Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we know how much

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#60f7f1067ac8

 

And your point is....?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

49 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And your point is....?

Read it and you'll figure it out.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

California Governor: “In Less than Five Years, Even the Worst Skeptics Will Be Believers”

Like I said before, reality will be the ultimate arbiter.  We'll see if this is yet another alarmist prediction unlikely to come to fruition or not.  Could very well be the opposite effect. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

California Governor: “In Less than Five Years, Even the Worst Skeptics Will Be Believers”

Like I said before, reality will be the ultimate arbiter.  We'll see if this is yet another alarmist prediction unlikely to come to fruition or not.  Could very well be the opposite effect. 

Having lived in CA I wouldn't not bet a penny on anything Brown predicts. The fact he keeps getting elected say wonders about CA.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

Having lived in CA I wouldn't not bet a penny on anything Brown predicts. The fact he keeps getting elected say wonders about CA.

Good ole Moonbeam...In 5 years, maybe even the most ardent believers will become skeptics....We'll just have to see. 

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Read it and you'll figure it out.

  YOU make the case for whatever the case is.  Not my job.

Meanwhile, I'll just assume it's BS.  (A pretty safe assumption.)

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

California Governor: “In Less than Five Years, Even the Worst Skeptics Will Be Believers”

Like I said before, reality will be the ultimate arbiter.  We'll see if this is yet another alarmist prediction unlikely to come to fruition or not.  Could very well be the opposite effect. 

Well, you got that right. But "reality has arrived".

I don't understand what you mean by the "opposite effect".  Can you please clarify?

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Having lived in CA I wouldn't not bet a penny on anything Brown predicts. The fact he keeps getting elected say wonders about CA.

Brown is a politician, not a scientist.  But - unlike modern Republicans - he listens to scientists.

And California has defined the future popular culture of America for about a half century. God bless 'em. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

  YOU make the case for whatever the case is.  Not my job.

Meanwhile, I'll just assume it's BS.  (A pretty safe assumption.)

By that logic, your previous post is BS.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Just now, homersapien said:

Brown is a politician, not a scientist.  But - unlike modern Republicans - he listens to scientists.

We do, but acknowledge all scientists, not just the ones we agree with.  Only the political science is settled. Real science still has work to do. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't understand what you mean by the "opposite effect"

In 5 years, maybe even the most ardent believers will become skeptics...the opposite effect.

[homersapien 11,393]

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

By that logic, your previous post is BS.

Not at all.

I presented the links along with their essential arguments. .  And I am willing to defend any of those particular arguments.

You merely presented an internet link.   It's not our job to organize and make your point from that cite.  Do your own work.  

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

In 5 years, maybe even the most ardent believers will become skeptics...the opposite effect.

So, you think global waming will reverse itself in 5 years? 

Got any data or theory to support that?

[homersapien 11,393]

17 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

We do, but acknowledge all scientists, not just the ones we agree with.  Only the political science is settled. Real science still has work to do. 

In other words, you acknowledge a few crackpots who are profiting from the denier industry. 

Name the most presitgious "scientist" on the side of denial.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Not at all.

I presented the links along with their essential arguments. .  And I am willing to defend any of those particular arguments.

You merely presented an internet link.   It's not our job to organize and make your point from that cite.  Do your own work.  

No, you just posted a link, then copy/pasted some body from the link into your message.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201108/climate-change-denial

Climate Change Denial

Why don’t politicians recognize that humans cause global warming?

 

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Just now, homersapien said:

In other words, you acknowledge a few crackpots who are profiting from the denier industry. 

Name the most presitgious "scientist" on the side of denial.

There is no side of "denial".  That is an idiotic reference to the Holocaust by the alarmist crowd. You really should read the link I sent. 

I guess you also acknowledge the vast amounts of government funding for the last several decades for one side of the equation, and only one side of the equation. 

[homersapien 11,393]

4 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, you just posted a link, then copy/pasted some body from the link into your message.

 

Exactly. 

But, how is that different from: "I presented the links along with their essential arguments"?   . 

[homersapien 11,393]

15 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

There is no side of "denial".  That is an idiotic reference to the Holocaust by the alarmist crowd. You really should read the link I sent. 

I guess you also acknowledge the vast amounts of government funding for the last several decades for one side of the equation, and only one side of the equation. 

Draw the line where you want, but denial is denial. If you want to make a more nuanced argument then make it.  So name a prominent scientist on your side of denial, wherever you choose to draw it.

And the government provides "vast amounts of funding" for ALL basic science research, thank goodness! (No one else will do it.)  So thats a red herring.  

[johnnyAU 3,634]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, you think global waming will reverse itself in 5 years? 

Got any data or theory to support that?

Reverse itself? No. It's cyclic. I believe natural variations due to solar, lunar and oceanic cycles will cause cooling over the next 5-15 years.  Suggestions that a cooling trend should be noticeable from around 2020ish to 2035ish, maybe longer.  You might find some of the recent work on solar physics by Valentina Zharkova fairly interesting. 

If this cooling does in fact not occur, then I think you'll see some of the skeptic community consider a paradigm change. However, if this does actually take place, you'll see the opposite happen. 

Like I said, reality will be the judge of which scenario plays out. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

We do, but acknowledge all scientists, not just the ones we agree with.  Only the political science is settled. Real science still has work to do. 

And some scientists have gov't grants and will produce results to satisfy their customer and keep the money coming.

[homersapien 11,393]

9 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

And some scientists have gov't grants and will produce results to satisfy their customer and keep the money coming.

But of course.   The US government is a secret collaborator with the Chinese in the AGW hoax. 

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Reverse itself? No. It's cyclic. I believe natural variations due to solar, lunar and oceanic cycles will cause cooling over the next 5-15 years.  Suggestions that a cooling trend should be noticeable from around 2020ish to 2035ish, maybe longer.  You might find some of the recent work on solar physics by Valentina Zharkova fairly interesting. 

If this cooling does in fact not occur, then I think you'll see some of the skeptic community consider a paradigm change. However, if this does actually take place, you'll see the opposite happen. 

Like I said, reality will be the judge of which scenario plays out. 

Well, no offense, but I'd bet on the consensus of the global scientific community and the data record instead of what you might "believe".

[johnnyAU 3,634]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, no offense, but I'd bet on the consensus of the global scientific community and the data record instead of what you might "believe".

The mythical consensus? The old argumentum ad poplum? Go ahead. Good thing you weren't around during the days of Galileo and Copernicus, or during the Eugenics Theory or bet all your savings on stress and spicy food being the cause of stomach ulcers.  You can continue "believing" in the narrative if you wish. 

I'd recommend keeping your winter coats though. Look like it's continuing to be a nice cold November. You can thank me later.

That arctic ocean looks a little cool to me too.

[homersapien 11,393]

8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The mythical consensus? The old argumentum ad poplum? Go ahead. Good thing you weren't around during the days of Galileo and Copernicus, or during the Eugenics Theory or bet all your savings on stress and spicy food being the cause of stomach ulcers.  You can continue "believing" in the narrative if you wish. 

I'd recommend keeping your winter coats though. Look like it's continuing to be a nice cold November. You can thank me later.

That arctic ocean looks a little cool to me too.

The consensus is not mythical, and it's virtually unanimous.

You are a denier.  Own it.

PS: The weather is always colder in winter.  That doesn't change the fact that the last four hottest years on record are 2016, 2015, 2017 and 2014.

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]