story?
“No one believes you that climate scientists are “hypocrites” when you’ve been nothing but hypocritical on these forums.”
Because you made your assertion conditional on the qualifier ‘when’, i.e. hypocrisy on my part, which is not true, it implies someone believes my statement that ‘Climate Change Global Warming CAUSED BY MAN Hoax Scientists’ are ‘Mad Scientists’.
There is no hypocrisy on my part because I’ve been consistent in asserting MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is a hoax intended to enrich the hoaxers and award research grants to MAN MADE Climate Warming Hoaxer Mad Scientists.
Have a Nice, Warm Day!
You’re really trying SO hard hypocrite LOL too bad you have zero credibility and zero integrity Trollerbear
Wow, this post is still up? Well, one more time…”Oh no…we’re all going to die! If only the climate scientist would take some leadership and…stop flying on planes, driving to work, exhaling then and ONLY THEN will we be saved!”
Yeah…whatever and seriously, the world with or without humans gets warmer and colder always has, always will. Dear God, get back to selling insurance everyone.
Your dismissive condescending response does nothing to hide your lack of knowledge on the subject. Why don’t you try to actually contribute something instead of spreading false condescension? Or are you another cowardly member of the right, posting angry thoughts with nothing verifiable or interesting? Boring.
Andrew are you going to allow Jon to talk like this? ” LOL keep insulting me you pathetic old wretch, at least I kept my kids alive LOLOL at least you’ll never be as big a failure here as you were as a parent, right? Is that your motivator to keep trying so hard on here? Keep trying to insult me and go ahead and whine now that I’ve actually insulted you, you’re out of your league here old man LOL”
He’s hit an all time low. Disappointing that anyone stoops this low. I’ve called him a “little man” before and this is why.
I hope karma isn’t in your future, Jon. Wow.
Andrew kept up Craig’s post where he said I was apparently okay with sexual abuse of a child, so at least he’s being even-handed. Granted I don’t lobby him to remove posts, but I do completely agree with you that the comment Jon made was horrible
trick question! it’s not a false charge
Perplexed,
I agree that Jon’s comments are horrible, but Craig has said some equally disbursing things before.
I’ll be happy to see when you call him a little man as well and discuss his all time low.
This is why you are not taken seriously when discussing these issues, you only care about one, but not the other.
Craig,
I feel for you right now because Jon was out of line, but you directing this anger towards me is again misplaced sir.
I cannot back these things up, because of the article comments being shut down, much like this one most likely will be due to what has been said. Additionally, as you know yourself on this the article article about frankenstein, you do not always need to back up your claim (you literally did that on the article I have just linked) https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/02/07/557743.htm
Now one thing is saying how Rosen supported the systematic abuse of the kids with the gymnastics. Additionally, you have made many stoner and you have mentioned about deaths in there it was more or less okay since they were cannabis users.
I agree you never blamed his dead mother on him, but every situation is different, and I just agreed that Jon was out of line, but you cannot shrug off your own comments that have been made Craig. If you would like us to admit Jon’s comments were far out of line, then we must admit yours at times have been as well.
The moral equivalency of a deep thinking Lefty.
I have NEVER said deaths of anyone was okay. The dishonesty of a Lefty. You should apologize for lying about me. You won’t.
Thanks for confirming what Craig said about me so there’s no need for me to respond to his absurdist comment that I am “…mak[ing] [a] false charge…” about it. And he honestly wonders why Jon keeps calling him a liar ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Show me I lied, or shut it Craig. Again, you are misdirecting your anger at those who are agreeing Jon stepped out of line, but that you have also done so on multiple occasions.
Apologize for all of your false claims, saying Rosen supported systematic abuse of kids, and then I will apologize for pointing out your false statements multiple times, which seems to be too much for you to handle.
Everything runs in cycles. Nothing is static in nature. Yet another unfounded doomsday article.
Thank GOD you figured out the heating/cooling cycles of Earth. I can’t believe the scientists never thought of this. You should really reach out to the scientific community, you could get a Nobel Prize for this unprecedented discovery!!!
Well…. I agree CHIP should get the Nobel Prize, he’s bombed less people and been at his position a lot longer than Obama was, and he got one. Who should we contact to get the nomination started?
Everyone serious about Climate Change should read the February 14th Wall Street Journal supplement on the future of Energy. It runs about 10 pages and includes amazing news you will have read nowhere else, including:
1. Solar has been a joke because there is virtually no belief there will be breakthroughs in battery technology that would allow for solar to power over night. A new idea, weight transfer technology may be a new solution to allow solar to be a much greater solution.
2. Fusion technology has been the ultimate energy solution forever, but never a scientific possibility. Until now, perhaps in 10 years. The ultimate cheap, safe, carbon-free power.
3. Carbon capture technology is advancing rapidly. This would allow us to buy as much time as we need to develop carbon-free energy globally.
There is more. But here is the point: you won’t read it in the NY Times, CNN, MSNBC or the Insurance Journal. And it is all GOOD news.
Craig- too many facts in there for some to grasp, and talk about science deniers.