Could this be true?

User avatar
AbeFroman
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:42 pm
Karma: 212

Could this be true?

Post by AbeFroman » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:03 pm

Image

The only thing that should keep you from roaring in laughter as Nancy Pelosi freaks out trying to keep a lid on the freak show that is the Democratic caucus is the knowledge that the freshmen freakettes giving her fits would impose an ideology of tyranny and murder if given the chance. But you can still allow yourself a good giggle as you watch Nancy's dreams of a Democrat majority die on the altar of anti-Semitism, taking away your health insurance, and banning cheeseburgers.
This was on display as the Democrats struggled to find a way to publicly pretend to condemn their superstar bigot's hatred of Jews without annoying all the Democrats for whom hatred of Jews is a key component of their intersectional web of leftist prejudices. Nancy essentially tried to excuse it by explaining that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Berlin) is too stupid to know she's anti-Semitic which, to be fair, is plausible.

She could only get her caucus to agree to condemning all prejudice, sort of, including the tsunami of prejudice against Pacific Islanders that we all see around us so much in our daily lives. Take that, people who hate Pacific Islanders.

Of course, the Democrats never named the actual bigot because the Democrat base is affirmatively pro-bigotry. They hate Jews, Christians, white people, dissident non-white people, men, women who like men, and people who blaspheme against the creepy climate cult, among others. The list of Bad People Who Are Bad goes on and on -- the key element of intersectionality is that it always intersects with ugly prejudices against groups that leftists see as insufficiently supportive of their sick ideology.

Which is Nancy's problem, because she won the House back last year by hiding the left-wing evil bubbling under the surface of her party's collective dogma. She defeated the feckless Paul Ryan -- what a loser -- by running candidates in largely purple suburban districts who promised that if the voters tossed out the squishy Republican incumbent, the sensible Democrat moderate challenger would not go to Washington and do anything kooky. And, of course, the Lucy's football phenomena was in full effect as these Nanchurian Candidates trooped up Capitol Hill and promptly got sucked into the crazy.

Suddenly, instead of playing the fake moderate game, Nancy's minions had to suck up to a bunch of braying bimbos from safe blue seats. All the nonsense Reps. Talib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez spewed on social media and MSNBC thrilled the Democrat base. But what Normal people heard was, "We hate Israel. We hate the idea that you can have cars. We hate you."


Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:02 pm

"and people who blaspheme against the creepy climate cult"

Give me strength. Are you Americans still pretending that global warming is fake? You can stop pretending. Under the Trump regime Climate Change no longer officially exits. People can and have been sacked for mentioning Climate Change in official documents and government websites.

Anyway even if 100% of the population accepted Climate Change, nothing would happen because it would require the consent of the donor class, and they're not likely to give that consent. They're not spending billions to own politicians and have those same politicians turn around to bite their masters and enact policies that might cost them a single penny.
Surrealism is the new normal

User avatar
WilyB
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:33 am
Karma: 2097
Location: High up down town

Re: Could this be true?

Post by WilyB » Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:38 pm

Anyway even if 100% of the population accepted Climate Change, nothing would happen because it would require the consent of the donor class, and they're not likely to give that consent.
Anyway even if 100% of the US population accepted Climate Change, nothing would happen because it would require the consent of the the fucking rest of the world, like chinks or Indians (not the wounded knee kind, mot like the I slept naked with ten years old nieces to prove I am a decent guy" Nehru.

My guess is neither the Chinks nor the pedophiles are not likely to give that consent.

PS> Chairman Mao was a pedo too.
Lots of guys watch Bruce Lee movies, doesn’t mean you can do karate.

User avatar
jeanV
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 pm
Karma: 3341

Re: Could this be true?

Post by jeanV » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:14 pm

WilyB wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:38 pm
My guess is neither the Chinks nor the pedophiles are not likely to give that consent.


The point is, there will come a time when there will be no alternative.


It will have to be climate change measures or frying.

:P


Image
Benedict Arnold Trump is a conceited idiot: Lock him up!!

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 900
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:36 pm
Karma: 1210

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Richard » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:06 pm

Mikgof wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:02 pm
"and people who blaspheme against the creepy climate cult"

Give me strength. Are you Americans still pretending that global warming is fake? You can stop pretending. Under the Trump regime Climate Change no longer officially exits. People can and have been sacked for mentioning Climate Change in official documents and government websites.

Anyway even if 100% of the population accepted Climate Change, nothing would happen because it would require the consent of the donor class, and they're not likely to give that consent. They're not spending billions to own politicians and have those same politicians turn around to bite their masters and enact policies that might cost them a single penny.
4CE80C76-FE1D-4C81-9992-44E91DBB6EE0.jpeg

User avatar
jeanV
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 pm
Karma: 3341

Re: Could this be true?

Post by jeanV » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:46 pm

Richard wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:06 pm
Image


Again, the same old confusion.

• Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.

• Fact #2: the green/red Left tries to use AGW to surreptitiously sell its collectivist agenda.


Those are and should be maintained two independent factors.

Fact #2 does not constitute a rational reason to wish away fact #1.

As repeated countless times here.

:P
Benedict Arnold Trump is a conceited idiot: Lock him up!!

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:30 pm

Richard wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:06 pm
Mikgof wrote:
Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:02 pm
"and people who blaspheme against the creepy climate cult"

Give me strength. Are you Americans still pretending that global warming is fake? You can stop pretending. Under the Trump regime Climate Change no longer officially exits. People can and have been sacked for mentioning Climate Change in official documents and government websites.

Anyway even if 100% of the population accepted Climate Change, nothing would happen because it would require the consent of the donor class, and they're not likely to give that consent. They're not spending billions to own politicians and have those same politicians turn around to bite their masters and enact policies that might cost them a single penny.
4CE80C76-FE1D-4C81-9992-44E91DBB6EE0.jpeg
Heresy! Trump told you that Climate Change is a Chinese hoax to destroy American industry, not a hoax put out by Western socialists/greens. You are implying that your dear leader was wrong. Not good news for you. That will require time in one of Obama's Fema camps until you learn to toe the party line. 'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' '
Surrealism is the new normal

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:48 am

jeanV wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:46 pm
Richard wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:06 pm
Image


Again, the same old confusion.

• Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.

• Fact #2: the green/red Left tries to use AGW to surreptitiously sell its collectivist agenda.


Those are and should be maintained two independent factors.

Fact #2 does not constitute a rational reason to wish away fact #1.

As repeated countless times here.

:P

"Fact" - lolz
• Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.
we see you guys throw this argument all the time...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 938193f9ff

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

Simple challenge here for you. Al Gore has been held on a pedestal as the Godfather of AGW. Can you name 25% of the predictions that he has made that have come true? Try and shoot for some of the main stream ones, like all of the polar caps would melt, etc. You green religion types keep praying to this AGW, but when one compares the predictions to the outcome of those predictions, there seems to be a sizeable delta in results. I can easily go and pull a list of those predictions, there has been hundreds of them. Let's compare the delta between predictions and success of said predictions and shoot for a % of success that would instill faith in your hypothesis. Would you say 50% success would be a viable number, to instill confidence in what you are proposing to everyone. After all..97% of scientists are on the same page, right? Was that smug enough?

Try and convince me JV... I want to believe in AGW, but we see things like the following:

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02- ... capitalism

Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Help me believe JV..this is about the environment, right?

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:08 am

AOC is a puppet.. That video of her word for word repeat just reinforces what others have known. Explain how a bartender with a nice rack, who has been evicted from two places in the last few years, is now a shining star for policy change AND finance.

Scary times.. do not underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Look for the dems to continue this push towards socialism.
Attachments
cortez.jpg

User avatar
PistolPierre
Posts: 776
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:05 pm
Karma: 305

Re: Could this be true?

Post by PistolPierre » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:24 am

AOC inherited the massive protruding carotid artery somewhere down the line from her Bolshevik or Jacobin ancestors. It reminds me of the guillotine for some reason. Also she has teeth that could slit a throat like a vampire. And she always wears red. Bloody hell.

User avatar
jeanV
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:25 pm
Karma: 3341

Re: Could this be true?

Post by jeanV » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:50 pm

jeanV wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:46 pm
• Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.
• Fact #2: the green/red Left tries to use AGW to surreptitiously sell its collectivist agenda.
Fact #2 does not constitute a rational reason to wish away fact #1.
Heywood wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:48 am
"Fact" - lolz - Simple challenge here for you.
• Al Gore
• U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism [/b]
Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change,

Help me believe JV..this is about the environment, right?


How can I help you believe when you do not listen to a single word I'm telling you?

I gave you a simple point #1 that AGW is accepted by the academies of science and by most of the experts in the field.

You answer to me on point #2 = Al Gore and some Socialist at the UN

Again, two different points. And I already granted point #2 = the Left tries to use AGW to sell its collectivist agenda

Now back to you if you care to tackle point #1.

:P
Benedict Arnold Trump is a conceited idiot: Lock him up!!

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:09 pm

We should all be glad that America rejects Climate Change. Their steadfast refusal to admits that it exists means that they cannot and will not take steps to mitigate the worst aspects of AGW. That means more flooding, droughts and forest fires. Pure entertainment for the rest of the world. Get your popcorn ready. It also means that the future investment in renewables will not involve America which means more wealth and jobs for the rest of us. Which is why so many of us want a second Trump term. It will make sure that America stays out of the game permanently.
Surrealism is the new normal

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:32 am

Jean,
If you re-read my response, you would clearly see the URL I provided for the first question. Al Gore, the father of AGW and the predictions were for the second statement you made.

"Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.
we see you guys throw this argument all the time...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 938193f9ff"

Here is the video that is from the same author in the url above.
https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of- ... lly-agree/


I can also assume, since you will not touch the subject on the predictions from the agw world, that it has merit.

User avatar
WilyB
Posts: 1508
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:33 am
Karma: 2097
Location: High up down town

Re: Could this be true?

Post by WilyB » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:57 am

"Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact...
Listen my dear Burkinabé, you've seven wives, I've one. Every time your six extra females of the specie breathe, they release fucking climate killing CO2. Shame on you JeanV, shame! shame!

Just fucking tell them ladies to stop breathing, et voilà, the planet is safe again.
Lots of guys watch Bruce Lee movies, doesn’t mean you can do karate.

HenryVof
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:05 am
Karma: 5
Location: Sri Lanka
Contact:

Could this be true

Post by HenryVof » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:37 am

Struggling to think of anyone that would want to buy SAA.
Whats the max stake a private investor could have there? 20? 40?

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:11 pm

Heywood wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:32 am
Jean,
If you re-read my response, you would clearly see the URL I provided for the first question. Al Gore, the father of AGW and the predictions were for the second statement you made.

"Fact #1: AGW Climate change is a fact accepted by the world's academies of science and 90%+ of scientists of the field.
we see you guys throw this argument all the time...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 938193f9ff"

Here is the video that is from the same author in the url above.
https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of- ... lly-agree/


I can also assume, since you will not touch the subject on the predictions from the agw world, that it has merit.

Al Gore! Al bleeding Gore. Why do you lot keep quoting him? He is a clapped out politician who rode the bandwagon of AGW in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. Another clapped out politico was Reagan. He believed in flying saucers. That doesn't mean that little green men are visiting us. You shouldn't listen to the old politicos. In both cases that I mentioned, their minds had gone. Listen to the scientists instead who predicted way back in 1896 (yes, in the Victorian era) that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would lead to worldwide temperature rises, based entirely on the physics of CO2 trapping infrared. If temperatures weren't rising we'd have to ask why the hell not?
Surrealism is the new normal

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 900
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:36 pm
Karma: 1210

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Richard » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:00 am

jeanV wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:46 pm
• Fact
lol

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:10 pm

"Al Gore! Al bleeding Gore. Why do you lot keep quoting him? He is a clapped out politician who rode the bandwagon of AGW in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. Another clapped out politico was Reagan. He believed in flying saucers. That doesn't mean that little green men are visiting us. You shouldn't listen to the old politicos. In both cases that I mentioned, their minds had gone. Listen to the scientists instead who predicted way back in 1896 (yes, in the Victorian era) that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would lead to worldwide temperature rises, based entirely on the physics of CO2 trapping infrared. If temperatures weren't rising we'd have to ask why the hell not?"



Inconvenient truth Mik? Let's not let facts get in the way of your agenda. Please spin this NASA data into your above hypothesis. Still waiting for you guys to answer on AGW predictions. How many have to come true to reflect any sanity in your theory? So far, seems that out of the hundreds, I have not seen one come to fruition.



Greatest two-year global cooling event in 100 years – Media ignores it
November 24, 2018 by Robert


“We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling,” says this article in Investor’s Business Daily. “NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years.”“Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising,” says IBD. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.” Wouldn’t you consider this to be newsworthy? Apparently it wasn’t.

“In the three weeks following the Real Clear Markets story, no other news outlet picked up on it,” IBD continues. “They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism’s impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that “our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly.” Meanwhile, opposing views remain hidden.

“There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored. “Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.” “Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed. “How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven’t seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

See both articles in their entirety:
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articl ... 03243.html

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:55 am

Mik - Jean,

Waiting for a reply to the above post....

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:47 am

What predictions by scientists haven't come true? True, politicians predictions have been far from the mark, but then politicians, especially American ones, aren't exactly renowned for their intellect. I mean, you had a religious nut with a snowball leading your congressional committee on science. You're not going to get any kind of sense with nutballs like that in charge. Gore said that the artic would have melted by now. He was wrong in his timescale. The Arctic will melt unless the rise of 35 degrees that it is experiencing at the moment halts quickly. The average world temperature has risen and the 5 hottest years on record occurred in the last 6 years. Extreme weather events are rapidly becoming the norm as predicted.

Where the predictions fall far from the mark is the story financed by the fossil fuel companies that we are entering an ice-age. Funny how the finance for that particular story dried up within a week of Trump being elected.

You'd think that the funding for AGW denying would have dried up with the Trump regime virtually outlawing mention of Climate Change in government circles and the sacking of all scientists on the government payroll who accept Climate Change as reality. But the fossil fuel companies are hedging their bets. There is no guarantee that Trump will win a second term. And I hope he does. The world is moving towards renewables for economic and public health reasons. America staying out of it won't make much difference. America stays out and we have the benefit of watching it go up in flame in some places and drowning in others because politically it is now impossible for you to prepare for more extreme flooding and fires. To do so would be to admit that AGW is real.

Anyway, Why do you Americans keep carping on about Climate Change? It no longer officially exists in America. Why? Are all Americans going to be forced to consume more coal and oil? To pull that one off you'll have to revive the "coming ice-age" and ban renewables.
Attachments
serveimage.jpeg
Surrealism is the new normal

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:02 am

facts not models...

"From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.”"

P.S. your graphic shows that station data and ocean data stops in what looks like 2005. The difference between models and reality

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:56 pm

Heywood wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:02 am
facts not models...

"From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.”"

P.S. your graphic shows that station data and ocean data stops in what looks like 2005. The difference between models and reality

Blips are to be expected and largely irrelevant. It is the long term trend in either direction that is important, and the long term trend is rising temperatures.

But I'm a bit sceptical about that drop anyway. All that I google keeps reporting on the same article. Not that it matters whether it is true or not. The long term trend is still upwards.
Attachments
ytd-horserace-201803.png
Surrealism is the new normal

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:39 am

Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12 ... -8-months/

From your favourite author, The Lord.

Mikgof
Posts: 2270
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 1585

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Mikgof » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:06 am

Heywood wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:39 am
Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from May 1997 to December 2015 – more than half the 444-month satellite record.There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since 1997.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12 ... -8-months/

From your favourite author, The Lord.

That originally came from the fantasist Lord Moncton. You know, the one who believes in flying saucers. That alone should make anything that he says questionable.

"Climate change doubters may have lost one of their key talking points: a particular satellite temperature dataset that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years.

The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight warming of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking.

The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.

The satellites are in a polar orbit, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south pole. Some of the satellites drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements ever so slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and they stayed in the proper orbit so they provided guidance for adjustments.

Mears said he was "motivated by fixing these differences between the satellites. If the differences hadn't been there, I wouldn't have done the upgrade."

NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, said experts and studies had shown these problems that Mears adjusted and they both said those adjustments make sense and are well supported in a study in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute, who doesn't doubt that human-caused climate change is happening but does not agree with mainstream scientists who say the problem is enormous, said this shows "how messy the procedures are in putting the satellite data together."

The other major satellite temperature data set, run byHuntsvilley of Alabama Hunstville professor John Christy, shows slight warming after 1998. But if 1998 is included in the data, it sees no warming. But that should change with a warm 2016, Christy said. In fact, Christy used his measurements to determine that February 2016 was 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the month—the largest such disparity for any month since records were first kept, in 1979.

As far as what this means for people claiming no warming, scientists don't expect them to change.

"I don't know what Cruz, et al., will do now," Dessler said in an email. "I think it will be increasingly difficult for them to claim that the satellite data show now warming, although it may be possible to say that it shows 'no significant warming.'"


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped- ... l.html#jCp
Surrealism is the new normal

Heywood
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:59 pm
Karma: 777

Re: Could this be true?

Post by Heywood » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:16 am

You guys cannot keep track of your lies...

". But that should change with a warm 2016, Christy said. In fact, Christy used his measurements to determine that February 2016 was 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the month—the largest such disparity for any month since records were first kept, in 1979."

Note: I provided you data in the thread above, from nasa of all places, that states 2016->2018 no warming. which one is it? (This doesnt even factor the point that you knubskulls have been touting the temp has been rising for decades, which the sat temps proved false and your religious leaders scrambled for a new spin.



how many predictions out of the hundreds from the agw crowds have come true? lmfao If the shoe was on the other foot, we are wondering how you would react.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests