Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 9

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 09:17:34

The CO2 effect is actually most clear in the stratosphere due to the strong impact of radiative processes on the temperature structure. There is "dynamical heating" produced by the dissipation of primarily Rossby waves with a secondary impact from the dissipation of inertia-gravity waves. But this dynamical heating does not overwrite the pattern established by ozone heating and carbon dioxide cooling but modifies it. For example, the "polar vortex" aka the polar night (terminator) westerly jet is "smeared" and has a broader meridional distribution and lower peak wind speeds compared to the state without dynamical heating which would produce a narrow jet with very large wind speeds (since the terminator temperature gradient is very sharp).

I have not mentioned that there is something called gradient or thermal wind balance. The zonal average state (average over longitudes) has the zonal wind (east-west wind) vertical gradient (derivative with respect to the vertical coordinate) equal the temperature meridional gradient (derivate wrt to latitude) with a multiplicative factor depending on the Coriolis parameter (a function of latitude). This balance is a fundamental feature of the dynamics and you can see it used with weather charts of the geopotential distribution to estimate the leading order distribution of horizontal winds which tend to follow the contours of the geopotential. (Near the surface the friction effect of the planetary boundary layer causes the streamline vectors to form an angle relative to the geopotential countours and so you get a spiral effect at the base of high and low pressure systems. This is Ekman pumping.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_wind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekman_transport
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 10:18:52

Thanks, dis. Any insights on what might happen with the polar vortex in the coming weeks and months this year?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dissident » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 11:03:37

dohboi wrote:Thanks, dis. Any insights on what might happen with the polar vortex in the coming weeks and months this year?


The change in the composition is not fast enough to produce any dramatic differences in the state of the stratosphere. When it comes to ozone loss in the Arctic (as opposed to the Antarctic) it really is most inter-annual variability that results in strong vortex states vs. weak ones.

The two hemispheres are different in terms of the dynamical heating from the waves originating in the troposphere. This is due to the continental distribution with more land in the northern hemisphere. The quasi-stationary Rossby waves that are generated by flow over topography and then propagate into the stratosphere have a longer zonal wavelength in the NH vs the SH. The penetration of these waves with altitude is a function of their wavelength. Longer wavelengths are associated with higher altitude penetration at higher latitudes. Shorter wavelength Rossby waves dissipate at lower altitudes and latitudes. So normally in the NH the polar vortex is weaker than in the SH. That is why the ozone hole occurs primarily in the Antarctic where the polar vortex is less disturbed by dynamical heating and forms a tighter containment vessels for chemical processing.

But things are not nice and simple. The state of the polar vortex also depends on the progression of dynamical heating from late fall into early winter. Sometimes the flow results in less "forcing" (i.e. dynamical heating) so the polar vortex ramps up to stronger winds faster than normal. Strong winds refract Rossby wave propagation so one gets a bifurcation in the polar vortex evolution. During these stable vortex winters in the Arctic the ozone loss chemistry can proceed more like in the Antarctic and we get a mini ozone hole in the NH. But even during such winters the polar vortex is still more disturbed than in the SH.

There was discussion of climate change leading to stronger polar vortex behaviour in NH. But as far as I am aware there was never a robust conclusion on this subject. I can see the following:

1) the extra CO2 increases the radiative damping during polar night since the cooling to space regime is not going to go away (one would need way more CO2 to increase the optical thickness to IR). This could enhance the temperature gradient at the polar night terminator and hence push the system toward a more intense zonal jet.

2) the polar warming in the troposphere which is more rapid than middle latitudes and tropics somehow results in weaker quasi-stationary Rossby wave forcing at mid-high latitudes. We sort of see this in the increased meander of the zonal wind in the troposphere associated with the breakdown of the polar front jet (warming spells in the Artic, super freezes at mid latitudes). So there is likely to be a shift to shorter zonal wavelengths of the Rossby waves. This means the dynamical heating is ducted to lower latitudes and altitudes allowing the polar night jet to reach larger magnitudes.

3) the bifurcation I discussed earlier is also a factor: a stronger jet combined with a weaker forcing can reduce the impact of the weaker forcing even more.

So it may be that we will have more ozone holes in the Arctic in the future. For now the system is still dominated by internal variability. But that does not give the fucktard deniers any credit. Their appeal to variability is vastly different; they claim it rules everything. In reality the signal will emerge from the noise since we are going to keep increasing CO2 as long as we can.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 13:12:47

Thanks for those insights, dis.

On your point #1, with the Arctic Ocean being more and more open for more and more of the year, shouldn't we expect a higher level of water vapor in the region. And since water vapor is also a ghg, is it playing a roll yet in keeping fall and early winter Arctic tropospheric temperatures above what they would otherwise be?

Also, my selfish, short-term interest in the polar vortex concerns whether it is going to behave as it has in some recent winters and bring colder than average (over the last few decades, anyway) winters to the northlands, like Minnesota?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 13:46:08

dohboi wrote:Thanks for those insights, dis.

On your point #1, with the Arctic Ocean being more and more open for more and more of the year, shouldn't we expect a higher level of water vapor in the region. And since water vapor is also a ghg, is it playing a roll yet in keeping fall and early winter Arctic tropospheric temperatures above what they would otherwise be?
.......

That is an interesting question. If you look at the temperature chart here.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
You can see that the temperatures have been above the historical mean by quite a bit for a good fifty days after the usual end of the melt season. Not above freezing mind you, just not as cold as they used to be. One could suspect that extra water vapor near the surface was the cause and now that that water has precipitated out as snow the air has cleared given the sharp drop in temperatures in the last week or so.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: AGW and the Scientific Method

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 23 Oct 2016, 14:14:42

Thanks tons, vt.

That was exactly the scary (to me) graph that I was talking about (but was just too damn lazy to dig up! :oops: ).

. As I recall, it was especially increased water vapor that allowed for crocodiles to flourish in the far north in past geological periods--it supplied enough of a ghg 'blanket' to hold winter temps to mediterranean levels, iirc. I'm sure changes in ocean currents had something to do with it. Again, I'm too damn lazy this Sunday early afternoon to track all this down. But I do wonder if your graph is the first clear indication that we are well into a launch towards a very different Arctic than has existed since at least the Eemian.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 8

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 25 Oct 2016, 20:12:35

And as to 'global greening,' that myth has been debunked so many times, it's really getting tiresome. 

Again, all these things have been debunked endlessly. Why do we have to go over this same territory a billion times?



What is really tiresome is people ignoring actual research and instead counting on reference to SS.
Here is a very small subset of the published peer-reviewed papers which talk to greening of the earth. Low and behold no formal Discussions of these papers published indicating they were incorrect in their analyses. As well, the subject had been totally debunked then why are there papers continually being accepted on the subject?

Fensholt. R, et al, 2012. Greeness in semi-arid areas across the glove 1981-2007. An Earth Observing Satellite based analysis of trends and drivers. Remote sensing of Environment, 121. Pp 144-158. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2012.01.017

Semi-arid areas, defined as those areas of the world where water is an important limitation for plant growth, have become the subject of increased interest due to the impacts of current global changes and sustainability of human lifestyles. While many ground-based reports of declining vegetation productivity have been published over the last decades, a number of recent publications have shown a nuanced and, for some regions, positive picture. With this background, the paper provides an analysis of trends in vegetation greenness of semi-arid areas using AVHRR GIMMS from 1981 to 2007. The vegetation index dataset is used as a proxy for vegetation productivity and trends are analyzed for characterization of changes in semi-arid vegetation greenness. Calculated vegetation trends are analyzed with gridded data on potential climatic constraints to plant growth to explore possible causes of the observed changes. An analysis of changes in the seasonal variation of vegetation greenness and climatic drivers is conducted for selected regions to further understand the causes of observed inter-annual vegetation changes in semi-arid areas across the globe. It is concluded that semi-arid areas, across the globe, on average experience an increase in greenness (0.015 NDVI units over the period of analysis). Further it is observed that increases in greenness are found both in semi-arid areas where precipitation is the dominating limiting factor for plant production (0.019 NDVI units) and in semi-arid areas where air temperature is the primarily growth constraint (0.013 NDVI units). Finally, in the analysis of changes in the intra-annual variation of greenness it is found that seemingly similar increases in greenness over the study period may have widely different explanations. This implies that current generalizations, claiming that land degradation is ongoing in semi-arid areas worldwide, are not supported by the satellite based analysis of vegetation greenness.



Donohue, Randall J., et al. 2013. "Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments." Geophysical Research Letters 40.12 : 3031-3035

Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect – the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels – is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.
Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.


Lu, X., Wang, L., & McCabe, M. F. (2016). Elevated CO2 as a driver of global dryland greening. Scientific Reports, 6, 20716. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep20716

While recent findings based on satellite records indicate a positive trend in vegetation greenness over global drylands, the reasons remain elusive. We hypothesize that enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2 play an important role in the observed greening through the CO2 effect on plant water savings and consequent available soil water increases. Meta-analytic techniques were used to compare soil water content under ambient and elevated CO2 treatments across a range of climate regimes, vegetation types, soil textures and land management practices. Based on 1705 field measurements from 21 distinct sites, a consistent and statistically significant increase in the availability of soil water (11%) was observed under elevated CO2 treatments in both drylands and non-drylands, with a statistically stronger response over drylands (17% vs. 9%). Given the inherent water limitation in drylands, it is suggested that the additional soil water availability is a likely driver of observed increases in vegetation greenness.


Zhu, Z. et al, 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE3004

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional eects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


There is also a plethora of published papers dealing with experimental proof for plants absorbing very high levels of CO2. As well these studies demonstrate the positive impact of enhanced levels of CO2 with respect to nutrient absorption.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 25 Oct 2016, 20:34:33

Color me unsurprised. I am an aquarium enthusiast. When one wants to stimulate plant growth in an aquarium, one buys a compressed tank of carbon dioxide gas at a local welding shop, and a bubbler for your tank, and you let the gas bubble into the water. The plant growth is stimulated and the fish don't seem to mind.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 25 Oct 2016, 23:24:55

"extreme water is good for plants"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

More crops are lost to flooding than to drought.

"Most crops grown in North America are intolerant of flooding. Flooding depletes soils of oxygen and increases disease infections and nitrogen losses."

https://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/ag ... od-impact/

(I love how the denialists just wallow in fact free fantasy here. Then roc comes along with is usual gishgallop of mostly unlinked quotes. Nice how the title for the first can't even manage to get basic English words spelled right! :lol: :lol: "Greeness in semi-arid areas across the glove" :lol: :lol: :lol: )
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 25 Oct 2016, 23:51:49

doh, of course climate affects agriculture, it always has. But of course you have no evidence climate change has reduced aggregate US crop production. We keep growing stuff and folks keep eating.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26292
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 00:10:03

Be patient, my child! :)

Also, the US the world.
Last edited by dohboi on Wed 26 Oct 2016, 00:26:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 00:14:09


• Higher CO2 levels can affect crop yields. Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth. However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level, if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed. Elevated CO2 has been associated with reduced protein and nitrogen content in alfalfa and soybean plants, resulting in a loss of quality. Reduced grain and forage quality can reduce the ability of pasture and rangeland to support grazing livestock.[1]

• More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing. Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields. For example, in 2010 and 2012, high nighttime temperatures affected corn yields across the U.S. Corn Belt, and premature budding due to a warm winter caused $220 million in losses of Michigan cherries in 2012.[1]

•Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where rising summer temperatures cause soils to become drier. Although increased irrigation might be possible in some places, in other places water supplies may also be reduced, leaving less water available for irrigation when more is needed.

• Many weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels. Currently, U.S. farmers spend more than $11 billion per year to fight weeds, which compete with crops for light, water, and nutrients.[1] The ranges and distribution of weeds and pests are likely to increase with climate change. This could cause new problems for farmers' crops previously unexposed to these species.

• Though rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it also reduces the nutritional value of most food crops. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide reduce the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species, including wheat, soybeans, and rice. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health. Human health is also threatened by increased pesticide use due to increased pest pressures and reductions in the efficacy of pesticides


https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/cli ... ood-supply
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 00:28:17

due to climate change, "southern Africa could lose more than 30% of its main crop, maize, by 2030. In South Asia losses of many regional staples, such as rice, millet and maize could top 10%"

Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Naylor RL (2008). "Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030". Science. 319 (5863): 607–10. doi:10.1126/science.1152339. PMID 18239122. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607

Note that most early (pre-2007) studies on the subject had various fatal flaws and oversights:

Most of the studies on global agriculture assessed by Schneider et al. (2007) had not incorporated a number of critical factors, including changes in extreme events, or the spread of pests and diseases.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_c ... griculture
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 04:58:24

The point that "doom" is predicted is obvious because we are underestimating the problem. That's why global warming was not noted for decades.

Any problems in the models are due to the point that we are underestimating the problem. Note, for example, ocean heat content.

It's for that reason that climate sensitivity may actually be higher. That's why positive feedbacks were noted only later.

If any, the "establishment" has a vested interested in the opposite of alarm. That's because more funding become available given opportunities for further study.

Finally, in order to understand the effects of global warming, one must consider the point that the future does not involve one problem or the other but multiple problems amplifying each other. Take note of the ff. article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... g-collapse

Is there any substantial evidence that the resource curve has gone up or will do so soon, that the three types of economic output will continue to rise even as resource availability drops such that the population will reach a peak as both birth and death rates drop, and then decrease slowly, and that global warming coupled with environmental damage will not affect such a scenario?
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4652
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 10:25:41

dohboi wrote:due to climate change, "southern Africa could lose more than 30% of its main crop, maize, by 2030. In South Asia losses of many regional staples, such as rice, millet and maize could top 10%"

Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Naylor RL (2008). "Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030". Science. 319 (5863): 607–10. doi:10.1126/science.1152339. PMID 18239122. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607

Note that most early (pre-2007) studies on the subject had various fatal flaws and oversights:

Most of the studies on global agriculture assessed by Schneider et al. (2007) had not incorporated a number of critical factors, including changes in extreme events, or the spread of pests and diseases.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_c ... griculture


If there were no tropical crops which can substitute for those grain calories these stories would be a lot more troubling. The thing is true tropical countries like Indonesia have been growing tropical food crops like Cassava and Yam for most of their existance. Burma having to switch from growing rice to growing Yams is not a crisis, it is an inconvenience.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 10:43:23

(I love how the denialists just wallow in fact free fantasy here. Then roc comes along with is usual gishgallop of mostly unlinked quotes. Nice how the title for the first can't even manage to get basic English words spelled right!


It is not surprising to me that Dohboi when confronted with factual information from publications reverts to distraction. Once again his low IQ seems to preclude him from pasting the DOI into a search engine. Note also that I am quoting the entire Abstract from these papers. Perhaps instead of trying to obfuscate you might actually try to refute what the papers are saying?

Posting "proposed trends in the future" or "projections" based on preconceived notions that are either not backed up by empirical observations or are actually at odds with said observations is not a good argument unless you have some strange idea that everyone else on this thread is not paying attention or are somehow looking for affirmation science no matter how far off the actual term "science" that might be.

The bottom line is regardless of what the EPA says "should or could happen" or what Lobell et al say "should or could happen" there is an incredible amount of research in the literature over the past decade that point to observations of a greening earth and considerable empirical and experimental evidence that points to the over riding control on that greening by increased CO2 and it's relevant interactions with other nutrients.

By the way Dohboi for anything I've said to qualify under the term "gish gallop" you need to demonstrate how it is somehow bullshit. Considering it is all published information that would require you to refute the work of numerous scientists who have already been subjected to peer review. Good luck with that one. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 10:48:49

"The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in a torrent of small, interlocking arguments intended to prevent your opponent from being able to rebut your conclusions in real time."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16745
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 11:27:34

well there are a host of definitions:
The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.


And even using your definition "small interlocking arguments" hardly speaks to the fact each of the papers points to observations of a greening earth and the connection to CO2. The only reason you can't "rebut your conclusions in real time" is your suggestion that it was all debunked was a complete load of bollicks and based on your poor understanding of the available published literature. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5496
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 15:08:25

I remember earlier days on this website when links to articles would be argued against with links to opposing artcles, not appeals to emotion and childish insults.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4106
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Global Warming / Climate Change is a Hoax pt 7

Unread postby dissident » Wed 26 Oct 2016, 18:36:58

It is the deniers who are childish and deserve no respect. They repeat the exact same sh*t claims day in and day out. No amount of refutation will matter because they systematically ignore it and continue to spout the same old tired lies ad nauseam.

To claim that they need to be argued against in some civilized manner when they personally take a dump on such discourse is simply absurd. It is like demanding autistics to be treated like Einsteins. Some of these autistics need a straight jacket and a padded room instead of deference and coddling.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: onlooker and 14 guests