different from what?
Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions
Sort:
May 9, 2015
0
#223
Those things are THE agenda pushed by MOST people and organizations formed by those who are concearned about GW. I think it's pointless to argue if the motive is true or false if the outcome is benefitial for us all. Not to mention Tellus.
May 10, 2015
0
#225
Maybe it's because english is my third language i get the word agenda wrong.. In my "environmetalist" work i tend to have a different agenda.
May 11, 2015
0
#227
ab121705 wrote:
one big environmental reality:
Yea...thats huge and scary.
Quick... across the US...the majority of city heat records accured before 1940 or after 1990?
so what's your point?
i don't know. this is NOT a global warming thread and there is tons of contradictory evidence about global temperatures, highs, lows, etc. Your question has NOTHING to do with failed environmental predictions nor does it have to do with garbage in the Pacific. Why don't YOU anwer the question, idiot, since you are the one who posed it. then tell us what your point is, and how it relates to the thread, you smug, mindless, twit
May 12, 2015
0
#231
ab121705 wrote:
i don't know. this is NOT a global warming thread and there is tons of contradictory evidence about global temperatures, highs, lows, etc. Your question has NOTHING to do with failed environmental predictions nor does it have to do with garbage in the Pacific. Why don't YOU anwer the question, idiot, since you are the one who posed it. then tell us what your point is, and how it relates to the thread, you smug, mindless, twit
What the hey... Why do you have to get so nasty? This WHY people dont follow threads... you try to engage in civil dialogue and you're attacked. LOL so funny.
I added a smiley face so that you would know I was being friendly..... not smug.
If people dare try to engage in dialogue with you...and you think they dare disagree with you....
Do you always insult them? :)
clms_chess wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
i don't know. this is NOT a global warming thread and there is tons of contradictory evidence about global temperatures, highs, lows, etc. Your question has NOTHING to do with failed environmental predictions nor does it have to do with garbage in the Pacific. Why don't YOU anwer the question, idiot, since you are the one who posed it. then tell us what your point is, and how it relates to the thread, you smug, mindless, twit
What the hey... Why do you have to get so nasty? This WHY people dont follow threads... you try to engage in civil dialogue and you're attacked. LOL so funny.
I added a smiley face so that you would know I was being friendly..... not smug.
If people dare try to engage in dialogue with you...and you think they dare disagree with you....
Do you always insult them? :)
YOU REPLY TO MY POST, WHICH WAS RELATED TO THE THREAD, WITH A QUESTION UNRELATED TO THE THREAD, AND WHEN I ASK YOU WHAT YOUR POINT IS, YOU TELL ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT YOU POSED, AS IF I'M GOING TO HAVE THE ANSWER AT MY FINGERTIPS, OR EVEN CARE TO TRY TO FIND THE ANSWER TO A QUESTION UNRELATED TO MY POST, OR TO THE THREAD.
I ASK AGAIN: WHAT...IS.....YOUR.....POINT???
May 12, 2015
0
#233
...then ... answer my question.... before 1940...or after 1990 when did the majority of city heat records across the US occured?
just guess if you have to... no big deal. After which i will tell you my point without shouting... and Ill even add sprinkles on top. :)
May 12, 2015
0
#234
kaynight wrote:
The point is.... The point is..... There is no point!!!
but there is a point... and it goes right along with the original OP. :)
Ill even add some early sprinkles
*adds a pinch of good natured sprinkles to my post*
:D
May 12, 2015
0
#235
kaynight wrote:
You failed...
Well... your message is simple..to the point ... and with no name calling..and yet has some zest to it :)
Come on kaynight... someone of your posting caliber wouldnt pass up at least a guess...
Before 1940...or after 1990... did the majority of US city heat records occur? :D
May 12, 2015
0
#236
Good news for you, OP...President Obama agrees to open up protected areas in the Arctic for exploration and drilling.
I actually don't mind this so much, if it reduces U.S. dependency on OPEC, more specifically, Saudi Arabia, possibly the U.S.'s most disingenuous "ally".
May 12, 2015
0
#237
ab121705 wrote:
i don't know. this is NOT a global warming thread and there is tons of contradictory evidence about global temperatures, highs, lows, etc. Your question has NOTHING to do with failed environmental predictions nor does it have to do with garbage in the Pacific. Why don't YOU anwer the question, idiot, since you are the one who posed it. then tell us what your point is, and how it relates to the thread, you smug, mindless, twit
I think you are a better poster than to resort to ad hominem attacks. One of the reasons I opened this topic is because the other large topic strayed away from the science and became nothing but bickering.
May 12, 2015
0
#238
clms_chess wrote:
...then ... answer my question.... before 1940...or after 1990 when did the majority of city heat records across the US occured?
just guess if you have to... no big deal. After which i will tell you my point without shouting... and Ill even add sprinkles on top. :)
We need to keep in mind the NASA and other pro-AGW organizations massage and manipulate the raw data. They were forced to back away from the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record.
Part of the problem with the claim is that the records only go back to 1880. During the past 550 million years the Earth has been demonstrably warmer than it is today. The fact is we are emerging from some of the coldest ambient temperatures in the geologic history of the Earth.
What the AGW arlarmists are doing is trying to draw broad conclusions from the last little sliver of data on the bottom right hand side of the graph, below.
We are still in an abnormally cold global temperature regime!
" During the past 550 million years the Earth has been demonstrably warmer than it is today. " _JD
Human's haven't been around for 550 million years. What's good for giant dragonflies is not what's good for human beings.The truth is the migration of tropical disease northward is already hurting millions of people.India is currently killing climate refugees,from Bangledesh, who try to flee across the border. Australia is locking them up in concentration camps.The California dream has gone bust. Oceans are rising faster than expected.
May 12, 2015
0
#240
Oceans were rising much faster just a few thousand years ago.
The Homo genus has been around for about 3 million years. Hominids for 7 million years. Primates evolved starting 55 million years ago. All during warmer times than today.
The Cenozoic has been the Age of the Mammals. We like it warm, moist, and lush.
You sounds as if you are a "climate preservationist." Good luck with that. The climate is in constant change. There is no steady state.
Can someone tell me a concrete downside those claimed 'alarmists' are supposed to cause?! Pushing energy efficiency, renevable energy sources..? Or maybe it's the totally horrible thought of having better milage on cars.. And please, skip the power/control/economic benefit and conspiracy things.
I see no downside with conservation of resources - but that is a different issue.