brenthutch

Obviously you are not genius I thought you were. Let’s try one more time or are you going to run away with your tail tucked between your legs? Not some other person, not a link illustrating the “science” is far from settled, but the list of observations that contradict the CAGW narrative. One more time.... I say there are more polar bears, 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. As Steven Crowder would say.....change my mind.

I have given several examples of real world observations that contradict the CAGW narrative. Instead of engaging in a substantive manner, all I get is obfuscation and insults. I guess if that is all you have then......that is all you have.

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Just an illustration that the “settled science” is far from settled. Everything from my list is based on actual observations not conjecture. With which one/s do you disagree?

Who said anything about polar bears in Antarctica? You will just have to take that up with Zoe. Try focusing. I gave you an entire menu to choose from, let’s try again. more polar bears(in the arctic of course) 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. Take your pick. It should be easy for a genius like you to take on a dolt like me.

Which of the following do you wish to challenge? more polar bears, 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. Crickets? That’s what I thought.

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

I would suggest that it is you guys who are in denial. You deny there are more polar bears, you deny food production is at an all time high, you deny deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, you deny the climate models run much hotter than observation, you deny the “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, you deny deserts are shrinking not growing, you deny green vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, you deny arable land has increased not decreased. All of these actual OBSERVATIONS, run counter the the CAGW narrative. “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” Mark Twain

According to the IPCC, global warming has lead to no significant trend in floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires. That leaves sea level rise......what does the IPCC say about sea level rise? Let’s check in. ”The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year−1 mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years.”

I originally thought to just say “planet” but then I knew that some pendant would take issue with that, so I added “its inhabitants” olof is being too clever by half.

When I went shopping today at my local Giant grocery store, at checkout I was prompted to make a donation to help “heal the planet”. They must be thinking along these lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis You should spend you bandwidth on setting these guys straight and not crossing intellectual swords with me.

It might mean enough Penn State students were exposed to COVID and developed antibodies that the virus no longer has enough hosts to continue to spread in that community.

No, I just shared NOAA’s report that this February’s global temperature was less than 1998’s February temperature. If you have a quarrel with that, take it up with NOAA.

“Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.” As I said.....pedantic

It’s true alright https://images.app.goo.gl/KtHDBcXLRiqyia8f9 ”For those downtown this weekend, State College resembled any other pre-pandemic weekend in Happy Valley, with large groups of people roaming College and Beaver Avenue decked out in green. Penn State students formed lines trailing outside of bars and gathered on porches of downtown rental houses to celebrate State Patty’s — a yearly St. Patrick’s Day celebration held the weekend after THON.” Community spread levels of COVID infections + tens of thousands of drunk college kids, minus social distancing and masks = nada Not trying to “prove” anything, it is just an observation.

Do you really think when I said “threat to the planet” I meant the big rock orbiting the sun? You are being overly pedantic to avoid addressing the issue. Very dishonest.

That is why I included “inhabitants”. To ignore that is dishonest.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/03/11/biden-aims-to-ban-high-capacity-magazines-but-theres-no-ammo-for-them-anyway/?sh=4539ede5299f “Every time they mention a ban, our business went through the roof,” said Charlie Strickland, CEO and co-owner of Talon Tactical Outfitters and Talon Range in Midland, Florida. “I believe that the Obama administration did more to expand the firearms industry than any other president before that. During the Trump administration things cooled off because we had nothing to be afraid of. https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/03/10/americans-are-spending-their-stimulus-checks-on-guns/?sh=108150f6e587 ”Americans are looking forward to another round of stimulus checks and gun shops are looking forward to another round of stimulus stockpiling. As the House takes its final vote Wednesday on the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, many Americans are looking forward to spending their $1,400 stimulus checks at the gun store.” As I said Biden is the firearms salesman of the century.

Let me try again, Do YOU really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants? A simple yes or no will suffice but feel free to elaborate.

FIFY BTW if climate change hurts agricultural production in the south, somebody better tell India and Brazil. Both with record food production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Brazil ”Brazil had record agricultural production, with growth of 9.1%, principally motivated by favorable weather. ” It must be very liberating to have a mindset unencumbered by facts or logic.

You still dodged my question. I asked YOU not AOC or Al Gore.

John Kerry, “The goals thus far have been inadequate ... The goal of achieving a 1.5˚(C) limitation on the rise of Earth's temperature is absolutely the appropriate goal, but the current promises of countries through the Paris Agreement, are insufficient to get the job done," So even if all of the signatories abided by all of the provisions in the Paris Climate Agreement it would not achieve its goal, while costing trillions of dollars. It fails a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Are you having trouble understanding the OP? Clearly the alarmists predictions were wrong. I was just pointing that out. Speaking of dodging, I noticed you failed to address the rest of my post regarding the Paris Climate Agreement. Do you really think we are in a climate: catastrophe/apocalypse/emergency/collapse that is an EXISTENTIAL threat to the planet and its inhabitants?

No, it is to make a point. Why would it matter if it was warmer, cooler or the same if doesn’t have real world consequences? We are spending billions (trillions globally) on a problem that does not exist and on “solutions” that would have no effect even if it did. The framers of the Paris Climate Agreement agree, even if fully implemented, its impact would be immeasurable. To pursue a course of action where the costs are enormous and the benefits are immeasurable is folly. BTW, those were YOUR goalposts not mine.

No, I just thought it noteworthy, given the topic of the OP, that it was worth mentioning global temperatures are currently the same (even less) as they were in 1998. Obviously there is more to global climate than the levels of CO2. Not to mention, the breathless predictions of catastrophe have not only failed to materialize, but in many cases the actual observations are the opposite of what was predicted.