I understand that it's a productive practice in argument to re-state your opponent's position and making sure everyone agrees on what was said before offering rebuttal. I see none of that here. May be worth a shot.Except the issue here is the denier side doesn't have a position other than the elimination of the scientific evidence. You simply can't have a rational discussion with someone who's total intent is to discredit all the information you present no matter how well it is supported by the evidence. Almost all the peer-reviewed science on the current climate change is in full agreement that it is human caused largely through the burning of fossil fuels and very serious needing immediate mitigation to prevent catastrophic impacts that have already begun. All the "other side" of that argument is, is someone like this thread starter using any means at their disposal to deny this. That is not honest or valid discussion, on the large scale it produces nothing more than this perpetual stalemate that is being implemented for very narrow interests on the part of the fossil fuel lobby. With hugely damaging consequences to people and the the entire biosphere itself... you know, the one none of us can live without.
If climate change denial is informationally an empty set - which is almost certainly is, it’s an intentional denial of the most current and valid information available - then there must be some other message contained in the kind of denial at work in this thread and by the thread starter on a constant basis.
Four people are dead in Florida as a result of the most powerful storm generated in the Atlantic… ever. Almost certainly made possible by the much warmer ocean surface waters that provide the heat that powers hurricane. This in connection to the growing loss of entire ecosystems and the global ecological threat posed by rapidly forcing the climate into a different state at a rate far beyond most species to adapt. Also in connection to the very many human lives that have been lost already to climate change and many, many lives that will be lost in coming years.
So a very strong argument can be made that the intrinsic message of climate change denial is, “death”.
Who would attempt to have a rational discussion with someone who’s only response to any valid information provided is, “DIE, DIE, DIE!”
In the end I think the only result from trying to rationally engage deniers - or more accurately contrarians - is it gives them just one more opportunity to attack the valid science.
Keep in mind the contrarians goal is to not have a rational discussion based on the most well supported data. Any attempt to find common ground on a rational basis is doomed to failure before the discussion has even begun because the moment you present any rational argument the only goal the contrarian has is to distort it in the most irrational way possible.
You have the genuine scientists on the one hand who have gone to incredible lengths measured in centuries to understand natural processes in the most clear way available in an endeavour intended to enlighten and illuminate the world around us. Opposed to those who have done no work at all to investigate nature in an objective way and need not rely on anyone for support of their “work” other than the parties who’s interests run entirely counter to what the best evidence indicates.
Contrarians need not produce any rational results at all, in fact if they do then they will almost certainly lose their financial backing. Think of Rush Limbaugh claiming that the catastrophic hurricanes now pummeling the Caribbean and US south are nothing more than politically motivated hype… before fleeing for his life from this threat he claims doesn’t exist. That is the “rationality” of climate change contrarianism.
That is climate change denial or contrarianism in a nutshell. It requires no support or rationality, just an adherence to message that must not be deviated from or it violates the unwritten code of denial. That the genuine evidence must be denied by any means whatever the cost.
As I’ve said that cost is already four lives that we know about in Florida, 25 in other places and almost certainly more to come from this one climate change linked catastrophic event with a statistical certainty of many, many more to follow in coming decades.
Speaking of the world becoming a very terrifying place.
When America’s boob tube sucking masses totally disregarded physics in favor of jerking off on fringe uncertainties and phony rationalizations.
Remember the great “global warming hiatus” - I sure do.
I’ve been taking endless shit for over a decade because I insist on pointing out that the thought of a hiatus in Earth’s accumulation of heat,
simply because we weren’t seeing it in the surface temperatures simply meant that heat went into the oceans which
after all, contain some 90% of GLOBAL HEAT AND MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION ENGINE.
The missing heat was sure to be found in the ocean, which is an exceedingly difficult place to measure.
Why, because atmospheric physics doesn’t turn on and off!
Trenberth’s Travesty was malicious redefined as meaning there’s a travesty with the ‘global warming theory’
when Trenberth’s Travesty was his frustrated plea that scientists needed to do a better job of accounting for ocean heat content.
Well the scientists have continued working on that problem and lookie what I just came across.
Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham and Jiang Zhu Science Advances 10 Mar 2017: Vol. 3, no. 3, e1601545 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601545 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.full Abstract Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error. We performed a subsample test, in which subsets of data during the data-rich Argo era are colocated with locations of earlier ocean observations, to quantify this error. Our results provide a new OHC estimate with an unbiased mean sampling error and with variability on decadal and multidecadal time scales (signal) that can be reliably distinguished from sampling error (noise) with signal-to-noise ratios higher than 3. The inferred integrated EEI is greater than that reported in previous assessments and is consistent with a reconstruction of the radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere starting in 1985. We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.All this should come a no surprise to anyone who has the slightest serious understanding of our climate engine operates. As for the dunderheads who insist their wishful denials and contrivances deserve to be taken seriously - it's the physics Mikie !!!!!!!!! I told you so :long:
What a surprise! Coming from the person who is one of the main physics denier posting here. And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. Curry for trying to push all physics and not limiting it to CO2 physics alone on the Global Warming picture.
Wasn’t it the warming oceans that were blamed for the heat wave of 1934?
Your posting link was about improved data. Just what the computer models are requesting.
CC, be careful with getting into this type of data. You just might in up looking at Lags. A place you have refused to go to in the past. And if this is part of the lags. Fact CO2 follow the heat by 600 to 1,000 years.
The hypothesis is, that on geological time scales air temperature changes are causing the subsequent changes in CO2 concentration.
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
This sort of covers where the CO2 controlling global temperature data being debated is at today.
The problem is three fold especially, in the U.S. The first two are power and money and they are one in the same. The third is that those with the first two apparently don't give a damn about the future. Now if money and power doesn't care about the future and if it is because they don't hold a religious belief about an after life, maybe that could be a good thing but so far not so much. Not caring enough about trying to stop the heat wave is essentially condemning our children and grand children. We may not be able to out spend money and power but we can sure as hell out vote them unless we too don't care about our children or grand children. There is simply no future in JUST LIVING FOR YODAY.Canadian Minister of the Environment says, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Not what I wanted to hear. Nope, you don't want to hear anout any f-----g justice and equality. That's obvious. L
Climate change deniers follow a pattern of; 1. Climate change is not occurring, in fact the Earth may be cooling.Two items here. Item one. Climate change is human effects on weather. I agree that the humans have been effecting the weather. Item two. The Earth may be cooling. According to the earth’s warming and cooling cycles, the earth has just left the intermediate Holocene stage and we are now in the cooling cycle. As the earth cools the weather can continual to warm do to the lags that can last from two hundred and up to eight hundred years. We are to expect warm weather for the next two to three hundred years due to this lag. This has nothing or does not take in climate change. This is just the standard natural cycle as seen in the ice cores.
2. Climate is changing but it's a natural process that has nothing to do with human activity like emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide a year through fossil fuel use.Of course, the human activity has effects the climate. But there is a difference between being a realist and an alarmist. There are alarmist in science just like there are alarmist in religion. The common factor is - the world is ending. I am not an alarmist.
3. Climate change is caused by us but it's not serious.As a realist, before I scream the world is ending, I would like to have the science to back it up. And I am now understanding your viewpoint. Just like the religious doomsayer that claiming with world will end next year. Anyone who does not believe the same as him is a nonconformist in his thinking. In your case as an alarmist they are a denier. Because the ambiguity of the word “serious". Your statement is very cryptic.
4. Climate change is serious but there's nothing we can do about it so let's not change anything - which means let's not stop burning billions of tons of fossil fuel a year because that will negatively impact the wealth of billionaires.Yes, I am a realist. I will not throw the baby out with the bathwater, just to get rid of the bathwater. Do you think that I am a member of a secret organization to help the billionaires stay rich? Maybe the Republican Party? Surprise, Forbes claims the Democrats have more billionaire backers than the Republicans. Good chance you are. LL
And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. CurryDegrade, that's your term. I listed big problems with their presentations, which consists of an awful lot of misrepresentations. I've done my best to explain in a constructive manner that invites constructive responses - I've invited you to correct any errors you think I've made, with substantive information not the opinionated handwaving you do so well. I notice you have not been able to offer anything substantive in defense of Curry's character
Judith Curry illustrates how to ask a stupid question that receives an equally stupid response! Harvey’s global warming connection http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19547/#235829
poi
You literally ignore everything I share.
Right over your head it flew.
Too quick with the snappy comeback to think about what’s being shared.
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/ This sort of covers where the CO2 controlling global temperature data being debated is at today.So what? With no mention of ocean heat content, which is after all 90% of our global climate systems heat, can't be that state of the understanding. I'm just a layperson, but reads like a lazy numbers crunching effort, a study for the sake of producing a study rather than adding any sort of insight. Playing mop-up with records and statistics isn't going to help anyone understand what our global heat and moisture distribution is all about. Probably nothing is wrong in it, but at the same time it doesn't seem to add anything of much interest to our understanding. But that's me. Please explain what you think you see in it, that I'm missing. Did you notice the part
The values in Table 1 clearly confirm that the total greenhouse gases (GHG), especially the CO2, are the main drivers of the changing global surface air temperature. The radiative forcing caused by aerosols and aerosol-cloud interactions is also important, but significantly smaller (0.2 vs. 0.3 nat/ut). Neither solar irradiance nor volcanic forcing contributes in a significant manner to the long-term GMTA evolution.=================================================================== Now how about the main course? A clear explanation to why surface temperature rise was subdued during the first decade of the millennium. The ocean was sucking up more than usual, for a while, then it swung back, but always within an overall warming system. That's how it works, the wave pattern gets reflected in everything. And there was no such thing as a global warming hiatus, it was all a heat transport question. That concept that Mike simply won't allow himself to grasp. It's not that tough a concept.
Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham and Jiang Zhu Science Advances 10 Mar 2017: Vol. 3, no. 3, e1601545 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601545 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.fullAbstract Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error. We performed a subsample test, in which subsets of data during the data-rich Argo era are colocated with locations of earlier ocean observations, to quantify this error. Our results provide a new OHC estimate with an unbiased mean sampling error and with variability on decadal and multidecadal time scales (signal) that can be reliably distinguished from sampling error (noise) with signal-to-noise ratios higher than 3. The inferred integrated EEI is greater than that reported in previous assessments and is consistent with a reconstruction of the radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere starting in 1985. We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.
None of you noticed he emphasized CREDITABILITY.... Really??? That's what science needs CREDITABILITY; uhh the ability to use credit??? It's CREDIBILITY!!! Almost none of you actually read anyone else's post. Let alone the articles posted. That has been the most significant trend I have seen on this forum. If you read the OP and took a few minutes to reflect on it, you might come to the inevitable conclusion that he is a moron. Why are we always trying to convince people who lack the level if comprehension required to process such concepts? Hell, why are we trying to explain something that we don't fully understand ourselves? Unless you hold a PhD in an field associated with climate change, you have no business attempting to portray the role of spokesperson.Sorry for you making your life ruff on understanding the misspelling of a word. I am sure that must have hurt you. I would take more time in reviewing my grammar, but your check has not arrived. So, deal with it. I was trained on the American phonic alphabet to spell words the way they sound. There are no vowels or double consonants in that phonic alphabet. I have tried everything thinkable to pick up our alphabet with no luck. Maybe if we had computers and the internet and could have debated the good points of the American phonic alphabet, such as no illiteracy, years ago. Then today you would be using the phonic alphabet. Using the phonic alphabet would cut one year off schooling. Spelling bees would be impossible. The alphabet also has speed and volume which makes reading much more enjoyable. I have spell check and grammar on the computer. But words are still going to get by that are incorrect. It isn’t that others on the site did not notice the misspelling. Most likely they are aware of my spelling mistakes. And for needing a PhD to debate a subject. There has only been one president with a PhD, Woodrow Wilson back in 1913. When it comes to money, you don’t even need an education or to speak the same language to understand money. And Trump slowing the flow of money is helping the science by letting it rebalance the political powers involved. Funny that I was trained in the American phonetic alphabet, but I also learned to spell. People make more mistakes using spell check than they would if they knew how to spell. For one thing, spell-check can't tell the difference between a misspelled word and a correctly spelled word if the misspelled word is also a legitimate word. If you're not careful spell-check can insert the wrong word when it finds a misspelling.
And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. CurryDegrade, that's your term. I listed big problems with their presentations, which consists of an awful lot of misrepresentations. I've done my best to explain in a constructive manner that invites constructive responses - I've invited you to correct any errors you think I've made, with substantive information not the opinionated handwaving you do so well. I notice you have not been able to offer anything substantive in defense of Curry's character
Judith Curry illustrates how to ask a stupid question that receives an equally stupid response! Harvey’s global warming connection http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19547/#235829Why would I want to get into a debate that you will never back up with any numbers? I know that Dr. Curry is referring to the earth’s natural thermostat and how the Atlantic Multidecadal & the Pacific Decadal Oscillations cycles coincide with the hurricane cycles and the sea surface temperatures. She has been talking about how the hurricane cycles are matching some of the sun’s cycles. The people working with sun data and the many simultaneous cycles of the sun and earth combined predicted that this year we should come out of the low that we’ve had with hurricanes and start have major hurricanes and large ones. Guess what, they were right. Is that of any value to you? No, you decide to bad mouth them without even understanding what has taken place. Then you try and connect the climate change as the driving force of hurricanes that does nothing but confuse the public. As you are now stating that 90% of the heat is stored in the oceans, I would think that what Dr. Curry is working on would be of interest to you. Dr. Curry pushed the AMO theories hard in 2015. The US NOAA and the UK Met are now fully aware of the AMO and PDO’s and research is taking place. What are the real questions that need to be answered today? It is understood that CO2 is the main heat retainer of earth. And it is understood that the earth has a thermostat that controls the heat on earth. In 2010, consensus science agreed that Atmospheric CO2 was the principal control knob governing the earth’s temperature due to the data from one computer model. As more research of the layers of the atmospheric CO2 were analyzed a problem came up. The CO2 in the upper atmosphere was not doing what the consensus science said it was doing. Therefore, it is obvious that another principal control knob was controlling the CO2 levels. In 2011 water vapor was leading the pack as the control knob. The leading contender today is a theory first proposed in 1981, but failed to get the consensual science approval. It is called “weathering". It is quite simple. When there is a warmer climate, there is more weathering, and when it is cooler there is less weathering: this is what you would expect, given that chemical reactions go faster with increasing temperature. So, more weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts a break on global warming.
Funny that I was trained in the American phonetic alphabet, but I also learned to spell. People make more mistakes using spell check than they would if they knew how to spell. For one thing, spell-check can't tell the difference between a misspelled word and a correctly spelled word if the misspelled word is also a legitimate word. If you're not careful spell-check can insert the wrong word when it finds a misspelling.Yes, I agree. It happens all the time with me. There are no double consonants. And does not have the letter “q". There are 107 letters in the international phonetic alphabet. The American phonetic alphabet also called the English phonetic alphabet had less letters because we don’t use all the sounds here that are used around the world. http://www.evertype.com/books/alice-en-fonipa.html
poi Now how about the main course? A clear explanation to why surface temperature rise was subdued during the first decade of the millennium. The ocean was sucking up more than usual, for a while, then it swung back, but always within an overall warming system. That's how it works, the wave pattern gets reflected in everything. And there was no such thing as a global warming hiatus, it was all a heat transport question. That concept that Mike simply won't allow himself to grasp. It's not that tough a concept.I understand what you are pointing out. Again thank Dr. Curry for pushing these ideas years ago. Yes, the heat is stored in the ocean. But, how all that works we are not totally sure of right now. The overall surface temperature worldwide is only varying by one-degree Fahrenheit between the high and lows. The models just ran some tests using the ocean reading and not using the ocean readings, but using an average for the ocean temperature. The models found no difference. This is a setback for the solar theory guys with solar being the control knob if my layman understanding is correct.Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015 Lijing Cheng, Kevin E. Trenberth, John Fasullo, Tim Boyer, John Abraham and Jiang Zhu Science Advances 10 Mar 2017: Vol. 3, no. 3, e1601545 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601545 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545.fullAbstract Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error. We performed a subsample test, in which subsets of data during the data-rich Argo era are colocated with locations of earlier ocean observations, to quantify this error. Our results provide a new OHC estimate with an unbiased mean sampling error and with variability on decadal and multidecadal time scales (signal) that can be reliably distinguished from sampling error (noise) with signal-to-noise ratios higher than 3. The inferred integrated EEI is greater than that reported in previous assessments and is consistent with a reconstruction of the radiative imbalance at the top of atmosphere starting in 1985. We found that changes in OHC are relatively small before about 1980; since then, OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal time scales. All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean. This new look at OHC and EEI changes over time provides greater confidence than previously possible, and the data sets produced are a valuable resource for further study.
fuk off
Mikie, While your playing jerk off games this is going on in the real world.
More Climate Change Collateral Damage: Hurricane Maria Takes Out Dominica https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4PhBC1KkPU posted just a few hours agoiuy But it's all some esoteric joke to your kind. You make me want to puke.
September 18, 2017 #D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27) “No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation" (8/31/2017 - Investor's Business Daily at investors.com) Written by someone unwilling to put their name on this libelous cowardly act of defamation. I have no idea who's behind Investor's Business Daily or this editorial, but I know fraud and libel when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of calumny crossing over into what seems to me felonious criminal vandalism on Professor Mann’s professional reputation - not to mention the public's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning! To spell out my case I will be quoting the entire editorial (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order. Though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention 15 to 27 (with the last four paragraphs to go), http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.htmlYeah laugh, I know it's pissing in the wind, still the show is going to get interesting, we strapped ourselves into this ride and most you clowns apparently really don't see what's coming.
And degrades people like Dr. Moon and Dr. CurryDegrade, that's your term. I listed big problems with their presentations, which consists of an awful lot of misrepresentations. I've done my best to explain in a constructive manner that invites constructive responses - I've invited you to correct any errors you think I've made, with substantive information not the opinionated handwaving you do so well. I notice you have not been able to offer anything substantive in defense of Curry's character
Judith Curry illustrates how to ask a stupid question that receives an equally stupid response! Harvey’s global warming connection http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19547/#235829Are you a scientist? How do you know there is problems with her presentations? Or any misrepresentations? What you have shown me so far is that you are the one who takes her data and twists it to your goals. Why don’t you admit it, when you all were claiming a 20-foot sea level rise by 2020 that you hated her because she disagreed. Better do a rain dance, you need 20 more feet to make your goal, and 2020 is getting closer. I have offered several times now to clear up the debate by listing all the agreements and disagreements that we both have with Global Warming and Climate Change. Then go over them one at a time from a list. There is no way a debate can work with data dumps or throwing five or six issues into one posting along with a bunch of name calling. What I see Dr. Curry doing is helping move the computer models forward. You got your group that works with consensual science. If 8 out of 10 scientists agree that the sea level will rise twenty feet in twenty years. Then to you it is written in stone. Dr. Curry comes along and say, you may be scientists, but not climate scientists and your facts are wrong because you refuse to look at all the subjects that are contributors to the weather. Nobody wants their government money shut off, so they attack Dr. Curry. As an alarmist, you promote consensual science and trash Dr. Curry. Dr. Curry by questioning all the contributors to weather has opened debates that have moved money and opened doors wider for the scientists. The solar is a good example. Right now, it is clouds. The issue of clouds was put to bed a long time ago. Today there is a lot of science and money being spent on understanding clouds. And it is now realized this work needs to be done if the computer models are going to work correctly.
fuk offYou said you wanted to go to the main course, but you’re not ready yet. Ok we will water it down. Your posting is about two guys from China that review past US science data. They disagree with the methods used and redid the data using a different math method and looked at the data from different water depths. And bingo you have different results. Take the two China guys out of the picture and you got nothing. The numbers they came up with were minor changes, nothing major. But when use in scale of the oceans, a small change can end up with big results. Expect to see a lot more of these data cleanups on old data sets. China is trying to get their computer models working and they know they need good data. Good data makes higher confidence levels. I look at the article when it first came out. I was trying to get a feeling if China, a late comer in weather science was going to try and take the spot light and become the world leader in the field. The most powerful computers in the world are now made in China. They have the structure and the scientists. Being the world leader in Climate Change would be a big move on how the world would look at China. To get good results from the computer models you first must calibrate the models. The better data the better the calibration. While the US is doing reports on sex habits of ground squirrels do to climate change. Or put another way, chasing the mountain of money. China may be gearing up to take the lead.
If you didn’t know Mike’s history, this thread would be hard to follow. If you started at the end, you might be compelled to go back over the thread and try to find evidence for the accusations he makes, that CC doesn’t give data, that CC is unwilling to engage in debate, that clouds are the issue, that money is the issue. But you’d never find any of that. You would find him saying that he has given evidence, but not the actual evidence.
Mikie, While your playing jerk off games this is going on in the real world.Video claims. Abrupt climate change. Going to kill 70,000 people in Dominica. Winds of 170mph, gusts to 200mph. Tip of the iceberg. Countries spend 5T to subsidize the oil industry. Hurricane Maria. What’s your problem? Dr. Curry predicted that we should be entering a period of more powerful hurricanes. She was correct. It is obvious when you start attacking people that you really don’t have anything but hate for science.More Climate Change Collateral Damage: Hurricane Maria Takes Out Dominica https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4PhBC1KkPU posted just a few hours agoiuy But it's all some esoteric joke to your kind. You make me want to puke.
All I see here is that you are testing the waters to see if this hurricane season is going to give you a flag to wave. New people to degrade and confuse with alarmist predictions. You are blaming all this weather on Global Warming. Global Warming is Mother Nature except for ?????% of climate change? 25 to 50% has been claimed, with no proof to back it up. But no real solid figures yet. You alarmist have yet to have one prediction come true with any back up science.September 18, 2017 #D) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (15-27) “No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation" (8/31/2017 - Investor's Business Daily at investors.com) Written by someone unwilling to put their name on this libelous cowardly act of defamation. I have no idea who's behind Investor's Business Daily or this editorial, but I know fraud and libel when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of calumny crossing over into what seems to me felonious criminal vandalism on Professor Mann’s professional reputation - not to mention the public's right and need to honestly hear about what climate scientists are learning! To spell out my case I will be quoting the entire editorial (nothing left out, nothing added) talking point by talking point, in chronological order. Though broken down into bite-sized chunks, here we examine Points of Contention 15 to 27 (with the last four paragraphs to go), http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/09/d-investorscom-fraud-libel-mann.htmlYeah laugh, I know it's pissing in the wind, still the show is going to get interesting, we strapped ourselves into this ride and most you clowns apparently really don't see what's coming.