Hows your global warming?

what data do you have to contest the NASA data?

 

Earth to Mac: Obama was over 18 months ago. That fact, your Muslim conspiracies theories aside, the NASA links I provided are factual with science-based evidence. Obviously science-deniers only want to listen to the political rhetoric, not facts.

 

Its not always objective data but rather assumptions

 

He won't or can't say. All he has is "Obama turned it into a Muslim propaganda tool" or some such nonsense.

 

One an unelected pinhead gets hired in government they never leave unless they retire

 

Untill I have confidence that NASA has been purgeed of the obamabots I will keep that opinion

 

It's not my prediction. It's the hard data. The earth warms quickly after an ice age, and then cools slowly into the next ice age. That fast warming ended 6000 - 8000 years ago, and it's been a slow cooling trend every since.

That's reality, and you proudly reject it purely for political reasons. As that's now obvious to everyone, there's no point in continuing the conversation. You know what you know, and no stupid liberal things like facts and reason are going to change your mind.

 

Fun stuff here. I suppose this is you apologizing? I suppose then that the idea that you simply are either purposefully mischaracterizing the historic record, or that you don't understand that even in long term trends that there can be variability is what? This "political reason" you were referencing? I know you're super concerned with "facts and reason" because you spent the time writing it. Ok, why then, don't they apply to you? Or is that really the political reality that you're hiding from?

 

Translation: I'll never trust NASA until they agree that global warming is a vast, wide Leftist Mooslem conspiracy!!!

No problem. I never thought you'd budge off your personal opinions despite all the science in the world.

 

Maybe the man-made-global-warming theory is true or partially true

No one really knows

But its not worth turning our lives upsidedown over based on an uncertainty

 

Yes, your example of strawberries possibly being more expensive in the future will really turn our lives upside down. How will we ever survive such a tragedy?

 

I'm not letting it turn my life upside down nor am I denying it exists. The Earth will be fine. Mankind will adapt or die. Not my problem.

 

It is futile to try to share awareness with fanatics who deny anthropogenic climate change, biological evolution, and/or the novel concept of a spherical earth.

Fortunately, the vast preponderance of rational folks comprehend reality.

As for the others, they may wish to cling to something stable lest the theory of gravity is also a hoax.

​

 

How has global warming ruined your life so far?

 

Then why all the angst and anger at conservatives?

Without them your life would be turned upsidedown by the wacko environmentalists

 

Liberals are the fanatics with your crazy belief in catastrophic global warming

 

I never said global warming has ruined my life so that's an odd question to ask me. YOU on the other hand keep claiming our lives have been turned upside down because people believe global warming is real, yet the only example you can give is that possibly strawberries will be more expensive in the future. Really? More expensive strawberries will turn our lives upside down? Wow...you must really like strawberries.

 

Interesting dynamic happening recently. Studies critical of hyperbolic AWG predictions are beginning to make their way into the news cycles. Today, for example, a new study that concludes that the future danger of the warming trend has been grossly overstated was publicized. Even the climate Nazis in the environmental marketing cabal are aware that they overreached, so, now they are attempting to allow critical study to see the light of day, lest they continue to be branded the censoring stazi they have been for the last several decades.

And what really does that mean then? 1-1.2C of potential future warming. Vastly different than other figures from IPCC or others who breathlessly panted about 3-8C, like mr Gore. Obviously then, those marketing figures were unscientific, and the scientific community are finally realizing that they do, in fact, have a public voice, and are actively producing materials/data to walk back the hyperbolic BS of the AGW faithful.

 

A lot of liberals ask me how the anti global warming agenda has harmed me

And I answered them in previous posts but they never answer me when I ask that question

 

Again, no one has ever said global warming has ruined their life.

But YOU have said all this global warming belief HAS turned your life upside down. But of course we know that's not true. That was hyperbole on your part.

 

I did not say that

I said that is the goal of the climate wackos

They want global redistribution of wealth in the kyoto treaty and Paris accords that would be very bad for me

But bush and trump blocked those crazy ideas

 

I have no interest in those "liberals!" wantonly cavorting in your noggin, nor in enlightening the residue of incorrigible crackpots who - as a matter of ideological dogma in place of scientific data - insist they can poop into the heavens with impunity. Scratch the thin patina of scientific pretense, and the rabid ideologue is readily exposed.

Global awareness is resulting in humans taking responsibility for the demonstrable consequences of human activities.

The fringe can whimper or wail, but it is being consigned to the realm of the irredeemable flat-earthers.

​

 

Where is all of this "angst and anger" you are complaining about? You're the one who is upset when I point out I'd rather believe NASA over Sean Hannity or any other dipshits who deny science.

 

Explain why that would have been bad for you

 

A new “study” from Science Magazine is not scientific evedence of anything

Just more liberal hournalist crackpots expressing their opinion

But thanks to the word “science” liberals take it as irrefutable truth