Global Warming forces FL Spring Breakers to wear clothing

I've been saying this for about 20 years. I think the calendar needs to be shifted.

Then again, it got to 91 degrees yesterday at Fort Hood Texas, then back to 64 today.

 

It's never stopped you from posting.

 

Climate change is deviation from localized norms...not global averages. It's the impact on local environments that are disruptive.

I could make the same argument that you use about climate change in relation to water. I could say that millions of data points show that we have exactly the same amount of water as we always had.

People getting flooded or suffering drought must have just shoved reality out the window.

 

Sadly, this is normal human projection. Those whose opinions are based on emotional preference and to whom facts are enemies, seem to have no intellectual option but to believe everyone else "thinks" the same way. OF COURSE scientific consensus is the result of a government conspiracy by those same scientists to control who gets the funding. After all, that's the way they'd do it if they were in charge. It's the only game they can conceive of.

 

You are right.

Global warming does not involve the actual globe, but rather localized incidents, which is why it is called global warming, to fool people. You see, when they say global, they really mean a single (*)(*)(*)(*)ing zip code in Florida.

The thread title says global warming. Not sure what sort of semantics your post is prattling on about.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right.

Global warming does not involve the actual globe, but rather localized incidents, which is why it is called global warming, to fool people. You see, when they say global, they really mean a single (*)(*)(*)(*)ing zip code in Florida.

The thread title says global warming. Not sure what sort of semantics your post is prattling on about.

 

I suppose it shall remain prattle to you. You must be one that can't see the trees for the forest.

 

Yeah, most people who are wrong say that to me. Must be the whole addressing the thread topic thing I had going on.

 

In the meantime, I was sitting on a SanDIego beach in 85 degree weather last week, and walking here in Orange Country CA in 90 degree weather a couple days ago.

We stole the warmth from FL, along with the election.

 

Your retreat is funny. Must be your inability to address the whole responding directly to what you posted thing I had going on.

Last word's yours. Go for it.

 

Well according to some ALL scientists get grants. There is no private research, there are no citizen science projects. Its all controlled by the gubmint

 

Please quote the OP making the claims you are trying to dispute.

 

This is because the idea that there is a difference between weather and climate is a little too complicated for some people to get their little pea brains around.

 

There is very dammed little "private research" into "AGW". Most PRIVATELY employed scientists are either in the energy, industrial or pharmacuetical chemistry fields.

Almost ALL "climate change" "research" (what a joke) is done in academia. Please rememeber what the term "it's 'academic' " means....and WHY it means what it means.....

 

Why do you keep making spurrious straw arguments? You are a student of Saul Alinsky. That's why.

 

That's absolutely beautiful. I'm going to steal that.

 

If it were that easy, it would be just as easy to somewhat sympathize with these people. Unfortunately, it goes deeper than that. There is a systematic attempt to not just keep people ignorant, but to disseminate false information and mislead people by preying on their intellectual inadequacies from a political, religious, and anti-scientific faction that has a distinct interest in making sure that their agenda goes unchecked.

 

Because the only solution to the problem of AGW is to eradicate man? You cannot offer any other easier, less radical solution?
Perhaps I can offer a more modest proposal: We could reduce population and therefore decrease the use of fossil fuels by reducing the number of poor children in the world and help the starving poor. ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

 

ahh

so fossil fuel is the issue?

please share with all of us the plans for the entire population to conform to what the AGW crowd wants. And, please also share with us the devastation that AGW is causing? Are you suggesting that the earth will disappear? Or, are you suggesting that man will disappear? If the former, then we must eradicate man. If the latter, then you AGW people are so smart and will prepare for it and rule the earth. You will build cities on top of Everest so when the great tides swallow 90% of the planet, you will be high and dry.

so what's the problem you are trying to solve?

 

There are academics that do not need a grant and are using university assets. I've had professors do studies without grants. Would you like the titles of the publications?

 

Serious answer: excessive release of CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years.

 

You're obviously not an engineer. Any engineer (electrical, environmental, chemical, automotive, etc) will tell you that if s system suddenly loses its equilibrium state, bad things will happen before it reaches a new equilibrium state. The earth's climate system was in equilibrium before the introduction of the previously sequestered carbon was introduced into the system. Extreme weather, rising sea levels, droughts in some areas, floods in other areas are just some of the consequences of the sudden changes.

I've already answered that question. If you don't like my answer ...!

 

no, you have not answered the question

are you trying to stop the big ole rock we call Earth from imploding? What problem are you trying to solve?

 

You'e obviously not a chemist, or you would realize that the asinine Warmist claims about the properties of LESS THAN 400PPM (.000400) atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are complete, total,and utter nonsense.

 

The jet stream has moved south because the arctic stratosphere is unseasonably warm. A warm stratosphere is not the result of AGW nor can it be as increased CO2 cools the stratosphere. Your source is an idiot.

 

Well, except if we respect observation and test. A chemist would understand that 400ppm is very little dioxin. A biologist might observe that it's fatal.

Do you seriously think that "liberals" (which includes all scientists not on power company payrolls) are so stupid they don't know what "signficant" means, or how it can be operationally determined?

But anyway, a note to those not religiously committed to denial: We're not talking about the absolute concentrations of anything here. We are talking about the CHANGE in concentrations. So 400ppm is not much. And 350ppm is not much. But a CHANGE from 350ppm to 400ppm is a change of about 14%. That is a BIG change.