New Gallop Poll - 36 problem concerns mentioned..."mmgw" isn't on the list

[calfoxwc]

I believe that's because most folks have come to realize it's a crock of lefty, UN redistribution bunch of hooey

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/

New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

[TexasAg1969]

111 degrees when I drove through Stratford, Tx. in the upper panhandle yesterday. Bet they might give you an argument there.😓😁

Prediction for my home is 107 tomorrow and 108 Monday.

Currently 92 @ 8:55 pm.

[calfoxwc]

I've been in McKinney, N. Of Dallas, and it also gets freaking cold in the winter.

And, in basic, San Antonio, we'd fall out about 5:30 am, it's dark, we're wearing our coats,

our hats, gloves...

but after lunch, we'd be carrying that jacket with gloves in pockets, and sweating up a storm.

weather changes. always did.

[TexasAg1969]

12 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I've been in McKinney, N. Of Dallas, and it also gets freaking cold in the winter.

It used to. LOL!🤩

[MLD Woody]

Don't cite weather. Either if you.

 

I'll look at the headline from this anti climate change site and see if they read into the gallop data correctly

[MLD Woody]

Alright, easy. 2% said "Environment/Pollution". That sounds like Climate Change. That anti climate change site is using semantics to try and reach for a point.

Of course, most Americans are idiots. Many are scientifically illiterate. I'm not going to use the public as a barometer for whether a scientific issue is a big deal. I'll use the experts. And they're very clear...

[calfoxwc]

"environment/pollution" sounds like "climate change" ???

okie-dokie. lol

[TexasAg1969]

8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Don't cite weather. Either if you.

Come on dammit. You're spoiling our fun needling each other.😆

[MLD Woody]

6 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

"environment/pollution" sounds like "climate change" ???

okie-dokie. lol

Your anti climate change site is reaching for a headline to get clicks. You fell for the bait, because of course you did. And to top it off, it's a meaningless headline in the grand scheme of things either way. But if you're so desperate for you fake news fix, then go for it. It is very clear we can't stop you from being an idiot. 

[calfoxwc]

Every time I quit calling you a woodpecker that you are, you be a woodypeckerhead again.

sissy sassy all you want birdbrain, but "environment/pollution" does NOT SOUND LIKE "climate change".

look at the words people say, look the words up in a dictionary, and try to STFU once in a while.

See, there has been global warming back in the ice age days. That was before "environment/pollution" by man

ever existed as a problem. You see mmgw in cows farting. Why don't you go stand behind a farting cow, and get a load

of the crap you disperse in your posts most of the time.

You just aren't smart, birdbrain. You don't have your own experiences, never talk about them, no stories - you have never accrued stories.

You are just a stupid woodypeckerhead.

[MLD Woody]

This isn't your strongest issue Cal. 

But you're more for sticking your head up your party's butt than listening to the experts. Nothing I can do.

People are scientifically illiterate enough that it's easy to fool them. That's what we get when you post links. Fake experts, biased groups, biased studies. It's all very easy to see, but not for you and people like you, because it's what you want to hear. The politicization of issues like this is a shame. You're a list cause though. Hopefully the following generations can get a better grasp on this stuff.

 

[htownbrown]

46 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

This isn't your strongest issue Cal. 

But you're more for sticking your head up your party's butt than listening to the experts. Nothing I can do.

People are scientifically illiterate enough that it's easy to fool them. That's what we get when you post links. Fake experts, biased groups, biased studies. It's all very easy to see, but not for you and people like you, because it's what you want to hear. The politicization of issues like this is a shame. You're a list cause though. Hopefully the following generations can get a better grasp on this stuff.

 

Out of curiosity, do you believe in mmgw or just that cal doesn't understand the basis of climatology?  

 

[calfoxwc]

well, stupid woodypeckerhead. YOU SAID "sounds like".

A. Pollution is a different matter than mmgw. When a corporation sends sewage into a creek, that is pollution.

It doesn't cause mmgw. moron.

B. learn words - learn what they MEAN.

Definition of environment

1 : the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded

2 a : the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (such as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival

b : the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community

3 : the position or characteristic position of a linguistic element in a sequence

4 : a computer interface from which various tasks can be performed

• a programming environment

 

There are many, many aspects of environment that has nothing to do with mmgw.

A corporation that sends seward out a pipe into a creek, that is pollution. It affects the immediate environment, inevitably, beyond.

But it has nothing to do with your man made global warming.

this is you, woodpecker:

[MLD Woody]

4 hours ago, htownbrown said:

Out of curiosity, do you believe in mmgw or just that cal doesn't understand the basis of climatology?  

 

Both.

It's science. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. That's the beauty of it.

[calfoxwc]

dishonest science also matters.

disagreeing scientists matter.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#6f5aa0c74c7c

https://247sports.com/college/oregon/Board/102725/Contents/Scientists-calling-the-MMGW-founders-bluff-71259058

\

Father Of Global Warming Admits: It Used To Be Hotter Than It Is Now


James Hansen, the famed NASA scientist who stirred the climate scare when in 1988 he told a Senate committee that “global warming” — yes, he used those words — “is already happening now,” has never backed off his claims, despite the fact that he’s been demonstrably wrong. No one this side of Al Gore has had a larger impact on trafficking in fear and trying so hard to sow panic.
 

The narrative since that day in 1988 is that Earth is entering a dangerous warm era created by man’s carbon dioxide emissions. Every heat wave, cold snap, drought, hurricane, heavy snow, torrential rain, and change in sea level has been supposedly caused by man. And all are allegedly unprecedented events.

Except they’re not. It’s been warmer, and extreme weather has visited us before, all in a time long before man began to drive cars and operate power plants that helped move him from an almost primitive existence to a modern one.
 

Hansen has even admitted this.
 

“The last interglacial period, 120,000 years ago, that’s the last time it was warmer than today, sea level was 6 to 9 meters higher,” he said in an interview with online magazine Yale Environment 360.

So it has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher. And those conditions were entirely natural. Yet the alarmists want us to believe that the predicted warmth of today — which has

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/father-of-global-warming-admits-it-used-to-be-hotter-than-it-is-now/

[MLD Woody]

Did you post a link from Oregon's 247 board? 

 

You're trolling right? You have to be trolling. Holy Sheet

[calfoxwc]

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/05/senate-report-debunks-wild-warming-claims-with-science/

Senate report debunks wild warming claims with science

http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/30/feds-flawed-politicized-data-pollutes-science/

[calfoxwc]

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Corruption-Politics-Behind-Warming-ebook/dp/B0097K964U

[htownbrown]

2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Both.

It's science. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not. That's the beauty of it.

Is there any evidence that scientists can hindcast known temperatures of warm periods?  I haven't been able to find any accurate results to believe it.  Climate just doesn't seem to be as sensitive to carbon and their own models continually prove that.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't models the basis for all the IPCC predictions?

[MLD Woody]

I don't know

Such as what model?

I'm not sure. But I imagine predictions are based off of models. Which would be based off of research, collected data, tests, etc.

[htownbrown]

Well any model you want have been wrong.  Todos.  NASA has been pretty open about it, kudos to them.  But if you can't hindcast, I'm pretty certain you can't forecast.

The mid Pliocene is the most recent warm period similar to this one.  CO2 was identical to todays, but the temps were 10-20C higher in upper lattitudes.  NASA models were so laughably bad at duplicating the period, they had to basically come out and say they might not really even understand the basics of climate science yet.  Read their conclusion if you don't believe me.(https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_pliocene/page3.html#comments)

Mmgw is no doubt real to some capacity, but the extent is not agreed upon or even semi quantifiable.  At this point it's more of a faith than a fact that CO2 drives climate, but I would certainly like information (not op-eds) to the contrary if you find it.

 

[MLD Woody]

I wouldn't say that NASA post is them saying "they don't understand the basics of climate science yet". Not at all. More that they are still understanding all of the factors at play back during this period. I imagine it would be easier to make accurate climate models for the world you currently live in than for a period long ago. 

I also don't think any climatologist, or any scientist for that matter, would ever say they know everything there is about their field. They're constantly learning more and adjusting what we know as they go. Now, that's usually tweaks along the same path that multiple studies are already point towards, which in this case in man made climate change. You'd expect there still to be tweaks being made to models and  predictions. 

[htownbrown]

Well then you're misreading it.  They don't have to be perfect in this to claim victory.  Feasible and consistent trends is merely the aim here.  If you cant determine that CO2 was a major climate driver in the past how can you use climatological modeling in the present or future to determine just that.  This isn't some form of "modern" CO2 we are dealing with, it's the same as it always has been or will be.  You can't take the approach that reproducibility isn't important in a scientific discussion that is pushing legislation.  That is absurd.  

As it actually turns out when they use lower CO2 sensitivities in their models they actually produce a better hindcast.  This begs several questions don't you think?  You are aware the IPCC has lowered their carbon sensitivity estimates recently?  And plenty of new published papers are pushing them to lower the numbers even more.

If you say it's easier to build a model for the present, then you're just bull$hitting.  The entire basis of the models were built on a catalog of recorded climate history.  Ice cores, microbial fossils, ocean currents, etc.  Cmon you're better than a shoulder shrug explanation like that.  Your ignoring several rules of science to sign off on something that requires reproducibility, it can't achieve, to be credible in the first place.

I mean think about it Woody, they built models from known climate data, but they can't reproduce the data from these same models with high carbon sensitivities.  In other words, when you proof the work it fails the solution.  Uh, hello.  You're hitching your wagon to that?  Seems quite clear to an objective observer they are forcing carbon into a larger role than it deserves.  

[calfoxwc]

crap. I knew that the paris accord required us to dramatically cut out CO2 emmissions...

but is also required us to give the UN 3 BILLION US DOLLARS.

fancy that. Just what I have been saying for years. The ulterior motive, on the UN part, is redistribution of wealth, especially from

OUR UNITED STATES to the UN and poor countries. As if we don't already give the UN enough of our tax dollars as it is?

On the American part of all this - is leftwing political power, and an open door to taxing anything that moves, so the left can fund

socialism. Taxing cows farting (woodpecker has his beak up their butts), taxing thermostats, taxing mileage of vehicles,

the list is long.

      I just don't understand how anybody can seriously be concerned about CO2, and not care about the destruction of millions of acres of the earth's rain forests.

 

[calfoxwc]

seriously. They want to tax anything that exists, or moves, to get a hell of a lot of money.

and getting all that money will cure "mmgw".

what a crock of crap.

https://futurism.com/carbon-tax-sky-high-avoid-climate-disaster-experts-say/

[calfoxwc]

CO2 isn't the problem.

The problem is CFCs.

ChloroFloroCarbons.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/3250295-carbon-dioxide-isn-t-the-culprit-in-global-warming-says-uw-prof/

but saying the problem is CO2 reaches far, far more people to tax.