Its in the title and the youtube vid he posted. Nuance escapes you, we know that already.Where did he imply that? He didn't. You are just making stuff up again. You denialists seem to do that a lot.
And the hottest year Evah in 4.5 billion years!!!!
Utah's Great Salt Lake Expected to Hit Record Low Levels Again This Year (PHOTOS) | The Weather Channel
Great Salt Lake has dropped 11 feet since it was first measured in the 1800s. This year, it is expected to drop another 2 feet. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.comweather.com
More human remains found at drought-stricken Lake Mead
The grim discovery comes a week after the body of a homicide victim was discovered in a barrel at the Nevada lakenews.yahoo.com
No exaggeration: Record lows at Lake Powell and Lake Mead call for drastic action
Lake Powell's elevation requires immediate protective actions. Everyone will be asked to conserve to delay or reduce further mandatory reductions.news.yahoo.com
Louisiana farmers can apply for drought loans
Louisiana farmers can apply for drought loansnews.yahoo.com
Massive New Mexico wildfire continues to spread rapidly, force evacuations
Evacuations are underway in northern New Mexico and many other communities have been told to be ready to flee at a moment's notice as a massive wildfire continues to spread thanks to hot, dry and windy conditions across the Southwest. The Calf Canyon and Hermits Peak fires are currently torching...news.yahoo.com
New Mexico wildfires captured in NASA satellite image
A satellite image released by NASA's Earth Observatory captured an aerial view of New Mexico's raging wildfires. The fires have been driven by windy and dry conditions, scorching grass, brush and tinder.news.yahoo.com
Graphic: Dramatic glacier melt – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Now you see it, now you don't - Climate 365 graphicclimate.nasa.gov
Us...
Yes, could be triggered by AGW. And that is far different than the stupid shit others around here were insinuating when they pointed out that there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants back hundreds of years ago. Just because there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants back then doesn't mean that SUVs and coal-fired power plants can't be helping to cause droughts now. And that is what the quoted part of the study I cited is basically saying.It said what you already quoted,
i.e. it did not single out an AGW as the cause of the recent drought, but showed a re occurring patter,
that could be triggered by AGW.
And here we go again with the typical LoP double standard. Those words are only bad when scientists use them. But if you use them... then no problem.IF..... Plausible....
You still don't understand words. Dammit. How many times must I remind you "words have meaning?" You seem to be taking that statement as fact, that we are wrong.
When is the last time you opened up a dictionary?
Nope!! You are wrong yet again LoP. "Poisoning of the well" is done in advance of what you might say. And I have not said anything about what you might say or anything about the sources you might use in this thread.It's that the "poisoning of the well" fallacy?
You love your logical fallacies, don't you?
Whatever dude. I am done with your completely idiotic remarks that prove that you don't even understand the facts and what is being argued.Thats exactly what is being implied by the OP, so too bad for you.
First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.Just so we’re clear on what we’re supposed to be talking about in this thread - we’re talking about man-made reservoirs that were built so people could plant non-deciduous faunas that are gluttons for water in the middle of a natural desert. And the expectation is what? That we shed tears and run around with our hair on fire over the disappearance of something that never would have existed naturally in the first place?
Zooming in on the wasting away of artificial environments as though it’s reflective of the severity of what climate change would do to natural environments isn’t a very honest way of looking at the issue.
Yes the climate changes always have, now the 1001 question how much does man contribute and how much is it natural variation?First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.
But the point is, man made or not. The west is in record drought, and climate change is part of it.
Way to miss the point.Yes the climate changes always have, now the 1001 question how much does man contribute and how much is it natural variation?
I watched all the Senate hearings when Judith Curry made mincemeat out of your reply.Way to miss the point.
What is going on now is largely man made.
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
The relentless rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.climate.nasa.gov
Lol.I watched all the Senate hearings when Judith Curry made mincemeat out of your reply.
Again the thousand dollar question how much is it man made and how much is it natural variance?
No one knows
No double standard at my end. I'm only pointing out that such statements are not saying it will become true. It is statements like this in papers that pundits turn around and spin, saying it will happen. Not could, but will. Then people like you, believe their lies.And here we go again with the typical LoP double standard. Those words are only bad when scientists use them. But if you use them... then no problem.
You are going to have to do better than that.
So you admit because you disdain the Heartland Institute, you treat their material as lies.Nope!! You are wrong yet again LoP. "Poisoning of the well" is done in advance of what you might say. And I have not said anything about what you might say or anything about the sources you might use in this thread.
The fact of the matter is that The Heartland Institute is a well know disseminator of climate change denialism.
And you got suckered into citing their denialist garbage here!!
LOL youre just mad because you cant figure out the obvious. Oh well, thats you.Whatever dude. I am done with your completely idiotic remarks that prove that you don't even understand the facts and what is being argued.
BS! I can cite numerous examples of you doing exactly the same thing. But you only complain about it when others do it.No double standard at my end.
So?? That doesn't mean that it will not.I'm only pointing out that such statements are not saying it will become true.
Oh... since pundits might misstate what a paper says then we should disregard the paper? That is just dumb. And I don't just take the words of pundits.It is statements like this in papers that pundits turn around and spin, saying it will happen. Not could, but will. Then people like you, believe their lies.
I disdain the Heartland Institute because they are a well-known and proven shill for the fossil fuel industry that pushes denialist lies and misinformation. I have personally debunked their BS many times on this forum. And I have never once seen them publish anything legitimate... ever!!So you admit because you disdain the Heartland Institute, you treat their material as lies.
It is not a logical fallacy to blow them off when they are well known for pushing denialist BS.To then use that claiming they are lying is a logical fallacy.
Common political knowledge you lack, why are you even posting here?Lol.
But you didn't bother with the PROOF in the link.
Dismissed.
Here is the proof again.Common political knowledge you lack, why are you even posting here?
That's not proof.Here is the proof again.
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
The relentless rise of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.climate.nasa.gov
Yes, the proof is in the link. Read it.. look at The chart.That's not proof.
I asked you tell us how much man is contributing, is it
10%
25%
75%
100%
Again no one knows how much man contributes and how much it's natural variation, it's impossible to figure out. The climate has always changed and changed fast when the great Sahara dessert went from tropical to green in only a few hundred years.
Every time you cite said examples, you are wrong.BS! I can cite numerous examples of you doing exactly the same thing. But you only complain about it when others do it.
Agreed, but you portray them as being correct. I'm only saying they are not affirmative statements.So?? That doesn't mean that it will not.
I never, ever disregard the papers. I point out the pundits lie about them.Oh... since pundits might misstate what a paper says then we should disregard the paper? That is just dumb. And I don't just take the words of pundits.
Just because they support the sides you are at war with, doesn't make them wrong. I have never seen you provide evidence showing that.I disdain the Heartland Institute because they are a well-known and proven shill for the fossil fuel industry that pushes denialist lies and misinformation. I have personally debunked their BS many times on this forum. And I have never once seen them publish anything legitimate... ever!!
They are not "known" for fallacies except for the lies the leftist pundits claim. One simple example is the leftist claim they had a study saying smoking wasn't harmful. That statement is a flat out lie. They never made that claim. Their claim was "second hand smoking" was only harmful to people with respiratory illnesses, and infants to young children. You are listening to lying pundits, without verifying if they are accurate or not.It is not a logical fallacy to blow them off when they are well known for pushing denialist BS.
There you go, being a bully again.The fact of the matter is that you should be ashamed of yourself for citing that garbage. Only denialists cite the Heartland Institute.
We have a pretty good idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere we are responsible for. Nature was in balance before we started producing CO2 in the quantities we do. Though our emissions are only a small fraction of what nature sources and sinks, nature is not equipped to sink the extra CO2 we produce as fast as we emit it. Therefore we are responsible for the rising CO2 content!Again no one knows how much man contributes and how much it's natural variation, it's impossible to figure out. The climate has always changed and changed fast when the great Sahara dessert went from tropical to green in only a few hundred years.
Baloney. Take Lake Mead for example. It’s a man made resovoir created by the Hoover Dam and supplemented with water from the Colorado snowpack for the last several decades because of unsustainable water usage. This is not the the worst drought on record.First one. The great salt lake. Not man made.
But the point is, man made or not. The west is in record drought, and climate change is part of it.
Climate change is a fact.Baloney. Take Lake Mead for example. It’s a man made resovoir created by the Hoover Dam and supplemented with water from the Colorado snowpack for the last several decades because of unsustainable water usage. This is not the the worst drought on record.
The answer isn’t, oh my GOD CLIMATE CHANGE?! The answer is that what’s happening is a predictable and inevitable consequence of idiots who want to grow produce in the desert and build oasis cities in an environment that can’t naturally sustain them.
Nature was in balanced?We have a pretty good idea how much CO2 in the atmosphere we are responsible for. Nature was in balance before we started producing CO2 in the quantities we do. Though our emissions are only a small fraction of what nature sources and sinks, nature is not equipped to sink the extra CO2 we produce as fast as we emit it. Therefore we are responsible for the rising CO2 content!
So if you read your link you could of gave me a simple answer of say:Yes, the proof is in the link. Read it.. look at The chart.
Here is more.
The Causes of Climate Change
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.climate.nasa.gov
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?