News
news A Strange Case of the CIA and UFO Researchers
news MKULTRA Victims File Lawsuit
news Teddy Roosevelt's Account of a Bigfoot Encounter
news Europe’s Oldest Tree Is At Least 1,230 Years Old And Still Growing
news Davy Crockett's Bigfoot Sighting
news What Are the Implications of Quantum Mechanics?
news Supernatural Cars on the Highways
news Mormons, Aliens, and Hangar 18
news The startup that wants you to 'live to 130 in the body of a 22-year-old'
news Is your cell phone being tracked?
news Octopuses are space aliens, scientists claim


Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 11 Vote(s) - 2.45 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:27 AM

 



Post: #46
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Advertisement
LoP Guest  Wrote: (01-07-2018 05:50 AM)
NOAA fakes their buoy data to the upside and gets caught.


Next.....

Bump
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:35 AM

 



Post: #47
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Leftist Agenda for Leftist Tyranny.

Carbon Tax = Everyone and Everything Tax.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:36 AM

 



Post: #48
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
All Control over Everyone and Everything

More and more money from people to government

to save the world

and the useful idiots say duh yeah...
Quote this message in a reply
MAGNETO
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:38 AM

Posts: 694



Post: #49
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
OP refuses to address the countless times global warming agencies were caught lying and fabricating numbers.

That's why OP is an alt-left sack of sh*t.

Facts, evidence, and science mean nothing to him.

We should just stop replying to his threads. He's boring and stupid.
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:39 AM

Posts: 7,804



Post: #50
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-03-2018 07:54 AM)
Quote:Sixteen of the 17 hottest years in NASA’s 137-year record have occurred since 2001. The warmest year on record is 2016, and 2017 is in second place.

[Image: DSftFOlW4AI0EiM.jpg]

As morning temperatures across the U.S. broke records Monday ― residents of Watertown, New York, woke up to minus 31 degrees Fahrenheit and temperatures plunged to minus 19 degrees in Des Moines, Iowa ― many other parts of the world were warmer than usual.

Huge sections of the Arctic were among the areas that saw temperatures well above average, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, which compares daily temperature anomalies to a baseline of data from between 1979 and 2000.

Temperatures around the globe were nearly one full degree Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, above average on Monday. The Northern Hemisphere, which is currently experiencing winter, was 1.6 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) warmer than usual. In Antarctica, where a Delaware-sized iceberg broke off last summer, temperatures were 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees C) higher than normal. And the Arctic, which is warming about twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet, started 2018 with temperatures 6.8 degrees F (3.4 degrees C) warmer than average.

A peer-reviewed report released last month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the Arctic is warming faster than at any point in the past 1,500 years, with 2017 its hottest year on record.

Still, President Donald Trump ― who gutted environmental regulations and attacked efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during his first year in office ― has seized on the cold snap in the northern Midwest and eastern United States in an attempt to refute the existence climate change.

In a tweet on Thursday, the president conflated cold winter weather with climate, and suggested that the nonbinding Paris Agreement ― from which he announced plans to withdraw in June ― would cost the United States trillions of dollars. In reality, the U.S. contributed just $1 billion to the $100 billion Green Climate Fund set up under the Paris climate accord to help poorer countries invest in renewable energy and forgo coal-fired plants.

more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/n...f99e1cff97

The debate was over many years ago.
Heartflowers

and proved without a shadow of a doubt many times since then.

Hifuck

spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-03-2018 08:56 AM)
[Image: DSjVA9xX0AA9l4-.jpg]




Cyclone compositing is used to assess the intensity, track, and an assortment of storm-scale changes due to warming. Unless explicitly stated, all analyses are presented using storm-relative coordinates. Given their similar tracks, the need to rotate storms relative to their travel path is not deemed necessary. Storm-relative analyses allow a focus on the present-to-future changes common among the events and eliminate artificial smoothing due to variations in storm track and propagation speed. Storm-relative composites have previously been used to analyze impacts of climate change on downscaled GCM simulations of autumn extratropical cyclone events in the northwest Atlantic (Jiang and Perrie 2007; Perrie et al. 2010). The storm-relative composites in the current study utilize a grid measuring 1116 km × 1116 km centered on the sea level pressure minimum. This 1116 km × 1116 km grid represents ±15 grid points from the cyclone center. Prior to recording the minimum sea level pressure and its location at each output time, a 20-point Gaussian weighted smoothing function is applied to the sea level pressure field in order to remove any mesoscale lows (due to convection along fronts, etc.) that may generate discontinuities in the track. While the filter also reduces the magnitudes of the pressure minima used to compute the mean, the overall results are not sensitive to this change. Composite analysis begins at simulation hour 18, because this is the first time that a continuous track exists for all present and future cyclones. Because the WRF domain is limited on its northern and eastern peripheries by the lateral boundaries of the NARR domain (Fig. 1) many of the simulated events approach the lateral boundaries before the conclusion of the simulations. To limit possible contamination from the lateral boundaries, composite analysis concludes at hour 63. This issue also dictated the size of the storm-relative grid where 1116 km × 1116 km is the maximum grid size possible without lateral boundary contamination.

e. Potential vorticity

A novel aspect of this study is the use of the PV framework to analyze climate change impacts on storm-scale cyclone dynamics. We compute Ertel PV (EPV) of the form
[Image: jcli-d-14-00418.1-e1.gif]
where is the quasi-horizontal gradient operator on a pressure surface, is the horizontal wind vector, and is the three-dimensional gradient operator in pressure coordinates. Storm-scale analysis of the present-day and future cyclone composites is performed by analyzing the upper-tropospheric PV (UPV), 2-m potential temperature anomaly (), and diabatic PV (DPV) fields. Pressure and wind on the dynamic tropopause (Morgan and Nielsen-Gammon 1998) are computed to assess the UPV field. Boundary potential temperature anomalies have been shown to act as PV anomalies where warm surface potential temperature anomalies have an effect equivalent to a sheet of cyclonic PV (Bretherton 1966). The 2-m potential temperature anomaly is computed here as the deviation from an 84-h time average. Last, the DPV field is calculated as the 900–750-hPa layer average EPV. This use of lower-tropospheric EPV to represent DPV is consistent with previous studies in the synoptic-dynamic literature (e.g., Davis and Emanuel 1991; Reed et al. 1993). An experiment in which the effects of latent heating were withheld also supports the use of 900–750-hPa layer average EPV to represent the DPV field in the vicinity of cyclones (not shown). In addition to computing these PV fields at each output time, they are also time-averaged over three 12-h periods (21–33, 36–48, and 51–63 h). This is done to mitigate noise and highlight the primary changes in each of the PV fields during the early, middle, and late stages of the composite cyclone evolution.

more:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10....14-00418.1

spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-04-2018 08:29 AM)
Dr. David SuzukiWrote:
Some have criticized the warning for being overly alarmist, but the situation is alarming, and we aren't doing enough to avert catastrophe. Where will we be 25 years from now? It won't be chance that determines our future. It will be the choices we make today.

There's a hint of hope. The scientists note that co-operative government actions resulted in a "rapid global decline in ozone-depleting substances," and that global poverty and hunger rates have dropped. Investing in education for girls and women has contributed to falling birth rates in many regions, deforestation has been reduced in some countries, and the renewable-energy sector has been growing rapidly.

We can make positive changes if we co-operate, but it will take action from all of humanity. We can't leave it to governments, especially as so many in thrall to the fossil fuel industry are failing to work for citizens. As the scientists argue, "Sustainability transitions come about in diverse ways, and all require civil-society pressure and evidence-based advocacy, political leadership, and a solid understanding of policy instruments, markets and other drivers."

The warning offers many solutions, many policy-based. They include protecting habitat on land, water and air; recognizing and maintaining the important services intact ecosystems provide; restoring forests and other "native plant communities"; re-introducing native species "to restore ecological processes and dynamics"; using policy to protect species from poaching and illegal trade; reducing food waste and promoting a shift to more plant-based diets; reducing fertility rates through "access to education and voluntary family-planning services"; promoting nature education and appreciation; shifting investment and spending to "encourage positive environmental change"; fostering advances in green technologies and renewable energy while eliminating subsidies to fossil fuels; altering the economy to reduce wealth inequality "and ensure that prices, taxation and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment"; and "estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal."

In short, if we take the urgency to heart, there are solutions.

Popcorn

[Image: zXPwukO.jpg]
©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:41 AM

Posts: 7,804



Post: #51
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-06-2018 01:00 AM)

U.S. Fails to Submit Reports on 1 January as Required Under U.N. Climate Treaty



The United States has failed to meet a key deadline (January 1, 2018) for submitting a major report, required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under Section 12 of the UNFCCC, countries listed in Annex I of the Convention (including the US) are required to periodically submit to the Treaty’s Secretariat a detailed “National Communication,” which presents a wide range of information regarding the nation’s implementation of the agreement. UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and review stipulate use of a common format to facilitate analysis and evaluation and allow for comparisons among the national reports. Further, CSPW sees no indication that this report is even underway; a complete failure to submit this report would be unprecedented.

The Parties to the Convention have agreed that the Annex I parties should submit the reports every four years. The Seventh National Communication (NC7) was due on January 1. Once submitted, these reports are promptly posted by the Secretariat. According to the listing, Submitted National Communications from Annex I Parties, the majority of Annex I Parties have already submitted their reports, but the United States is not one of them.

In addition to the National Communication, the US and other Annex I Parties are required to submit smaller “Biennial Reports” to the Secretariat. Here too, there are specific reporting guidelines. The third such report (BR3) was also due on January 1. According to a table published by the UNFCCC, Submitted Biennial Reports from Annex I Parties, the US is among a minority of countries that still have not submitted a report.

Again, a complete failure by the US to submit these reports would be unprecedented; the US has submitted all six previously required National Communications, traditionally calling them “Climate Action Reports.”

In addition to failing to produce and deliver CAR7 as required, the Department of State under President Trump has eliminated the previously posted CAR6/BR1 (released on December 30, 2013) from its website. The Department of State previously had posted CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza...19038.pdf. It also eliminated a page devoted to CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car6/index.htm (now archived at https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rp...ndex.htm).

Furthermore, the department eliminated a general webpage on the Climate Action Report at http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/clima.../index.htm (it is archived here). The page led with a discussion of BR2 (with a link to the report posted on the UNFCCC), and it ended with a reference to the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Carbonization (November 2016), posted on the White House website. The report has been removed from the White House site, but is archived here


http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2018/...te-treaty/


No doubt that all these rock solid assertions that there is no warming or changes happening due to humans are so profound that people should have no need to violently argue so hard against it and to cover up any research to the contrary .. to reorganize whole government institutions to reissue new directives that virtually outlaw even the mere utterance of it in any department dialouge.

Such concrete evidence for the fact that scientists are staging a communist takeover by launching their hoax back in the 70's not to to get people to reign in their fossil fuel use but to indoctrinate young children to believe that warming is real so they will become socialist when they get older... so Heartland climate change denial Inc. must desperately correct that by infusing children's education with this solid irrefutable proof that anyone that speaks against oil/coal/mining/gas/fracking/nuclear etc etc is working to corrupt capitalist democracy to install a communist dictatorship.
Quote this message in a reply
MAGNETO
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:42 AM

Posts: 694



Post: #52
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-06-2018 01:59 AM)
[Image: DSxRQvgX0AEAHy_.jpg]
La Nina waters now are warmer than El Nino waters 40 years ago.

1) everyone at LoP hates you
2) science has proven AGW wrong, it's over
3) your graph is lame. If I showed the same graph about autism or any other disease and correlated it to vaccines you'd say, "well, we weren't properly identify disease in the late 1800's." However, if I were to educate you on how we tracked hurricanes in 1870, you'd probably just turn red faced and keep posting the same graph, LOL
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:42 AM

 



Post: #53
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
LoP Guest  Wrote: (01-08-2018 05:36 AM)
and the useful idiots say duh yeah...
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:43 AM

 



Post: #54
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-08-2018 05:41 AM)
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-06-2018 01:00 AM)

U.S. Fails to Submit Reports on 1 January as Required Under U.N. Climate Treaty



The United States has failed to meet a key deadline (January 1, 2018) for submitting a major report, required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Under Section 12 of the UNFCCC, countries listed in Annex I of the Convention (including the US) are required to periodically submit to the Treaty’s Secretariat a detailed “National Communication,” which presents a wide range of information regarding the nation’s implementation of the agreement. UNFCCC guidelines on reporting and review stipulate use of a common format to facilitate analysis and evaluation and allow for comparisons among the national reports. Further, CSPW sees no indication that this report is even underway; a complete failure to submit this report would be unprecedented.

The Parties to the Convention have agreed that the Annex I parties should submit the reports every four years. The Seventh National Communication (NC7) was due on January 1. Once submitted, these reports are promptly posted by the Secretariat. According to the listing, Submitted National Communications from Annex I Parties, the majority of Annex I Parties have already submitted their reports, but the United States is not one of them.

In addition to the National Communication, the US and other Annex I Parties are required to submit smaller “Biennial Reports” to the Secretariat. Here too, there are specific reporting guidelines. The third such report (BR3) was also due on January 1. According to a table published by the UNFCCC, Submitted Biennial Reports from Annex I Parties, the US is among a minority of countries that still have not submitted a report.

Again, a complete failure by the US to submit these reports would be unprecedented; the US has submitted all six previously required National Communications, traditionally calling them “Climate Action Reports.”

In addition to failing to produce and deliver CAR7 as required, the Department of State under President Trump has eliminated the previously posted CAR6/BR1 (released on December 30, 2013) from its website. The Department of State previously had posted CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza...19038.pdf. It also eliminated a page devoted to CAR6/BR1 at https://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car6/index.htm (now archived at https://2009-2017.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rp...ndex.htm).

Furthermore, the department eliminated a general webpage on the Climate Action Report at http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/clima.../index.htm (it is archived here). The page led with a discussion of BR2 (with a link to the report posted on the UNFCCC), and it ended with a reference to the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Carbonization (November 2016), posted on the White House website. The report has been removed from the White House site, but is archived here


http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2018/...te-treaty/


No doubt that all these rock solid assertions that there is no warming or changes happening due to humans are so profound that people should have no need to violently argue so hard against it and to cover up any research to the contrary .. to reorganize whole government institutions to reissue new directives that virtually outlaw even the mere utterance of it in any department dialouge.

Such concrete evidence for the fact that scientists are staging a communist takeover by launching their hoax back in the 70's not to to get people to reign in their fossil fuel use but to indoctrinate young children to believe that warming is real so they will become socialist when they get older... so Heartland climate change denial Inc. must desperately correct that by infusing children's education with this solid irrefutable proof that anyone that speaks against oil/coal/mining/gas/fracking/nuclear etc etc is working to corrupt capitalist democracy to install a communist dictatorship.


Knfnpned

Hifuck
Quote this message in a reply
MAGNETO
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 05:44 AM

Posts: 694



Post: #55
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
OP, many ivy league schools offer free online education.

I.suggest you get one.

Bill Nye and CNN are failing you.
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:15 AM

Posts: 7,804



Post: #56
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
MAGNETO  Wrote: (01-08-2018 05:42 AM)
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-06-2018 01:59 AM)
[Image: DSxRQvgX0AEAHy_.jpg]
La Nina waters now are warmer than El Nino waters 40 years ago.

1) everyone at LoP hates you
2) science has proven AGW wrong, it's over
3) your graph is lame. If I showed the same graph about autism or any other disease and correlated it to vaccines you'd say, "well, we weren't properly identify disease in the late 1800's." However, if I were to educate you on how we tracked hurricanes in 1870, you'd probably just turn red faced and keep posting the same graph, LOL



thanks.. I was just about to post that

And it is absolutely correct.
La Nina waters now are warmer than El Nino waters 40 years ago

your lame attempt to drag it off topic is noted.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 06:16 AM by spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ.) Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:19 AM

Posts: 7,804



Post: #57
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Cooking the books on climate change

Quote:Two reports released on the same day, from the same government department with two very different sets of findings.

The Turnbull government's climate change policy review would have you believe we are well on our way to reaching our international commitment of a 26-28 per cent reduction by 2030.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-a...0ba0h.html
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:22 AM

Posts: 7,804



Post: #58
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Quote:How should all citizens – not just scientists – behave in this new Age of Unreason? One perspective is that we should simply continue with our normal lives. There may have been merit in this at the beginning of the Administration, when it was not clear how campaign rhetoric would translate into governance. Today, the time for strategic patience is over. Silence is complicity.

Scientists have a special responsibility to defend scientific understanding, and to advocate for the use of sound science in public policymaking. Citizens have responsibilities, too. We are not powerless. We can contact our congressional representatives. Write letters to newspapers. Become active on social media. Speak publicly about the dangers of embracing scientific ignorance. Enlist our friends and neighbors to speak out in defense of science.

Beyond individual actions, we see a pressing need for leading scientific institutions to use their voices. Among the goals of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science is to “Promote and defend the integrity of science and its use.” It is important to support the AAAS and other organizations that share this objective.

As members of the National Academy of Sciences, we particularly support the NAS mission to provide “independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”

In fall 2016 two of us, and two others, organized an open letter pointing out the serious consequences of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. It was signed by 377 members of the NAS. Commenting on the open letter, Neil deGrasse Tyson said: “For lawmakers to not heed the advice of esteemed scientists on matters of science, in this the 21st century, signals the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.”

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/o...grim-toll/

[Image: zXPwukO.jpg]
©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
.......7.......
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:27 AM

Posts: 26



Post: #59
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-03-2018 08:56 AM)
[Image: DSjVA9xX0AA9l4-.jpg]




Cyclone compositing is used to assess the intensity, track, and an assortment of storm-scale changes due to warming. Unless explicitly stated, all analyses are presented using storm-relative coordinates. Given their similar tracks, the need to rotate storms relative to their travel path is not deemed necessary. Storm-relative analyses allow a focus on the present-to-future changes common among the events and eliminate artificial smoothing due to variations in storm track and propagation speed. Storm-relative composites have previously been used to analyze impacts of climate change on downscaled GCM simulations of autumn extratropical cyclone events in the northwest Atlantic (Jiang and Perrie 2007; Perrie et al. 2010). The storm-relative composites in the current study utilize a grid measuring 1116 km × 1116 km centered on the sea level pressure minimum. This 1116 km × 1116 km grid represents ±15 grid points from the cyclone center. Prior to recording the minimum sea level pressure and its location at each output time, a 20-point Gaussian weighted smoothing function is applied to the sea level pressure field in order to remove any mesoscale lows (due to convection along fronts, etc.) that may generate discontinuities in the track. While the filter also reduces the magnitudes of the pressure minima used to compute the mean, the overall results are not sensitive to this change. Composite analysis begins at simulation hour 18, because this is the first time that a continuous track exists for all present and future cyclones. Because the WRF domain is limited on its northern and eastern peripheries by the lateral boundaries of the NARR domain (Fig. 1) many of the simulated events approach the lateral boundaries before the conclusion of the simulations. To limit possible contamination from the lateral boundaries, composite analysis concludes at hour 63. This issue also dictated the size of the storm-relative grid where 1116 km × 1116 km is the maximum grid size possible without lateral boundary contamination.

e. Potential vorticity

A novel aspect of this study is the use of the PV framework to analyze climate change impacts on storm-scale cyclone dynamics. We compute Ertel PV (EPV) of the form
[Image: jcli-d-14-00418.1-e1.gif]
where is the quasi-horizontal gradient operator on a pressure surface, is the horizontal wind vector, and is the three-dimensional gradient operator in pressure coordinates. Storm-scale analysis of the present-day and future cyclone composites is performed by analyzing the upper-tropospheric PV (UPV), 2-m potential temperature anomaly (), and diabatic PV (DPV) fields. Pressure and wind on the dynamic tropopause (Morgan and Nielsen-Gammon 1998) are computed to assess the UPV field. Boundary potential temperature anomalies have been shown to act as PV anomalies where warm surface potential temperature anomalies have an effect equivalent to a sheet of cyclonic PV (Bretherton 1966). The 2-m potential temperature anomaly is computed here as the deviation from an 84-h time average. Last, the DPV field is calculated as the 900–750-hPa layer average EPV. This use of lower-tropospheric EPV to represent DPV is consistent with previous studies in the synoptic-dynamic literature (e.g., Davis and Emanuel 1991; Reed et al. 1993). An experiment in which the effects of latent heating were withheld also supports the use of 900–750-hPa layer average EPV to represent the DPV field in the vicinity of cyclones (not shown). In addition to computing these PV fields at each output time, they are also time-averaged over three 12-h periods (21–33, 36–48, and 51–63 h). This is done to mitigate noise and highlight the primary changes in each of the PV fields during the early, middle, and late stages of the composite cyclone evolution.

more:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10....14-00418.1

Pianobanana it was so cold in florida over the new year, yes we dove in the ocean, then back in the hot tub

I hope it warms up

yet....it is not our biggest worry

you red herring you Popcorn
Quote this message in a reply
MAGNETO
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:29 AM

Posts: 694



Post: #60
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
You're an alt-left thoughtless troll, but lets put your groupthink bullshit aside.

Honestly, I probably do more for the environment than you. Every right-winger I know wants to make the world a cleaner place. So, let's be honest:

1) if the agw is real and the world never warms or cools by itself, tell me what % of the warming is from man? 100% it must be?
2) can science tell me what happens if the earth warms by 2-3 degrees? So far, 100% of every model ever produced has been wrong (no debate here)
3) how can we prevent this?

Here is my problem: The only solution the alt-left has offered is to punish minorities and the poor. Really? That's your solution?

Poor people cannot buy electric cars. Poor people and poor nations rely on petrol to survive. How can taxing them, confiscating what they have, and harming them be the solution?

Rich white people can pay the extra taxes. Rich white people can afford a subsidized electric car. Rich white people have access to infrastructure to use such cars. Rich white people can afford paying extra for their food. Minorities cannot.

The technology we need for environmentally friendly sources of energy does not exist - that's why your only solutions are:
1) taxes
2) free tax payer money to poorly ran "green companies"
3) destroy minorities even more

Well?
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 06:33 AM by MAGNETO.) Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement









Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication