patrick.net

Do you know why it's called "Greenland" in the first place?

jazz_music says

Onvacation says

You do know the temperature has been going down? Don'tcha?

No, explain that

2016 was hotter than 2015. 2017 was cooler than 2016. 2018 was cooler than 2017 and 2019 promises to be cooler still. And co2 is at an alltime high.

Please link to a scientific study that actually shows the formula for heat increase caused by atmospheric co2?

Al Gore predicted ice free arctic by 2013; Iwog said the ice will be gone by 2022. AOC says less than a dozen years before climate change catastrophe.

What are YOUR predictions of doom? Please include time frame.

Wet bulb is out to get you!

Are you going to ban planes because Muslims fly them into buildings?

jazz_music says

komputodo says

Does "blaming" solve anything?

So far the solution is to get shooters to stop shooting voluntarily.

Fake News.

Last time it was a San Francisco company tied to Google, faking it and making fake bots.

Elections coming up, liberals ratcheting up fear mongering.

It was indeed Green... Birch Trees back in 1000... none today

Onvacation says

2016 was hotter than 2015. 2017 was cooler than 2016. 2018 was cooler than 2017 and 2019 promises to be cooler still

An uptrend is characterized by higher highs and higher lows. IT doesn't just progress steadily higher ( btw I'm not saying the stock market is a buy here - at some point THAT will be the beginning of a downtrend)

When the year occurs (possibly 2019) that takes out the 2016 high, onvacation will have to come up with some different nonsensical reason to think whatever his overlords tell him to think.

Global warming and erectile dysfunction have a lot in common. When it comes time to perform, neither one can get it up.

We have had a less than impressive monsoon season so far, maybe we can send some of that melt to Phoenix?

Fortwaynemobile says

Are you going to ban planes because Muslims fly them into buildings?

Ban assault trucks!

My problem with AGW is that its proponents do not advocate viable solutions. They just want to tax people (meaning that everyone except mega-rich will suffer), and to use technologies which are expensive and will also drop life quality of less affluent people. Germany is trying to use more and more Green Energy yet they produce more CO2 per energy unit than France which heavily uses nuclear.

I hope that everyone can agree that replacing oil and coal with a different source of energy would be good, as it would screw over Saudi Barbaria, Russia, and other assorted dictatorships. Admirable goal even if we do not think AGW is real.

My problem with AGW is that its proponents do not advocate viable solutions.

That is not in the playbook. AGW is all political, with the only approved solution to vote Democrat. Any talk about real solutions will get steered back to arguing with deniers. Especially solutions like limiting 3rd World immigration and tariffing high polluting producers.

d6rB says

Fortwaynemobile says

Are you going to ban planes because Muslims fly them into buildings?

Ban assault trucks!

Ban assault fertilizer and assault diesel fuel too.

Can you imagine? It's raining in Florida. We are experiencing typical South Florida summer weather patterns again. After a decade hiatus from our typical Summertime weather patterns. Where a trough of moister sits over South Florida and like clock work you can count on Rush Hour traffic rain. From 3 to 5 pm. As a result of it, South Florida typically experiences 20, 30, 40 year cycles where nothing bigger than a Tropical depression ever hits us. And that's if it formed over us. Otherwise the rain that sits over south Florida keeps Tropical disturbances away.

So don't count on South Florida for Pro Climate Change Hoax optics for the next 20 years at least.

Icemelt in Greenland is a greater threat to the Pacific Rim instability not Coastal regions.

Water always drains Down, not Up!

I saw a very interesting documentary where the truth was exposed. A little phenomena exposes the truth I've been saying for years.

Brinicles are melt water that got super cooled from the temp of the salt water around it and freezes.

It clearly shows fresh water sinking. Why wouldn't the brinicles form on top of the ocean?

Tenpoundbass says

Every hardcore leftard I knew after the 2016 election. Is now disillusioned by the lies and deceit of the Left

THis guys still going strong. "The liberal redneck"

www.youtube.com/embed/AT73vf64pAI

jazz_music says

There’s a very real danger that America keeps pathetically falling for one savior/retard after another now that Trump is bust.

You mean like when the Great Golden Child won?

www.youtube.com/embed/O9Jlku7gWUY

HeadSet says

That is not in the playbook. AGW is all political, with the only approved solution to vote Democrat. Any talk about real solutions will get steered back to arguing with deniers. Especially solutions like limiting 3rd World immigration and tariffing high polluting producers.

In other words, AGW is kinda like Urban Poverty.

A situation to be exploited, no solved.

jazz_music says

America has proven itself to be helpless against a straight up con man EVEN JUST with all the standard con man traits and tactics

Yep, Obama the Nobody sure pulled a fast one.

Funny thing is, the Golden Child, the most leftwing President since at least Jimmuh Carter, is now "Too Moderate" for them.

Democrats are the Revolutionary Socialist Party now.

jazz_music says

You are not interested enough to be aware of solutions that other nations are implementing now.

Sadly, countries like Germany are full of shit with respect to their solutions.
Please compare Germany vs France here:
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
gCO2eq/kWh: France: 53 g; Germany: 463 g. Even TX is about the same as progressive Germany: 487 g

Appears that only hydro (Norway) or nuclear (France) are capable of low-cost, low-carbon energy production.

jazz_music says

HeadSet says

My problem with AGW is that its proponents do not advocate viable solutions.

That is not in the playbook. AGW is all political, with the only approved solution to vote Democrat. Any talk about real solutions will get steered back to arguing with deniers

You are not interested enough to be aware of solutions that other nations are implementing now.

If you had an independent to vote for would you? I would.

So much horse shit about Democrats. Are you in love?

So, start talking about solutions.

A comeback is only a quip away...

If liberals cared they would be finding a way to slow immigration and lower the populations of third world countries. Population growth vastly overrides all gains in technology and throwing money at it will change nothing.

So in order to reduce carbon emissions Democrats want everyone to build giant farms of solar panels (that they are selling), and cut down forests to build all this, and to replace all fields everywhere with solar panels, increasing cost of energy 10 fold.

And their clueless voters think it's a good idea to do that, count me out!

“teach” them what differentiates consensual sex from rape

Hang one rapist, the rest will become star pupils and validate the exam.

FortWayneIndiana says

So in order to reduce carbon emissions Democrats want everyone to build giant farms of solar panels (that they are selling), and cut down forests to build all this, and to replace all fields everywhere with solar panels, increasing cost of energy 10 fold.

And their clueless voters think it's a good idea to do that, count me out!

Actually, we do not have to be that extreme. We have some solar farms in my area that seem to be working out well. They did not have to cut down a forest, they just used an old pumpkin farm in one case. Solar farms are just one aspect, though. Solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, and related endeavors could seriously mitigate pollution and resource depletion, but not if we do not allow the population to stabilize, and instead import millions of third world to "make up for the declining birthrate."

jazz_music says

Always a comeback

Always a dodge. Back to arguing with deniers.

d6rB says

I hope that everyone can agree that replacing oil and coal with a different source of energy would be good, as it would screw over Saudi Barbaria, Russia, and other assorted dictatorships. Admirable goal even if we do not think AGW is real.

Agreed.

Don't you think that if we all agreed about AGW, or at least agreed that the probability that AGW is happening is high enough to stop denying and debating it, it would be much easier easier to make progress on this ?

This is another claim that I wish was funny.

Deniers say liberals don't want solutions, they just want to argue that AGW is real. Consider how our government works, that is the lobbying and campaign money behind fossil fuel interests.

Are you really going to tell me that it should be easy to make progress against these huge interests regardless of whether a majority in congress accepts AGW or not ?

Politicians need a firm leash when it comes to budgets. My best suggestion is that governments be limited to creating a budget that reflects actual receipts of two or three years before. No pie in the sky projections of receipts to justify pie in the sky spending. Basing budgets on previous receipts will create small surpluses in a growing economy. If the economy is contracting, it will tend to run small deficits. Not a perfect solution, but better than letting politicians run amok.

They won’t stop importing illegals because cheap labor and votes is what they want.

They don’t give a shit about declining birth rate.


HeadSet says

FortWayneIndiana says

So in order to reduce carbon emissions Democrats want everyone to build giant farms of solar panels (that they are selling), and cut down forests to build all this, and to replace all fields everywhere with solar panels, increasing cost of energy 10 fold.

And their clueless voters think it's a good idea to do that, count me out!

Actually, we do not have to be that extreme. We have some solar farms in my area that seem to be working out well. They did not have to cut down a forest, they just used an old pumpkin farm in one case. Solar farms are just one aspect, though. Solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, and related endeavors could seriously mitigate pollution and resource depletion, but not if we do not allow the population to stabilize, and instead import millions of third world to "make up for the declining birthrate."

Pretty much admitting you imported a moron class into your country.

Actually, the GOP Party Mangement is fooling itself...

Most Republicans want to bring spending under control

We want to make more than we spend. Its basically the definition of 'winning'

Trumps spending is his biggest weakness in the coming election

Many Republican voters would vote for a Democrat who promised to spend less than was taken in

But with lies from both sides, and Democrats advocating using a stolen checkbook constantly,

Nobody is likely to be trusted on this issue.

"Conservatives"- have conserved what, exactly? Oh yeah! I remember now... money to Israel.

NOOOOOOO! We will lose trillions of dollars brought here by tourists from Venezuela!!!!! Fucking Orangemanbad!

marcus says

Agreed.

Don't you think that if we all agreed about AGW, or at least agreed that the probability that AGW is happening is high enough to stop denying and debating it, it would be much easier easier to make progress on this ?

@marcus
Both sides think that the other side is not negotiating or discussing this in good faith, and both are probably correct. On AGW supporter side, few scientists who claim that AGW either is not significant or does not exist are shouted down and bullied in press (mostly non-scientifically), some AGW supporter scientists have been caught fudging numbers, and solutions that AGW supporters propose will benefit them very much, and will make the rest of population poor. On AGW denier side, many go to extreme of denying the FACT that world gets warmer on average, and it is fairly obvious that most of anti-AGW research is funded by fossil fuel industries, which indirectly helps in this research providing results which funders want.
I am trying to make up my mind about AGW, but it is a really, really complex issue and even knowledge in chemistry and physics does not help much unless you know the field very well, which I do not. We KNOW that world gets warmer. What we do not know is what percent of that is human influence, and out of human influence, what % is CO2 emissions (as opposed to deforestation, city area increase, smog, etc). We do know that oil profits sustain dictatorships, Islamic terrorism, etc, and that oil is not a resource that is renewable on timescale of even few million years.

Are you really going to tell me that it should be easy to make progress against these huge interests regardless of whether a majority in congress accepts AGW or not ?

How about in California, where the majority of State government does accept AGW?

jazz_music says

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists,

Ok Jazz, name your favorite 3 scientists, or admit you are being told what to think.

marcus says

Don't you think that if we all agreed about AGW, or at least agreed that the probability that AGW is happening is high enough to stop denying and debating it, it would be much easier easier to make progress on this ?

The problem is idiocy like the Paris Accord. Stealing public funds for power is far a stretch from agreeing that we should go green.

We don't need to agree for private citizens to invest in green energy research and development?