Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

Again another denial comment with no scientific data just subjective opinions. The destruction to this planet is not laughable. The fact you think it's a giggle means what?

 

Do you guys all have a bowel disorder? All these farting noises. Younhaven't answered a damn thing. You have nomidea how to debate you took some graphs, then madecsubjective conclusions the graphs mean there is no global warming without any explanation of your conclusions just assumptions.

 

Nothing in the above repudiated forest fires are part of global warming.

 

All your responses deny evidence you do not agree with but not with data but subjective opinions of denial that contain no counter data.

 

The above comment is illogical. Links to data prove the point being made. Your subjective rants posing asxa global warming expert do not. You lift your ideas from web sites you think establish your denial but even then you don't clearly cite your sources.

 

No it expresses annoyance at you and others deliberately ignoring the data and pretending it does not exist.

 

Your article was disproven by the very data it pretends does not exist.

 

The point of the linked post is the inanity of the IPCC's presentation.

 

No what you call evidence is not evidence did you even read it?

 

The research concludes that wildfires are decreasing. Is that decrease due to global warming?

 

Actually, I routinely post data.

 

The point of the post and your comment is to name call and deflect from being unable to repudiate scientific data you ignore because it does not suit your political opinions.

 

I routinely post data that my interlocutors decline to engage.

 

Nope. That is covered in other posts.

 

Wildfires are not decreasing. Wildfires can be caused by many factors including global warming.

 

Nope it is not. The content of the past threads are all there and it was not discussed it was dismissed with subjective prattle.

 

You routinely provide subjective interpretation of data that is repudiated.

 

I won't be alive for like 950 of those...

 

You obviously did not read the Royal Society's research result. They concluded wildfires have decreased.

 

This link is repeated for your convenience. The comments are quite detailed.
Pielke Jr. on AR6
Guest Blogger
So IPCC recognizes that 8.5 scenarios have “low likelihood” but nonetheless choose to remain “neutral” with respect to scenario assumptions

 

Such a claim requires an example.

 

Oh, really? Which post numbers? Put up or shut up. Now.

Oh, I know very well what the subject matter is. It is in the thread title. I just don't know what you are falsely claiming the subject matter is.

 

The numbers were put up. You clearly can not read. What has happened now is the three of you have come on this thread to deny anything exists you do not agree with. You try engage in petulance and personal comments to deflect from your lack of understanding of the data provided to try bluff your way through responses where you deny but provide no alternative data that proves anything you say. In fact Jack Hays came on this board arguing data is extrapolated incorrectly because it doesn't look at full periods of time to make a meaningful comparison which it does. Then he argues by trying to snap shot specific data ignoring all the rest removing it from its actual context to isolate it.

As for you and the other expert on global warming there is a reason forums have an ignore button. When you don't debate but bait and try tell people to repeat data they already provided you pretending it doesn't exist, you establish that you come on the board to simply argue without giving it any thought other than to knee jerk react. That is your prerogative but its mine to ignore you which I shall because I find your pretending you need to see data past petulant. Have a nice morning.

 

Of course it doesn't everyone of your responses is self explanatory and the denials whether it be as to the data presented or what you have argued is past the point of any meaningful exchanges. Jack you simply come on this thread to deny. You give no thought to the data you cherry pick and engage in the very extrapolation process you claim was your basis to deny all global warming data. Save it. Save the denial, save the cherry picking. Move on to someone else who has not grown tired of the tactics.

 

That makes no sense. Now you try assume "low likelihood" means something it does not because of your preconceived biases giving it the new definition. Jack you simply make subjective assumptions of comments based on your subjective interpretation of the comments. Neutrality? Neutral is a political word. Statistics indicate patterns. You wish to interprate words to suit your definition of what you think they mean, i.e., that they support your preconceived notion there is no global warming. Its not what the data said and its not what the scientists who gathered the data said. You deliberately go on to read the rest of what they said because it does not suit you and Jack no I do not continue to engage with you because its pointless. You will take any data given to you and reinterprate it to suit your preconceived denial. Its a tiresome tactic to try block out and deny stats even existing let alone what they were gathered for.