Climate Hoax

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

They call it climate change because it's a lot more than just warming. It's accompanied by other climate-related changes such as frequency and magnitude of storm events and higher or lower overall precip, depending upon location. Some areas also see more warming than others (eg areas closer to the poles). 

There's also PLENTY of data, spacially and temporally, so the " variability" has no bearing on the overall warming trend observed. 

Yes, every PhD climatologist says that earth is warming overall, and due to fossil fuels. It's because ALL the data easily demonstrates that. EASILY. Not because of a grand funding conspiracy. 

Remember when the ozone was going to fold the whole planet in 1985.   Good times.  

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Remember when the ozone was going to fold the whole planet in 1985.   Good times.  

Yah, and they banned CFCs (which were causing a lot of the ozone issues) through the Montreal Protocol. This reversed the process. 

What's your point? 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

Yah, and they banned CFCs (which were causing a lot of the ozone issues) through the Montreal Protocol. This reversed the process. 

What's your point? 

I thought in the early 1970s the world was going to be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000 and we would run out of crude oil ?

[ionel]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Remember when the ozone was going to fold the whole planet in 1985.   Good times.  

Ahh ... pretty sure that all started before 85, I wrote a HS speech on that subject for forensics.  But maybe the planet was to be doomed by 85, i had moved on to other things. 

[red viking]

21 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I thought in the early 1970s the world was going to be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000 and we would run out of crude oil ?

How many said that, and how does that mean that EVERY climatologist is wrong on this particular issue? You're going back 50 years. Pathetic. Can u also show me one scientist that made those claims? 

It's literally almost as obvious as the sky being blue. 

Unreal. 

[Caveira]

16 minutes ago, red viking said:

Can u also show me one scientist that made those claims? 

Yes I could.   He presented this to congress.  Kenneth Watt

Edited Wednesday at 01:22 AM by Caveira

[red viking]

31 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Yes I could.   He presented this to congress.  Kenneth Watt

Show me

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

Show me

His name is Kenneth watt.   You said name one.  I’m confused at your request.  ?

Edited Wednesday at 01:45 AM by Caveira

[red viking]

35 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Yes I could.   He presented this to congress.  Kenneth Watt

You talking about thus? From an article: 

"In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience: "The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

You talking about thus? From an article: 

"In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience: "The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

You tell me ?

[red viking]

Just now, Caveira said:

His name is Kenneth watt 

First, he was an ecologist, not climatologist. Second, he said "if present trends continue..." which makes it a completely different claim. Third, he was an outlier even if he was making that claim (which he wasnt). 

YOURE A TOTAL LIAR AND BUSTED. Has zero relevancy to anthropogenic climate change, which is unanimously accepted by actual climatologists.  

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

First, he was an ecologist, not climatologist. Second, he said "if present trends continue..." which makes it a completely different claim. Third, he was an outlier even if he was making that claim (which he wasnt). 

YOURE A TOTAL LIAR AND BUSTED. Has zero relevancy to anthropogenic climate change, which is unanimously accepted by actual climatologists.  

You asked.  And I’ll quote.  Do you mix up your genres of science or are you just overly argumentative?  
 

is congress dumb for letting him present to them?

your actual quote below:

“Can u also show me one scientist that made those claims?”

Edited Wednesday at 01:53 AM by Caveira

[red viking]

Just now, Caveira said:

You asked.  And I’ll quote.  Do you mix up your genres of science or are you just overly argumentative?  
 

is congress dumb for letting him present to them?
 

“Can u also show me one scientist that made those claims?”

The statement "if present trends continue" makes it completely different. 

Today was 5 degrees cooler than yesterday. If present trends continue well be below freezing in 10 days. True, technically, but the context makes it somewhat worthless.   

Doesn't mean much. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that means that it WILL happen. 

[JimmySpeaks]

12 minutes ago, red viking said:

First, he was an ecologist, not climatologist. Second, he said "if present trends continue..." which makes it a completely different claim. Third, he was an outlier even if he was making that claim (which he wasnt). 

YOURE A TOTAL LIAR AND BUSTED. Has zero relevancy to anthropogenic climate change, which is unanimously accepted by actual climatologists.  

You asked for one scientist.   He gave you one.  

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You asked for one scientist.   He gave you one.  

One who presented to congress.  

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, Caveira said:

One who presented to congress.  

That clown is always so cocksure yet wrong more than anyone on here.   Then his backpedaling is one giant ***I'm not very creative and act like a 5 year old***. 

[ionel]

42 minutes ago, red viking said:

First, he was an ecologist, not climatologist. Second, he said "if present trends continue..." which makes it a completely different claim. Third, he was an outlier even if he was making that claim (which he wasnt). 

 

But 4th you don't have a PhD in ecology, climatology or statistics correct? 

[red viking]

8 hours ago, ionel said:

But 4th you don't have a PhD in ecology, climatology or statistics correct? 

Masters in Geology. Yes, I'm a scientist but not close to being an authority on climate. 

Regardless, the words "if present trends continue" that he provided makes your own claim a total lie. 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Masters in Geology. Yes, I'm a scientist but not close to being an authority on climate. 

Regardless, the words "if present trends continue" that he provided makes your own claim a total lie. 

Modern day Randy marsh?

[ionel]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Masters in Geology. Yes, I'm a scientist but not close to being an authority on climate. 

Regardless, the words "if present trends continue" that he provided makes your own claim a total lie. 

so ... NO.

[red viking]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

so ... NO.

But you lied. He didn't say the earth would cool by that amount. Liar!!!

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

But you lied. He didn't say the earth would cool by that amount. Liar!!!

You sure about that?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2000-05-02/html/CREC-2000-05-02-pt1-PgH2346-2.htm

Edited Wednesday at 02:30 PM by Caveira

[red viking]

35 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You sure about that?

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2000-05-02/html/CREC-2000-05-02-pt1-PgH2346-2.htm

Yes. He said, "if present trends continue..." That's very different from saying it will either way

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Yes. He said, "if present trends continue..." That's very different from saying it will either way

How would you know.   You’re a geologist.  Stay in your lane.  
 

are the Maldives completely under water yet?  It was predicted in 1988 they would be within 30 years?

Edited Wednesday at 03:09 PM by Caveira

[red viking]

17 minutes ago, Caveira said:

How would you know.   You’re a geologist.  Stay in your lane.  
 

are the Maldives completely under water yet?  It was predicted in 1988 they would be within 30 years?

Its very different to anybody w very basic math, logic or science background. For example, today was 5 degrees cooler than yesterday. If present trends continue well be below freezing in 10 days. True, technically, but can you see how that is very different from simply saying it will be beloelw freezing in 10 days? It's very basic.