brenthutch

You may be able to read them, you just can’t understand them BTW, if you persist in this sophomoric behavior, this will be locked, as you are an embarrassment to those on your side.

Are you like 12 years old? Did you notice that after more than a decade of conversation, the thread was locked after you became the face of the loosing side of the argument. You even embarrass the folks who agree with you.

What are you talking about, the moderators have already implemented the mercy rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_rule Have a nice day

It’s noteworthy, how two threads with nearly a hundred thousand views covering a collective span of nearly two decades, has been canceled, just as it became apparent the left side of the political spectrum was on the loosing side of the argument. The only reason to lock the thread is because the debate is settled, the lefties have conceded and any further discussion would just amount to punching down. Concession accepted.

Obama’s undersecretary of energy for science: <iframe title="vimeo-player" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/526367277" width="640" height="395" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe title="vimeo-player" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/526365567" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> “Physicist Dr. Steve Koonin: First of all, I think everybody agrees that the globe has warmed about a degree from 1900 until the present. And that warming is due to some combination of human influences and natural influences. But beyond that, almost no severe weather event shows any detectable trend. There are no long-term trends in droughts or floods around the globe — in severe weather events like thunderstorms. Sea level is rising at the spectacular rate of one foot per century and was doing it at about the same rate 80 years ago. In the US, record high temperatures are no more frequent than they were in the 1900s. I can go on and on. No detectable human influences on hurricanes. This is not Steve talking, this is what’s in those reports often explicitly, but sometimes a little bit obscured and you got to read closely to find it.” Some of you don’t want to hear the truth from me, maybe you will listen to an Obama guy. He goes on to discuss the importance of natural gas and the unreliability of wind and solar.

As a libertarian, I don’t like the government to move quickly in any direction. But if it has to move,I think it better to move with consensus from both sides of the political spectrum.

That is the point, with the WH, Senate and House and without a filibuster, it can be done in a matter of days. Sure they will loose Congress in the next election but until the Ds regain the WH, it will stand and it works both ways. Go ahead and advocate for the end of the filibuster, but do so at your peril. To your point about the next election cycle...you would think the Ds would have learned their lesson after they got “shellaced” in the mid-terms after Obamacare was shoved down the throat of Americans on a party line vote. Can’t wait for the mid-terms

Imagine a country where abortion was greatly constrained, concealed carry reciprocity was nation wide NPR was abolished, southern border was effectively sealed, wind solar and E-car subsidies eliminated, all federal lands opened up for mineral and fossil fuel exploitation, federal funding was stripped from sanctuary cities, planned parenthood and BLM were stripped of their tax exempt status. Without the filibuster all of that is just one election away. With a solidly conservative SC, a razor thin margin in the House and a 50/50 senate, it is not out of the realm of possibility. When Harry Reid used the nuclear option for judiciary appointments, it resulted in Trump filling three seats on the SC, congratulations Harry!

Agreed

It hardly matters because you didn’t say “the part of the UK I’m in” you said “Here in the UK, February 2021 was actually slightly warmer than average.” Why do you lie so much, when it is so easy to call you on it, or do you not understand what you are actually saying?

And it was colder yet in 1998! And why are you lying again, unless you don’t understand the meaning of “literally”, which entirely plausible given your lack of reading comprehension. Allow me to help. What you literally said was “Here in the UK, February 2021 was actually slightly warmer than average.” So much for you being fastidious and precise

No it was global temperatures, not just the US and I never said February was below average, I just shared that it was colder than 23 years ago. BTW from your MET: “Despite the difference in extreme temperatures, the winter as a whole has not been far from its average mean temperature. Wales was the warmest, recording a mean temperature of 0.06°C above average for the season as a whole, and Scotland the lowest at -0.57°C below average.” See, just about average, nothing to wet the bed over. (But don’t let that stop you)

No Bill, I shared the article “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”. The article brought up the Shockley-Queisser limit not me.

Wasn’t it you who said it was not unusual for scientists to get contradictory results when running models? I just shared NOAA’s statement that February 2021 was colder than February 1998 and the natives got restless. If one considers February 2021 CO2 level was 414.46 ppm and February 1998 level was 365.89, and yet it is colder now than it was 23 years ago, a thinking person might say hmmmm....

I love how you guys conflate CO2 with cigarette smoke. It makes you look very smart.

Non sequitur much? BTW are you suggesting no scientist may have an agenda (even a noble one) or are immune from confirmation bias or groupthink? Scientists are people and are subject to same motivations and influences as all of us.

Did you bother to look at the title of the thread?

All of that is correct. None of it changes the fact that GLOBAL temperatures in February 2021 were COLDER than February 1998. Pointing out regional exceptions does not change that. You guys are really going to loose your sh*t if the trend continues.

“Coldest February for the globe since 2014” That doesn’t sound like highly technical language to me. That is straight from the NOAA website.

Except for the fact I posted the “over the next eighty years” one first.

1. It was literally in the very post in question, you just didn’t pick up on it. 2. You don’t need (to be) a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. IOW one need not be a mechanic to figure out their car won’t start. It may take a mechanic to find out why, but a layperson can figure out it is broken. Same with the climate models. When observed temperatures are well below what is predicted in the models, it doesn’t take a climate scientist to make that observation. It may take a scientist to figure out why however. But any layperson can make that observation.

I’m not lying, you just can’t understand. If your reading comprehension was on point you would have picked up on the part of the quote which stated “over the next eighty years” I’m telling you why I posted that....IT WAS TO SHOW THE MODELS PREDICTING FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE ARE CONTRACTED BY MODELS PREDICTING THE OPPOSITE AND BOTH ARE FROM THE IPCC!!!! I have long been a critic of models because they can be tuned to produce what ever outcome the modelers want. That is why I put more faith in actual OBSERVATION as laid out several times today. If you would like to dispute the observations I have made, have at it. But you can’t so you will continue to obfuscate.

Because it’s true and you still can’t wrap your brain around it. Just say “you’re right Hutch, those climate models seem to predict temperatures which are higher that actual observation” and I will never mention it again. Still having difficulty I see, I have overestimated you.

Name just one of the eight observations I made that had been debunked. I said NOAA showed February 2021 was colder than February 1998. Debunk that

I’m not running away from the IPCC quote. It was to show the “settled science” is not so settled. They have model predicting sea level rise and they have other studies showing the opposite. Nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know why you are having difficulty wrapping your brain around that. Since you get stuck on polar bears, I will remove and restate. Again forget the models, forget the IPCC, forget Zoe. Focus on the real-world observations. One more time..... I say food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased. where am I wrong? Im sorry if I confused you.