Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns

[WarTim 3,456]

And again, Homer can't argue the science, so he attacks the writer...this time because he is a Christian. The lows around here just keep getting lower. I refer back to my previous statement (which was a Bible verse so Homer may attack). No sense in justifying a foolish argument, for that alone would just make me fool as well.

The sewing circle has been busy-busy-busy....

[FoundationEagle 637]

Homer and Ben, you both remind me of a saying. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your impressive experience in debunking something while agreeing with it is an argument fit for a fool.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

*you're

Do you even grammar, bro? ;D/>

Nuance is not your strong suit.

Quotes scripture and calls us idiots out the other side of his mouth. What a silly little hypocrite you are.

You sir are the epitome of classless. I should have not stopped to your low level and entered this argument. You found my weakness (unfounded arrogance built on lies) and I got involved. The whole argument is moot as there is no global warming currently occurring and those that have tied their entire careers to the myth are scrambling to justify how the same issues they claim cause global warming are causing the "pause" in global warming. They are paid ahead of time to come to a certain conclusion and ten justify it (as are most scientists on both sides). I see now why people like WT simply make one sentence comments and stay uninvolved. They have learned not to poke the ape in the cage because it flings poo.

The action of cleaning up the planet is a good and noble one. Using intentionally slanted facts to scare people into doing it, despicable.

Oh, and I'm a hypocrite yet I started in here with a joke and you immediately go on the attack and have been there ever since. Very "Catholic" of you. I guess at least we have one thing in common (though you'll never admit to making a mistake or being a hypocrite). Good day sir

[AUDub 11,147]

FE's post.

My reply

And I'm classy to know better than to use my faith to justify my insults. I rely on your actions for that.

[JoeBags7277 734]

When beachfront property can be had for peanuts, I'll start worrying. The market has no agenda.

[homersapien 11,366]

That's not true. It's no wonder you are confused.

Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO.

From your favorite nutjob site they conclude the solar activity is negligible at best. : http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

So you refute my point by making my case? I don't get it.

You said: "Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO."

I congratulate you for posting from my favorite blogger site on the subject. They do a very good job of explaining the science while clearly providing the references used to do so.

To bad you didn't read it. No wonder you are confused.

And there you go. Even the crazies over at SKS say emphatically that over the last 300 years solar activity has added only .13 degrees. And that is the site run by the cartoonist.

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

Could go on and on. Solar activity is said to be EXTREMELY MINIMAL AT BEST.

The consensus is in...

1. What you said was "Brother, I have been told ad nauseum that solar activity has absolutely zero to do with global warming. I mean ABSOLUTE ZERO." (see above) I was responding to what you said.

2. A contribution of 0.13 degrees is hardly insignificant relative to the size of the total temperature increase. It's 13% of a 1 degree increase for example. So this spinning of what you said compared to the facts is just flat out disingenuous.

3. That John Cook once worked as a cartoonist has (absolutely) nothing to do with the quality of his explanations or - even more importantly - the quality of the research he references. Incidentally, I judge "denier bloggers" by the same standards - the quality of their explanations and sources.

So in summary, I stand by what I wrote. You are being deliberately disingenuous in this exchange or you are confused. I am giving you the benefit of doubt by saying it's the latter.

[homersapien 11,366]

And again, Homer can't argue the science, so he attacks the writer...this time because he is a Christian. The lows around here just keep getting lower. I refer back to my previous statement (which was a Bible verse so Homer may attack). No sense in justifying a foolish argument, for that alone would just make me fool as well.

There was no science to argue. There is no evidence that demonstrates the rises in global warming have been caused by primarily by natural decadal cycles in the Pacific ocean. D'Aleo shows a possible correlation with his model that he claims explains the increase of global warming. But correlation is not cause. The "proof" of his theory - as he himself acknowledges - will be if the earth starts cooling as of right now.

If you think this misrepresents the science, then show me where I am wrong.

As for the religious conviction, do you dispute he said what he said?

If not, do you not see that as a clear motivational bias to demonstrate global warming is natural instead of anthropogenic?

He's just like you. He's made up his mind and is now seeking ways to prove he's right.

[homersapien 11,366]

Homer and Ben, you both remind me of a saying. Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Your impressive experience in debunking something while agreeing with it is an argument fit for a fool.

Proverbs 26:3-12

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools. ...

*you're

Do you even grammar, bro? ;D/>

Nuance is not your strong suit.

Quotes scripture and calls us idiots out the other side of his mouth. What a silly little hypocrite you are.

You sir are the epitome of classless. I should have not stopped to your low level and entered this argument. You found my weakness (unfounded arrogance built on lies) and I got involved. The whole argument is moot as there is no global warming currently occurring and those that have tied their entire careers to the myth are scrambling to justify how the same issues they claim cause global warming are causing the "pause" in global warming.

Climate Myth:

It hasn't warmed since 1998

For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (

Bob Carter

)

No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heatstoring capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Read more at http://www.skeptical...-1998-basic.htm