If this is global climate change

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:47 pm

where do I sign up?

75 degrees here in KC as I type with very low humidity. The low this morning was 59. Great sleeping weather with the windows wide open. It's been like this all week. In fact, the entire summer has been quite comfortable with only a few days where the thermometer reached 90+.

This is fucking unheard of. Normally we're broiling and in a sauna this time of of year, every year. Yeah I know we've still go August left to go which is usually even more brutal than July, but this does not suck. I could get used to it in a hurry.

Oh... and yes I know that Texas and the U & L have been suffering lately and all I have to say about that is...

sucks to be you.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:17 pm

I don't think you are going to be able to assess climate change so simply. If change occurs, then weather patterns will be affected in more ways than just heating up the IKYABWAI homeland. Perhaps we're seeing cooler weather because of weather pattern disruption.

It's a cool summer, debate aside, we have those sometimes. Up this way, it seemed for a while that we were in a drought pattern...lately summers are a lot more wet and green.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:51 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I don't think you are going to be able to assess climate change so simply.

Sure I can... and I will... use the evidence of my senses to assess climate change or what was formerly called "man made global warming".

Meanwhile, I'll stick pins in the gasbags who insist this phenomena is due to CO2 emissions and that we need a Cap and Trade bill to regulate the freaking weather.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:18 am

I see you still have no idea that "climate" and "weather" are not the same thing.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:30 am

WW wrote:as I type with very low humidity

I can only imagine what you must be typing when you type with high humidity.

Actually, I'd rather not.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:54 am

Mikey wrote:I see you still have no idea that "climate" and "weather" are not the same thing.

Did you have a point to make with that?

Maybe you should have gone the Van bitterman route and attacked sentence structure instead.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:15 am

Not the least bit bitter, Whitey. You're just too goddamn dull and humorless to understand a simple joke.

Fuck almighty, man, this is you we're talking about here. Attack your sentence structure? That job would never end.

Face it, Whitey. You write like a forklift driver.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:17 am

Why is it that people who have the least amount to say talk the loudest?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:41 am

Jesus, you douche-splashed nimrod. Why are you so horny to get plunger-laid?

I have NEVER seen three flavors of IKYABWAI unfurled so theatrically and played so deftly...in a weather thread, no less.

Damn...tards used to have the decency to drag their sacrificial altar time out for a few posts. The KC tards are fucking liquid in the space of a sentence or two.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:45 am

PUS, you haven't plungered anybody since you laid Douchebag to rest.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:08 am

So, where's the pile-on?

I'm waiting for the lame "IKYABWAI" and "KC TARDS" regurgitating morons. Freaking pathetic.

You know what?

Go fuck yourself, cunts.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:15 am

I see you still have no idea that "climate" and "weather" are not the same thing.

Sadly it appears that the folks who control the agenda in our capital fit that description. Be that as it may--how can it be any more reliable to predict climate years from now than it is the weather next week ??

Cosmo Kramer · Post by **Cosmo Kramer** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:00 am

Isin't Chicago having a mild summer too?

Aren't hot temps and cool temps in differ places just "normal" weather patterns and maybe global warming is not the casuse?

I'm not naive enough to think that we're not impacting the envoronment, but aren't some of these things just "natural" or is it just "wishful thinking" on my behalf?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:15 am

War Wagon wrote:Oh... and yes I know that Texas and the U & L have been suffering lately and all I have to say about that is...

sucks to be you.

We're suffering because we're not used to such extremely hot weather. We also suffering in the winter when we get freezing temperatures because we're not very used to those.

Yeah, sucks to not have to deal with extreme temperatures on a regular basis.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:00 pm

War Wagon wrote:Why is it that people who have the least amount to say talk the loudest?

I'm sure mvscal can explain it to you.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:36 pm

why do you want to kill all the polar bears?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:17 pm

Mikey wrote:I see you still have no idea that "climate" and "weather" are not the same thing.

If the alarmists didn't constantly conflate the two there'd be no confusion on this point, no? But when the alarmists use temperatures and extreme weather conditions as their primary symptoms of so-called global warming, well, you're bound to see such confusion.

So wtf is your point, toady?

JayDuck · Post by **JayDuck** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:32 pm

Wolfman wrote: how can it be any more reliable to predict climate years from now than it is the weather next week ??

Actually its far easier to predict climate a few years from now than it is to predict individual days of weather.

Allow me to make some climate predictions...

It will be desert in Southeastern California.
It will be a Tundra in Northern Russia.
And it will be a temperate Rainforest in much of the Pacific Northwest.

Picking individual days of weather is a a roulette spin, in comparison.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:19 pm

JayDuck wrote:
Wolfman wrote: how can it be any more reliable to predict climate years from now than it is the weather next week ??
Actually its far easier to predict climate a few years from now than it is to predict individual days of weather.

Allow me to make some climate predictions...

It will be desert in Southeastern California.
It will be a Tundra in Northern Russia.
And it will be a temperate Rainforest in much of the Pacific Northwest.

Picking individual days of weather is a a roulette spin, in comparison.

You wouldn't say that if you lived here.

Coastal clouds in the morning followed by clear skies by noon. Low 70s at the beaches, low to mid 80s inland, up to 115 in the Imperial Valley.

This applies with about 90% certainty from July 1 through Labor day.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:05 pm

Reality Check!! This isn't 1930's dustbowl America...No, this is Texas TODAY!!!

Welcome to Climate Change...it's not pretty

And sure, the typical hacks like Avi will spew their lil' snippets of sneering denialist blather, but...they've been proven so dead wrong on so many other issues that who would possibly believe a word they say? Or for that matter the same type of right-wing radio clowns like Beck and Dobbs and Limpdick and O'Reilly, etc. It's pathetic that this sort of tedious and moronic cowardice dares to speak up at all. But, what else can they do?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:16 am

PSUFAN wrote:Jesus, you douche-splashed nimrod. Why are you so horny to get plunger-laid?

I have NEVER seen three flavors of IKYABWAI unfurled so theatrically and played so deftly...in a weather thread, no less.

Damn...tards used to have the decency to drag their sacrificial altar time out for a few posts. The KC tards are fucking liquid in the space of a sentence or two.

I see you don't have anything to add to that, pussy.

I have NEVER seen a cunt who needed their FACE punched in as much as you.

You've lost all cred with me. Don't ever post in my direction again.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:45 am

Fuck you, wags!! FUCK YOU...FUCK YOU!!!

.m2 · Post by **.m2** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:11 am

Mikey wrote:
JayDuck wrote:
Wolfman wrote: how can it be any more reliable to predict climate years from now than it is the weather next week ??
Actually its far easier to predict climate a few years from now than it is to predict individual days of weather.

Allow me to make some climate predictions...

It will be desert in Southeastern California.
It will be a Tundra in Northern Russia.
And it will be a temperate Rainforest in much of the Pacific Northwest.

Picking individual days of weather is a a roulette spin, in comparison.
You wouldn't say that if you lived here.

Coastal clouds in the morning followed by clear skies by noon. Low 70s at the beaches, low to mid 80s inland, up to 115 in the Imperial Valley
This applies with about 90% certainty from July 1 through Labor day..

Take easy on Diego... he's still trying to figure out when winter and summer come about.

Trampis · Post by **Trampis** » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:16 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Reality Check!! This isn't 1930's dustbowl America...No, this is Texas TODAY!!!

Welcome to Climate Change...it's not pretty

And sure, the typical hacks like Avi will spew their lil' snippets of sneering denialist blather, but...they've been proven so dead wrong on so many other issues that who would possibly believe a word they say? Or for that matter the same type of right-wing radio clowns like Beck and Dobbs and Limpdick and O'Reilly, etc. It's pathetic that this sort of tedious and moronic cowardice dares to speak up at all. But, what else can they do?

Contrary to most Texans viewpoint, what the world thinks of climate change is not derived from Texas' weather paterns.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:52 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:FUckn' A message boards kill me. A bunch of dickheads who have trouble tyingtheir ownshoes arguing over chaotic complex systems and claiming they know what the fuck they're talking about. I'd love to do an extra chromosome count on this place.

No shit, they don't remember the hysteria stirred in the 70s that the world was going to plunge into into a global ice age. Dip shits.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:28 pm

And when I get done with this Global Warming Denialist, I'm coming for, you, Jerk...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:11 pm

While atmospheric CO2* has risen very slightly over the last decade, the global temperature has gradually dropped.

So, we now know FOR FACT that there's no direct corrolation between the two. Seems to me that any act of taxing the air we exhale is now traitorous.

BTW -- since they came up with a reasonably accurate method to measure total global ice in 1979... uhm... 2008 set the new record for ice. Try another lie, global conspirators.

* -- Basck in the mid-1800's, scientists came up with some crude ways to measure what the atmospherewas composed of. If you took thoseearly readings and rounded them off, CO2 was about 0.03% of the atmoshpere. Today, if you round that percentage off, it comes out to... ohhhh, about 0.03%.

Things that make a person go "hmmmmmmm"...

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:14 pm

Dinsdale wrote:BTW -- since they came up with a reasonably accurate method to measure total global ice in 1979... uhm... 2008 set the new record for ice. Try another lie, global conspirators...

how can you look at that picture of that poor polar bear and say that? you should be beaten up and shot for hating the polar bears

-sin
libtards

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:29 pm

Dinsdale wrote:While atmospheric CO2* has risen very slightly over the last decade, the global temperature has gradually dropped.

So, we now know FOR FACT that there's no direct corrolation between the two. Seems to me that any act of taxing the air we exhale is now traitorous.

BTW -- since they came up with a reasonably accurate method to measure total global ice in 1979... uhm... 2008 set the new record for ice. Try another lie, global conspirators.

* -- Basck in the mid-1800's, scientists came up with some crude ways to measure what the atmospherewas composed of. If you took thoseearly readings and rounded them off, CO2 was about 0.03% of the atmoshpere. Today, if you round that percentage off, it comes out to... ohhhh, about 0.03%.

Things that make a person go "hmmmmmmm"...

So, what you're saying is that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 hasn't changed significantly since the mid 1800s?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:35 pm

Apparently you're not too good at rounding, because 380 ppm rounds to .04%.

Jerkovich · Post by **Jerkovich** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:08 pm

Oh wow, they were measuring CO2 in the middle ages?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:48 pm

Jerkovich wrote:Oh wow, they were measuring CO2 in the middle ages?

\

Wat yo sa?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:11 pm

Bwahahahaaaaa:

'Who's a climate scientist? Depends on which side you're on ...'
My colleague Myron Ebell has some interesting observations on how, if you are an alarmist, you can be a "reputable climate scientist" if you are a lawyer, but, as a skeptic, a professor of geology does not count.

Priceless!

And not at all surprising if you've been keeping up with this so-called debate regarding global warming...errr...climate change...errr...~insert fad of the day~

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:07 pm

Toddowen wrote:"mean carbon dioxcide levels from ice cores, mauna loa, and marine sites"

Good one, Mikey. I always suspected that these test were done by placing sensors next to some exhaust pipe, spewing nasty emmisions into the atmosphere. Now I see I was wrong about these scientific findings.

There's a reason for measuring in those places.

See if you can figure it out.

Don't worry though, I don't expect you to get it.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:18 pm

Mikey wrote:
Toddowen wrote:"mean carbon dioxcide levels from ice cores, mauna loa, and marine sites"

Good one, Mikey. I always suspected that these test were done by placing sensors next to some exhaust pipe, spewing nasty emmisions into the atmosphere. Now I see I was wrong about these scientific findings.
There's a reason for measuring in those places.

See if you can figure it out.

Don't worry though, I don't expect you to get it.

Is it the same reason that temperature sensors are placed in asphalt parking lots and next to bbq's?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

JMak wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Toddowen wrote:"mean carbon dioxcide levels from ice cores, mauna loa, and marine sites"

Good one, Mikey. I always suspected that these test were done by placing sensors next to some exhaust pipe, spewing nasty emmisions into the atmosphere. Now I see I was wrong about these scientific findings.
There's a reason for measuring in those places.

See if you can figure it out.

Don't worry though, I don't expect you to get it.
Is it the same reason that temperature sensors are placed in asphalt parking lots and next to bbq's?

WTF are you talking about?

I was referring to sampling at mauna loa and other isolated locations. What does that have to do with parking lots and bbqs?

You must be as fucking stupid as Tardowen.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:46 pm

Mikey wrote:WTF are you talking about?

I was referring to sampling at mauna loa and other isolated locations. What does that have to do with parking lots and bbqs?

You must be as fucking stupid as Tardowen.

Take it easy, tard, I obviously went over your head. I was being sarcastic. I.e., referring to the placement of temperature sensors in parking lots and near residential bbqs. I.e., poking fun at the fact that the placement of sensors can be and is abused by scientists/agencies.

You may GFY now, jagoff.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:55 pm

JMak wrote: ...the placement of sensors can be and is abused by scientists/agencies.

It undoubtedly happens. But then people like you automatically assume abuse when the results disagree with their pre-conceived assumption of how the world should work.

Believe it or not there are scientists, some even working for the Government, who don't start out with an agenda or at least don't let their personal views interfere with their responsibility to be unbiased in their work.

Those who do abuse that responsibility shouldn't be allowed to be called scientists.

And I'm not a head in the sky idealist. I review energy efficiency estimates for incentive programs and I can tell you there are plenty of engineers who shouldn't be called engineers.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:06 pm

Mikey wrote:It undoubtedly happens. But then people like you automatically assume abuse when the results disagree with their pre-conceived assumption of how the world should work.

Nope. I don't pay close enough attention to the temperature data as it is released. I pay more attention to the stories about climate experts like James Hansen fudging the data to confirm his own predetermined outcome(s).

Believe it or not there are scientists, some even working for the Government, who don't start out with an agenda or at least don't let their personal views interfere with their responsibility to be unbiased in their work.

Hmmm, I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, but feel to impute to me any old motivation you want to avoid the fact that climate alarmists are, in fact, fudging the data.

And I'm not a head in the sky idealist. I review energy efficiency estimates for incentive programs and I can tell you there are plenty of engineers who shouldn't be called engineers.

Fair nuff.

Glad you stepped back into reason and away from the edge. For a moment I thought you'd pop a blood vessel.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:21 pm

JMak wrote:
...but feel to impute to me any old motivation you want...

Coming from you tha's almost funny. Almost.