The Climate thread

[Dahobbs 18349]

3 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

NOAA seems to disagree:

"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is also a significant delay from increase in CO2 to increase in temperature to increase in sea level rise. That last bit takes awhile, because ice doesn't melt instantly. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

There is also a significant delay from increase in CO2 to increase in temperature to increase in sea level rise. That last bit takes awhile, because ice doesn't melt instantly. 

CO2 lags global temperature, it doesn't lead it.  https://www.bing.com/search?q=does+CO2+lag+global+temperature&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

[Dirk X West 772]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

See the logo on the top right? Now show me the increase.

'

I will assume your post accurately describes NOAA's position. But their position is not supported by their own data. Hmmmm.

I gave a direct quote from their website, slick.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, Dirk X West said:

I gave a direct quote from their website, slick.

That's what I assumed. And I gave you their actual data. Show me the increase.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Dirk X West 772]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

That's what I assumed. And I gave you their actual data. Show me the increase.

This shows their data: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

[Thetexashammer 1062]

What NOAA did in you link was to maniuplate the data to achieve their desired outcome. You may note, should you choose to be skeptical, that your link does not show an graph of CO2 levels. Because who are gonna believe, NOAA or your lying eyes? 

I don't know if it's news to you, but NOAA has a lonhg history of climate activism. 

Here are some sea level reading with CO2 superimposed on them, It makes the point even better.

 

I don't know where you're seeing a relationship between CO2 and sea level. Please point it out.

But sure, if you pick an artificially low point in 1993, you might believe that sea levels are increasing at an increasing rate.

In any case, everyone expects a small rise from additional CO2. I put a lot more trust in the UAH data set, which shows about what you would expect.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[DixonHur 11968]

Guys give it up...it's obvious that Hammer is right and 97% of climate scientists (you know, the folks with PhD's that study this shit for a living) are wrong.

 

But...he doesn't seem to know how to read a graph since the last one he posted clearly shows an uptrend, which kinda goes against the point he's trying to make..

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by DixonHur

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Guys give it up...it's obvious that Hammer is right and 97% of climate scientists are wrong.

 

Again, there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3d4deec03f9f

Quote

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

In any case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Quote

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible^[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.^[2][3] Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.^[4]

How much persuasive power do you give to a logical fallacy? I give little to none. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Guys give it up...it's obvious that Hammer is right and 97% of climate scientists are wrong.

 

AGW could be a valid hypothesis. But I'll wait until the data confirm it. As of today, the pattern of wrong predictions and fearmongering is hard to ignore. It's not unlike the runup to the Iraq war. "BUT ALUMINUM TUBES IN NIGER!!!!!" Call me when you have real evidence.

 

[DixonHur 11968]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

CO2 lags global temperature, it doesn't lead it.  https://www.bing.com/search?q=does+CO2+lag+global+temperature&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

First of all, who the fuck uses Bing as their search engine?  

Second, I find it oh so ironic that you used a creationist website as the source for ANYTHING science related.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

First of all, who the fuck uses Bing as their search engine?  

Second, I find it oh so ironic that you used a creationist website as the source for ANYTHING science related.

Bing is a creationist website?

[DixonHur 11968]

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Again, there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3d4deec03f9f

So you'd like me to believe an opinion piece by a guy who wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels?

You'll forgive me if I agree with NASA over at 39 year old writter.

Link

[DixonHur 11968]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

Bing is a creationist website?

Wow, do you even follow your own links? 

Don't act like you weren't trying to gloss over the source by linking to the search page where a snippet saying what you wanted it to say was at the top of the page.  Some of us click through to the actual source.

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Wow, do you even follow your own links? 

Don't act like you weren't trying to gloss over the source by linking to the search page where a snippet saying what you wanted it to say was at the top of the page.  Some of us click through to the actual source.

 

There are multiple sources. It's a page full of links. The point is that CO2 lags temperature. Period. Still true. Not a debate.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Crazy how the entire fucking world wants to do something about climate change except us because we’re super smart and not falling for a propaganda war orchestrated by asshole scientists who have no financial incentive to do bad science.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you'd like me to believe an opinion piece by a guy who wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels?

You'll forgive me if I agree with NASA over at 39 year old writter.

Link

I don't expect you to "believe" anything. I do expect you to be able to evaluate the evidence I offered. Alas, I was disappointed.

[DixonHur 11968]

1 minute ago, Thetexashammer said:

I don't expect you to "believe" anything. I do expect you to be able to evaluate the evidence I offered. Alas, I was disappointed.

The "evidence", as far as I can tell, consists of an inability to read a line chart, a creationist, and a writer with no science background.  So, I did evaluate it and decided it was BS.

[Hornius Emeritus 12807]

There's an old expression about how a conservative is a liberal whose house got robbed last night (I saw this exact dynamic in action one time and it was hilarious).  Well, it's amazing what a few hurricanes will do to the mindset of  a group of voters.  A new poll now shows that a majority of Texans now favor government tackling climate change.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/are-texas-voters-coming-around-on-climate-change-886041/

I guess Harvey may have been the final straw. 

[wildcat09 29597]

Hammer, what do you do for a living?

[Bookman 4766]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Hammer, what do you do for a living?

Professional Contrarian.

[Anastasis 23724]

I was under the impression that everyone here was a lawyer. 

[hpslugga 4097]

11 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The "evidence", as far as I can tell, consists of an inability to read a line chart, a creationist, and a writer with no science background.  So, I did evaluate it and decided it was BS.

As would anyone else with an IQ greater than that of a lima bean

[Dahobbs 18349]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

There are multiple sources. It's a page full of links. The point is that CO2 lags temperature. Period. Still true. Not a debate.

From an historical context, this is true but misleading. Increased temperature resulting from natural sources, particularly in geological time frames, causes large increases in greenhouse gases (carbon sources being released by the increased temperature). The releases in turn feed the temperature change, causing greater increase than would have occurred without the additional releases, at least until the Earth finds a new equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why human CO2 releases are so concerning and why scientist talk about climate change going beyond human control. Our releases cause temperature increases. Those increases will in turn cause further massive releases of greenhouse gasses, for instance methane from melting arctic ice, thereby causing further temperature changes. 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

11 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Hammer, what do you do for a living?

 

Mooches off SS I'm guessing.

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

12 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

There's an old expression about how a conservative is a liberal whose house got robbed last night (I saw this exact dynamic in action one time and it was hilarious).  Well, it's amazing what a few hurricanes will do to the mindset of  a group of voters.  A new poll now shows that a majority of Texans now favor government tackling climate change.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/are-texas-voters-coming-around-on-climate-change-886041/

I guess Harvey may have been the final straw. 

 

by government "tackling" climate change, do they mean they want the feds to pay for sea walls, flood remediation, subsidized flood insurance, subsidized crop insurance, et al? Because if they do, fuck them all in their sweaty asses.

[Biff Tannen 46190]

lol Bing

[Todd Gack 448]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

From an historical context, this is true but misleading. Increased temperature resulting from natural sources, particularly in geological time frames, causes large increases in greenhouse gases (carbon sources being released by the increased temperature). The releases in turn feed the temperature change, causing greater increase than would have occurred without the additional releases, at least until the Earth finds a new equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why human CO2 releases are so concerning and why scientist talk about climate change going beyond human control. Our releases cause temperature increases. Those increases will in turn cause further massive releases of greenhouse gasses, for instance methane from melting arctic ice, thereby causing further temperature changes. 

This is what I've read as well - positive feedback.  What I don't get is the lack of explanation for basic physics from this hammer fellow.  If additional CO2 (whether it lags or leads temp) increases through positive feedback, which in turn causes more temperature increases, then land-locked ice will melt and sea levels will rise.  How is that controversial? 

[Dahobbs 18349]

2 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

This is what I've read as well - positive feedback.  What I don't get is the lack of explanation for basic physics from this hammer fellow.  If additional CO2 (whether it lags or leads temp) increases through positive feedback, which in turn causes more temperature increases, then land-locked ice will melt and sea levels will rise.  How is that controversial? 

It isn't. And the basic physics are well understood and accepted. 

[Longhornmaniac8 255]

A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[Todd Gack 448]

7 minutes ago, Longhornmaniac8 said:

A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

And the one response is an editorial from a guy (not a climatologist) who also wrote an article called "Coal is Clean".  This is after he laments that "there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation."  Jesus...

I understand it's easy to think you're enlightened and above it all when you stay in your echo chamber and only ingest info from people who already agree with you.  But to then lecture everyone else about propaganda and manipulation is just too much cunty condescension to ignore.

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, Todd Gack said:

And the one response is an editorial from a guy (not a climatologist) who also wrote an article called "Coal is Clean".  This is after he laments that "there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation."  Jesus...

I understand it's easy to think you're enlightened and above it all when you stay in your echo chamber and only ingest info from people who already agree with you.  But to then lecture everyone else about propaganda and manipulation is just too much cunty condescension to ignore.

 

1 hour ago, Longhornmaniac8 said:

A guy citing Spencer/Christy's work as the end-all, be-all of temperature records and criticizing others for making adjustments is just laughably hilarious.

And then citing an article by Bjorn fucking Lomborg as an accurate authority on, well, anything. I should say he's great at being a contrarian.

And then citing one single response to one of the 10 peer-reviewed papers that find >90% consensus among climate scientists as if it refutes it.

It's really funny when people like @Thetexashammer pretend they know what they're talking about because they've done a little internet sleuthing.

He's so stupid he doesn't even know what he doesn't know. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

I think it’s very informative that when I very obviously accused mop, who’s held to be some sort of concerned citizen by his fanatic right wing brethren, to be a sufferer of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, he chose the route of negging the accuser rather than refuting the accusation.

He didn’t do that because he thinks it’s false; he did it because he knows it’s true and he’s too much of a chickenshit to admit it. If one were to roll his balls into a drinking straw, it’d look like two kernels of corn rolling through a storm drain.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

14 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

From an historical context, this is true but misleading. Increased temperature resulting from natural sources, particularly in geological time frames, causes large increases in greenhouse gases (carbon sources being released by the increased temperature). The releases in turn feed the temperature change, causing greater increase than would have occurred without the additional releases, at least until the Earth finds a new equilibrium. This is one of the reasons why human CO2 releases are so concerning and why scientist talk about climate change going beyond human control. Our releases cause temperature increases. Those increases will in turn cause further massive releases of greenhouse gasses, for instance methane from melting arctic ice, thereby causing further temperature changes. 

It's true that the models predict positive feedbacks. But in the real world, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. And the environment is a very complicated system on which it is very difficult to perform experiments. Therefore it is very difficult to tighten down your variables to the point where you can make accurate predictions. The current models cannot replicate the temperature movements of the past. Add that to the reasons that these models are not valid. But most of all...., see below.

12 hours ago, Todd Gack said:

This is what I've read as well - positive feedback.  What I don't get is the lack of explanation for basic physics from this hammer fellow.  If additional CO2 (whether it lags or leads temp) increases through positive feedback, which in turn causes more temperature increases, then land-locked ice will melt and sea levels will rise.  How is that controversial? 

It isn't as simple as simply looking at a tube of co2 and observing that the co2 absorbs a certain wavelength of energy. Everyone gets that. We all agree co2 is a greenhouse gas.

The earth is a complex system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Even wikipedia is willing to admit that it is very difficult to model this type of system, and that climate is a complex system. The models themselves are models on top of models. Which makes for extremely poor statistical validity.

But complex systems are complex. How do you model the risk an a meteor hitting the earth? How do you predict changes in insolation? How do you model changes in technology that make thorium the dominant source of energy? 

I'm not saying co2 doesn't warm the earth, it does. But the runaway temperatures are modeled on those positive feedbacks, not on co2. Such things have never been observed in the past and have never been demonstrated experimentally. I'll believe it when there is evidence. These guys have made fake prediction after fake prediction. If they want to be taken seriously they should stop worrying about PR and produce real evidence that they understand the climate and aren't jut climate activists like James Hansen and Michael Mann with his fake hockey stick.

It's old news now, but the Copenhagen Consensus is just absolutely compelling. If you want to help people, climate change just isn't your bag. Millions of people are dying from indoor cooking fires, lack of gatorade, and lack of clean water. Deal with that stuff, you can save lives. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7484909/Millions-streets-Global-Climate-Strike.html

Quote

Millions of people including hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren are taking to the streets in 150 countries today for the largest climate protest in history.

'Global Strike 4 Climate Change' protesters were photographed in Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Bangladesh, Uganda, Kenya, the Solomon Island, Cyprus, Poland, Germany and London on Wednesday morning, with those living in the Americas expected to join as the day wares on.

In Sydney, the first major city to take to the streets, Thor star Chris Hemsworth and his young daughter India joined 50,000 in a rally that saw some violent clashes between police and protesters.

Hundreds of thousands of children were among the crowds having walked out of lessons to join the marches, inspired by 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg who began leaving school every Friday in order to protest climate change in a movement that has spread around the world.

She is currently in Washington where she addressed Congress on climate change Thursday, and is expected to lead marchers there later today in New York.

Demonstrators are demanding world leaders take greater action to combat the effects of climate change, as each month sees new weather records broken. This year alone has seen the hottest month ever recorded on earth, record-breaking wildfires in Siberia, huge swathes of the Amazon burned, and the most powerful storm ever to make landfall hit the Bahamas. 

young people are going to have to force our leadership to lead. and they are stepping up in unprecedented ways.

all thanks to this one brave soul:

really incredible.

[hayden_horn 11402]

Quote

New York (CNN)In person, she is tiny.

Eyes wide and head down, her discomfort with crowds and small talk make it easy to understand why Greta Thunberg says she was "an invisible girl" for most of her 16 years.
But when Thunberg went to Washington -- into the lights, cameras and lack-of-action that makes up the modern congressional hearing -- the smallest and youngest person in the room came off as the oldest soul on Capitol Hill.

Brushing off Republican talking points and Democratic flattery with equal flat annoyance, even friendly softballs were treated as reminders that she takes this much more seriously than most grown-ups. Even those in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Climate.

"How can we get more kids involved in this issue?" asked Rep. Ben Luján, a Democrat from New Mexico.

"Just tell them the truth," she said. "Tell them how it is. Because when I found out how it actually is, it made me furious."

Her manner is level and unflinching, her voice soft and halting and she admits she may be the most reluctant activist in modern times. Yet in the age of Instagram filters and charismatic influencers, something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear turned this girl from invisible to global.

"As it is now, people in general don't seem to be very aware of the actual science and how serious this crisis is," she said to the scattered lawmakers and dozens of cameras at the hearing this week. "I think we need to inform them and start treating the crisis like the existential threat it is."

When Thunberg walked into a conference room at the Ford Foundation for interviews, I flashed to a short story I wrote in college about a child who can see the future.
On his popular TV show, the boy announces that all war will end the following day but, as humanity celebrates, he admits to his mother that it was a lie. "Tomorrow, all life on earth will end in fire," he tells her, and "I don't think they can take it."

Convinced that humanity can -- MUST -- take the hardest of truths, Thunberg set down her "Skolstrejk för Klimatet" ("School Strike for Climate") sign, put on a mic and began a gauntlet of interviews about the end of life as we know it.

"I mean, I don't like being the center of attention," she said. "I don't want to be heard all the time, but if there is anything I can do to improve the situation then I think it's a very small price to pay."

It's been less than a year since she plopped down in front of Parliament in Stockholm, a one-girl Swedish version of the American school strikes for gun control.

"The symbolism of the climate strike is that if you adults don't give a damn about my future, I won't either," she explained.

By Day 2, she had company. By Week 2, a viral movement on social media, and within a few months, she stood before dignitaries at the UN's climate change conference in Poland. "You only speak of green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular," she said.

A month later, she took a train to Davos, Switzerland, slept in a tent and told the rich and powerful that the house is on fire. "Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don't want your hope. I want you to panic."

Having sworn off flying, it took a 60-foot sailboat on loan from Monaco's royalty to get her to America, and while her selfies amid whitecaps drew new followers by the thousands, it also made her a target of conservative climate crisis skeptics. "Freak yachting accidents do happen in August," tweeted Arron Banks, a founder of the pro-Brexit Leave campaign.

"For me, that is just in a way, funny," Thunberg responded with a smile. "It is like they don't have any arguments left so they, so they have to just mock me, or mock my diagnosis or my appearance. In a way, it is a positive sign that something is happening. They feel threatened by, by this movement. That means we are making a difference."

By "diagnosis," she means Asperger's. Thunberg's mother is a famous singer in Sweden and has written about Greta's place on the spectrum as something like a superpower.

"It makes me work a bit different. I think differently," she said. "My diagnosis has definitely helped me keep this focus. When you are interested about something you just continue to read about it and you get super focused."

Actually reading the dense reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts her in the minority. But it also fuels a righteous frustration that she even needs to justify her obsession. "It's not because (climate change) is especially interesting," she said, rolling her eyes. "It's a matter of life and death."

In March, almost 1.5 million children in dozens of countries left classrooms and took to the streets. With strikes planned in over 500 places in the US alone today, the Fridays for Future movement could easily double those numbers.

Thunberg sees protests -- but also lawsuits, treaties and pressure campaigns -- as vital tools.

"I think we, we will be seeing lots of social tipping points, because the distance between what people and media companies, politicians are saying, versus what they are doing, the distance between that is increasing. So that just builds up the absurdness of the situation," she said.

"We will try to push it and make sure that the world leaders have all eyes on them so that they cannot continue to ignore this."

Our time is up. David Wallace-Wells is waiting to do the next interview and give her his book "The Uninhabitable Earth." More food for dark thought.

Thunberg hoisted her "Skolstrejk" sign under one arm. The first two cardboard versions of the sign wore out, so this one is plywood, fortified to survive a movement that will last her lifetime.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/us/greta-thunberg-profile-weir/index.html

[bad_teammate 13566]

Greta absolutely OWNS.

She looks like a hummel figurine come to life and makes powerful garbage people so profoundly uncomfortable.

Hero

[Dahobbs 18349]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's true that the models predict positive feedbacks. But in the real world, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. And the environment is a very complicated system on which it is very difficult to perform experiments. Therefore it is very difficult to tighten down your variables to the point where you can make accurate predictions. The current models cannot replicate the temperature movements of the past. Add that to the reasons that these models are not valid. But most of all...., see below.

It isn't as simple as simply looking at a tube of co2 and observing that the co2 absorbs a certain wavelength of energy. Everyone gets that. We all agree co2 is a greenhouse gas.

The earth is a complex system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

Even wikipedia is willing to admit that it is very difficult to model this type of system, and that climate is a complex system. The models themselves are models on top of models. Which makes for extremely poor statistical validity.

But complex systems are complex. How do you model the risk an a meteor hitting the earth? How do you predict changes in insolation? How do you model changes in technology that make thorium the dominant source of energy? 

I'm not saying co2 doesn't warm the earth, it does. But the runaway temperatures are modeled on those positive feedbacks, not on co2. Such things have never been observed in the past and have never been demonstrated experimentally. I'll believe it when there is evidence. These guys have made fake prediction after fake prediction. If they want to be taken seriously they should stop worrying about PR and produce real evidence that they understand the climate and aren't jut climate activists like James Hansen and Michael Mann with his fake hockey stick.

It's old news now, but the Copenhagen Consensus is just absolutely compelling. If you want to help people, climate change just isn't your bag. Millions of people are dying from indoor cooking fires, lack of gatorade, and lack of clean water. Deal with that stuff, you can save lives. 

Uh, the models have been pretty fucking accurate. So, yes, I think it can be modeled. And yes, their predictions to date have been accurate. You can't just say, "it is complicated therefore we can't do it". We've figured out tons of complicated things, you know, like general relativity and going to the moon. But, sure, continue to wallow in absolute ignorance because YOU don't understand it, not because the actual climate scientists don't. News flash: you aren't very smart so it isn't surprising that you can't understand it. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Dahobbs

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/us/greta-thunberg-profile-weir/index.html

 

huh huh huh huh looks like Sweden could use some global warming huh huh huh huh/ typical denier-tard

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

I’m so proud.

My kid (in my Beto “This Is Fucked Up” shirt) and her friend at the Climate Strike in Huntsville.

And, yes, I let her skip school and yes, I’ll write her a bullshit note saying she was sick so she doesn’t get an unexcused absence.

[Dirk X West 772]

30 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m so proud.

My kid (in my Beto “This Is Fucked Up” shirt) and her friend at the Climate Strike in Huntsville.

And, yes, I let her skip school and yes, I’ll write her a bullshit note saying she was sick so she doesn’t get an unexcused absence.

Love it.  You're obviously a good parent. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[GSU&UT 1799]

Did this go unshared? This is the same argument several posters were using in this thread.

 

[Incredulity 11880]

Well I am extremely hopeful a rational and intelligent plan will emerge right after the 13 year old is done testifying before congress about...her feelings?  Really fucking useful.  I know, lets have a local 8th grade home room class sub for the federal reserve next month.

[Dahobbs 18349]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well I am extremely hopeful a rational and intelligent plan will emerge right after the 13 year old is done testifying before congress about...her feelings?  Really fucking useful.  I know, lets have a local 8th grade home room class sub for the federal reserve next month.

Well, juxtaposition between her and supposedly mature and rational adults like yourself is certainly enlightening.

[Post Oak 20570]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well I am extremely hopeful a rational and intelligent plan will emerge right after the 13 year old is done testifying before congress about...her feelings?  Really fucking useful.  I know, lets have a local 8th grade home room class sub for the federal reserve next month.

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well I am extremely hopeful a rational and intelligent plan will emerge right after the 13 year old is done testifying before congress about...her feelings?  Really fucking useful.  I know, lets have a local 8th grade home room class sub for the federal reserve next month.

That young lady and your hypothetical 8th graders are all more intelligent than the current president and everyone associated with him so......

PS - your attitude sucks and your post is both condescending and uniformed. Young people being passionate about issues and trying to promote positive change is a good thing. You probably chide kids today for being lazy and spoiled and then turn around and sneer at them when they aren’t.

In conclusion, you’re kind of a dick.

[hayden_horn 11402]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Well I am extremely hopeful a rational and intelligent plan will emerge right after the 13 year old is done testifying before congress about...her feelings?  Really fucking useful.  I know, lets have a local 8th grade home room class sub for the federal reserve next month.

i am negging this post because fuck you.

i'll explain if you like. but seriously, fuck you.

[Incredulity 11880]

38 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

That young lady and your hypothetical 8th graders are all more intelligent than the current president and everyone associated with him so......

PS - your attitude sucks and your post is both condescending and uniformed. Young people being passionate about issues and trying to promote positive change is a good thing. You probably chide kids today for being lazy and spoiled and then turn around and sneer at them when they aren’t.

In conclusion, you’re kind of a dick.

 

 

32 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i am negging this post because fuck you.

i'll explain if you like. but seriously, fuck you.