brenthutch

Quite right, and that is why NP is playing AOC like a court jester, she even let her hold the gavel the other day. Whimsical leftist will all gleefully fall into line as Pelosi practices realpolitik.

Clearly your cranial/rectal inversion has yet to be resolved

As Nancy said, “a glass of water with a D could win her district” and as I said, Nancy has her firmly on a leash. She is a useful idiot to quote Lenin.

It didn’t sound like sarcasm in her original presentation. It’s sad to see a SJW brought down by her own words. Looks like Nancy has her progressive dog firmly leashed.

It’s hard to be afraid of someone who begins her sentences with “like”

Looks like the joke is on you, AOC now claims this https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html was a joke. She went on to say, "Like the “world ending in 12 years” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."

That is just the deep, thoughtful and intellectual contribution I have come to appreciate from your side. Thank you for elevating the conversation.

Yes, once the concentration of CO2 exceeds 600ppm, the fertilization effect levels off. We still have quite a lot of upside left.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

Resulting in shrinking deserts and growing food production.

an·ec·do·tal /ˌanəkˈdōdl/ adjective (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

As I said, when their predictions of floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires failed to materialize.

If I use any other source such as UHA, you guys have problems. On a side note NOAA did claim a record high temperature in an area in Africa where no actual measurement was taken. So I do have a problem with their use of models to fill in the blank spots

Yes I meant to say imminent 1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases … this will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.” See here, page xi. Reality check: From 1990 to 2017 (first 8 months) the increase in temperatures has been 0.31 to 0.49°C depending on the database used. CO2emissions have tracked the Business as Usual scenario. 1981 James Hansen, NASA scientist, predicted a global warming of “almost unprecedented magnitude” in the next century that might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. Reality check: Since 1993 (24 years) we have totaled 72 mm (3 inches) of sea level rise instead of the 4 feet that corresponds to one-fourth of a century. The alarming prediction is more than 94% wrong, so far. As far as ocean acidification is concerned, there is no mention of it in the IPCC's first assessment. That boogie man was concocted when the other predictions started to fail.

Source? As far as scientists predicting eminent disaster? How about James Hanson, Paul Ehrlich and Michael Mann?

Nothing I have put forward is my opinion, it is all well documented. For the last three decades we have been promised eminent disaster unless drastic measures were taken, yet no measures were taken and CO2 has risen even faster than the most dire predictions. Results? A big nothing burger. I will simplify yet again: No increase in the number, intensity or duration of floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes or wildfires. Try to wrap your brains around that little inconvenient truth.

I just wanted to make things less confusing, that is why I omitted the falling global temperatures.

I apologize, I should have realized that my inclusion of sea ice would have caused confusion. Let us just focus on what actually impacts humanity. Let us try again. "no change in the rate of sea level rise record food production  no increase in the number, duration or intensity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes or wildfires  A literal greening of the planet." I hope we can all agree that global warming and a loss of Arctic sea ice is, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. It is the follow on effects that count. I am still waiting for you guys to explain how a fraction of a degree of warming, with no corresponding negative effects, necessitates a rebooting of the global economy. Just kidding, that was a rhetorical statement. I don't expect you guys to be able to answer.

The facts stand for themselves: no change in the rate of sea level rise record food production no increase in the number, duration or intensity of hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes or wildfires A literal greening of the planet (the irony is not lost on me) and we still have polar bears and summer arctic sea ice Please show me where I am missing something, or you can respond with dismissive name calling and insults.

I would not expect alarmists to believe me, that is why I sited NOAA

http://news.trust.org/item/20190406071913-2mgs2/ Was referenced by NPR

When I picked the last twenty years, I was accused of cherry picking. Remember what this thread is about, the GND and the claim that we are currently in a climate crisis. If am refuting the notion that we are CURRENTLY in a climate crises, it only makes sense to use current data.

How does one cherry pick the past three years?

As I have already shown, global temperatures are dropping as well. BTW I do have a passport, lived in Europe for more than five years and have visited 17 countries and counting. I am hardly some parochial hayseed.

You know you have lost the argument when your only rebuttal is name calling.