Reply With Quote
can someone translate?
link embedded in image:
LOL
Nature still shows us that it rules the weather change. Not man.The best 64 golfers in the world got together for the first time this season and a snow fight broke out.
can someone translate?
. I thought we were done with the old AGW is a myth based on individual weather events.
"Nature still shows us that it rules the weather change. Not man."
... parrots the Koch-sucker shill
The misspelling in the thread le just underscores the stupidity of this fail trolling.
I'm still a luke-warmer on this issue. Yes, the temp has increased about 1 degree since my great grandfather was born. And, yes, humans have probably contributed some fraction to that 1 degree.
Just not enough of an issue to get excited about.
Another climate scientist like WC piles on the ignorance:
Pat Robertson: Only ‘nutty’ Ph.D.s believe climate change causes more blizzards
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/2...e+Raw+Story%29
As a geologist and someone who's salary is based on oil, I have to say global warming is a reasonable, yet unavoidable threat.
Also WC, stop being an ass. Global warming contributes to erratic weather behavior, so if anything this thread justifies the argument for global warming. But you wouldn't know that because Fox News doesn't share that sort of information...
I never said blizzards are not a part of climate change.
You alarmists, who blame CO2, need to start studying the what the UV spectrum of the sun does, and how it changes the circulation between the troposphere and stratosphere.
The newest solar monitoring satellite up there takes very good quality measurement of the UV spectra, like no other satellite before did. It is changing how scientists think about climate.
Yes, but what about when you separate natural climate change and anthropogenic (man made) warming?
Show us your math on the subject. Looking forward to it. Wait wait, no I'm not.
Now there is a change.
You are not disagreeing with me about UV changes and the mixing.
My point of the thread is that CO2 is not causing all this "climate change."
Dumbass still thinks that NASA doesn't consider the changes that they discovered.
A fast climate change would occur over thousands of years, it's pretty coincidental that a rapid increase in greenhouse gases developed right after the industrial revolution.
Did Obama get the memo?
There was also a permanent long term average change of solar energy that slowly increased between about 1900 and about 1950.
CO2 gas is an output of industrialization. CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed by the AGW alarmist crowd.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-22-2013 at 11:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link
And another wiki graph brought to you by the local idiot.
That is not a wiki graph you ing moron. It is from NASA. I verified it before the first time I used it years ago. I would have embedded the link, but I get an error message.
broken link: Solar forcing used in NASA GISS
OK, I found another NASA/GISS link with it, just to prove the ing moron wrong.
link embedded in pic:
Fuzzy thinks he's a genius because he can talk out his ass.
LOL
Wake up, freak out and then get a grip
What a stupid video. Completely biased and unreal.
The link was
http://upload. wikimedia .org/ wikipedia /commons/1/17/Solar_Forcing_GISS_model.gif
And of course you vetted it first just like you knoew it was the currant and all of the typical bull you try and pass off. No one buys it.
And it's sad that you took 3 posts to come up with that dig.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
