This is a symptom of our idiotic press and the greenie weenies who breathlessly consume it.

Just like the term "carbon footprint" -- technically, this should be "carbon dioxide footprint".

True and the technical term for a car salesman should be "This guy is hustling you one way or another"

But people like to drive them cars. ;Þ

 

True and the technical term for a car sale should be "This guy is hustling you one way or another"

But people like to drive them cars. ;Þ

What's with the non sequiturs today? Are they your continuing contribution to Logical Fallacies Illustrated magazine, published daily here on AAC?

 

I live in a country where a guy tried to reason about climate change and ice ages in the past from few meters away from hardened lava. Saying that since there have been disasters in the past that we the people have NO PLAY in climate change.

Yeah not at all. We are all innocent...............

 

What's with the non sequiturs today? Are they your continuing contribution to Logical Fallacies Illustrated magazine, published daily here on AAC?

What is up with the undeserved ego that thinks that they can bulldozer over everything that doesn't fit their frame of mind?

 

So sorry Joey but most snowflakes from the North have been in the freezer so when we thaw it's mental bullets all around. The linking to questionable news sources just angers us even more.

Sincerely. Your snowflake

 

snowflakes from the North have been in the freezer so when we thaw...

Admission is the first step to recovery. Good luck -- we're all pulling for you.

 

Admission is the first step to recovery. Good luck -- we're all pulling for you.

If only you could take your own advice ;Þ

With heart from the land of ice.

 

"Here is a link that supports my training bra"

Funny how´I´ve not been able to find any real right-wing funnies that completely destroys . This is just a fragment of the BS.

 

I couldn't get to the original paper and these summaries use carbon and carbon dioxide almost interchangeably. Since the data is seismographic, I think the bottom line is that they don't know what the composition is, they just think there'a fluid layer there that has carbon in it. Hmmm...

This makes more sense.
http://www.space.com/17777-what-is-earth-made-of.html

 

That's liberal science. The concept where scientific fact is democratically decided on (the more who believe in it the truer the fact becomes) not empirically proven.

Let's not forget ... they are peer reviewed.

There are lots of papers out in internet land that question the validity of peer review. Some say the papers "follows" the scientific method, and it probably does since the hypothesis is "AGW", but their tests can not be replicated independently. Their predictions are off ... which normally means their hypothesis is off and they must modify their hypothesis.

Maybe, someday, there will be a "theory" of global warming. It won't happen in my lifetime, and I seriously doubt it will happen in my grandkids lifetime.

 

I hope both @Sinus23 and @ronv understand the "Daily Show" is entertainment and NOT NEWS. That makes it fall into the "faux News" catagory, like the other entertainment and opine shows.

 

I hope both @Sinus23 and @ronv understand the "Daily Show" is entertainment and NOT NEWS. That makes it fall into the "faux News" catagory, like the other entertainment and opine shows.

Hope springs eternal.

 

I hope both @Sinus23 and @ronv understand the "Daily Show" is entertainment and NOT NEWS. That makes it fall into the "faux News" catagory, like the other entertainment and opine shows.

Yes, Comedy Central. And there is nothing funnier than clips of one of Trumps speeches.

Should probably keep these in the voting thread. One' enough and Joey needs this one.

 

I just got done looking at California radar.

https://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_lite_loop.php

It reminds me of how many times that state and federal environmentalist......have been saying for years......that the American public and the federal government does not realize how serious the California drought is.
They repeatedly told us that it would take years....not just a few storms, to re-fill the reservoirs.
Possibly decades. Does anyone recall this drumbeat?

Was this a matter of in-competence?....or was it an honest professional mistake?

Would you believe that? Do they understand the processes that they claim to understand?

How about lying.......are they lying?

Why were the professional scientist (who influence policy) so wrong about this?

Has anyone even asked?

 

I just got done looking at California radar.

https://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_lite_loop.php

It reminds me of how many times that state and federal environmentalist......have been saying for years......that the American public and the federal government does not realize how serious the California drought is.
They repeatedly told us that it would take years....not just a few storms, to re-fill the reservoirs.
Possibly decades. Does anyone recall this drumbeat?

Was this a matter of in-competence?....or was it an honest professional mistake?

Would you believe that? Do they understand the processes that they claim to understand?

How about lying.......are they lying?

Why were the professional scientist (who influence policy) so wrong about this?

Has anyone even asked?

And don't forget this!

Since it’s essentially, and of course ironically, entirely non-scientists who make this claim, the deniers would do well to read a recent UCLA study that indicates California’s current six-year severe drought could be exacerbated enough by global warming to extend the dry period for centuries.

Centuries, months, what difference does it make?

 

They repeatedly told us that it would take years....not just a few storms, to re-fill the reservoirs.

As a disaster, there must be federal funds involved ... and the state might not want to stop the cash flow.

The reservoirs here, after years of drought, went to 21 feet above flood stage. The USCOE had to redirect that water elsewhere. It was like from April to September before some of the reservoirs were back below flood stage.

 

Nice byline ... The Editorial Writer.

Faux News by Los Angeles News. Of course they will deny it as news because it is clearly an opinion where the reader decides on the validity of the article. However, how many readers will decide it's the truth?

 

I hope both @Sinus23 and @ronv understand the "Daily Show" is entertainment and NOT NEWS. That makes it fall into the "faux News" catagory, like the other entertainment and opine shows.

Very well aware. However Trump has branded the news and the informers as anti-american.

So the dance continues.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/democrats_real_global_warming_fraud_revealed.html

 

So the dance continues.

Yes and you (the believers) really need to tie your shoelaces before continuing to try and participate. The occasional slip up is forgivable but continually falling flat on your face by your own sloppy actions while trying to prove something, but obviously can't to any level above anecdotal accounts, is just embarrassing to everyone.

Most people who pay attention the very relevant science and politics behind the AGW /Climate Change fuss aren't stupid and uninformed as some would wish us to be seen as. If anything we continually show it to be just he opposite over and over.
We (skeptics) aren't the ones being continually caught up in lies and political spins nor are we the ones being continually and outrightly proven wrong day after day and year after year in our predictions by the very acts of nature we claim to have such superior knowledge of.

You can say and claim whatever you like about us (skeptics) but the very harsh reality is that we are not the ones being continually caught in lies, manipulations of data, political scandals, gross media disinformation and above all being outrightly given the finger and proven wrong by nature itself all over this planet over what we have claimed and predicted to be so very real and true only to have it being continually and repeatedly shown to be little more than over hyped yet weak poorly informed speculation with a way too much 'worst case scenario what if' hype thrown in.