So I'm assuming that you also cannot find a single publishing climatologist that expressly denies man made global warming.
Do us a favor idiot. Find one or just shut the fuck up. Your stupidity is actually painful.
Global Warming Hoaxsters--The flip side of years of no hurricanes: Good luck runs out
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
So I'm assuming that you also cannot find a single publishing climatologist that expressly denies man made global warming.
Do us a favor idiot. Find one or just shut the fuck up. Your stupidity is actually painful.
I can hear Futurecurrents' predecessors in the Middle Ages... "Find just one publishing cartography scientist who denies the earth is flat. Just one. You are stupid to claim the world is round. The 97% consensus says its flat."
Last edited:
That's what I thought. You have nothing and are an idiot but you will keep babbling and just won't shut the fuck up. Thus you are back on ignore.
What you steadfastly fail to recognize is that all of the data, to use your word, is "problematic"! There is no technology that has allowed the Earth's temperature to be directly measured with sufficient precision to determine, by direct means, whether overall it has risen or fallen over the past century. It is an unsolved problem. The best data by far is the satellite data. It has only existed for 40 years or so, and only very recently become prolific enough to be of much use in the Global Warming debate. The typical temperature variation in just 24 hours at most points on Earth is 2 orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule changes being sought for the past century, and more than three orders greater than the temperature changes sought per year.
It is ridiculous to talk of the number of hurricanes in the North Atlantic. Only the number of storms and their energy over the entire Earths surface is relevant. The satellite data for that is the best we have and it can't provide the answers sought with sufficient precision.
Proxy data is particularly worthless when it comes to looking for a few hundredths of a degree change per year, or a few tenths over a century. It's ridiculous!
If the changes were of the exponential kind hypothesized by Hansen in the 1980s and predicted by models incorporating a positive feedback response to small changes in CO2, we would know it by now! They aren't! We don't know what they are with much accuracy, but we do know they aren't nearly that large.
Hey loser what is the solution? Kyoto was supposed to stop global warming. How is that working out for you?
If you are so concerned, then please stop your greenhouse gas emission, effective immediately. Otherwise you are nothing more that a hypocrite.
BTW, so-called consensus does not drive scientific theories. Please go and study the scientific method. Maybe it will prevent you from coming off as such a buffoon in the future.
This is a great point. In reality they only have estimates now, and as you go further back the estimates are considerably worst. I love it when they say the climate now is so much warmer than it was in 1850. That is such a loaded statement and complete bullshit, because the instruments to accurately measure were not available.
So much for Obama's absurd initiative to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. As outlined in the court decision, the regulation would have imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits.
Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
Industry groups and some 20 states had challenged the E.P.A.’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.
The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.
(more at above url)
Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plant
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
Industry groups and some 20 states had challenged the E.P.A.’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose.
The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.
(more at above url)