You lot are under performing, beaten by a teenager.

[hairymouse]

That's not my bag, man.

Than why call me a crybaby rather than prove me wrong?

[Zigenare]

Than why call me a crybaby rather than prove me wrong?

I was merely asking after your welfare because you seem to be getting emotional.

So, are you going to cry?

[hairymouse]

I was merely asking after your welfare because you seem to be getting emotional.

So, are you going to cry?

I know this is in general, but for a while we were actually talking factual arguements about climate change. Is this the best you can do?

[Old Greg]

I know this is in general, but for a while we were actually talking factual arguements about climate change. Is this the best you can do?

Facts trigger him.

[Zigenare]

Facts trigger him.

And all my posts trigger you. Good that, init?

[Old Greg]

And all my posts trigger you. Good that, init?

Mostly they amuse me. But I will admit that your antisemitic filth is a little upsetting.

[DimPrawn]

Perhaps it would help if we asked some scientists, maybe tried to get a consensus?

2019 the Third Least-Chilly in the Satellite Temperature Record << Roy Spencer, PhD

The use of the term “hottest” to describe recent warming belies the fact that the rate of warming we have experienced in recent decades is minuscule compared to the several tens of degrees of temperature change most people experience throughout the year — and sometimes from one week to the next.

So, how are we supposed to react when the arithmetically-averaged temperature, across all extremes, goes up by only a small fraction of a degree in ten years? With horror? Outrage? Is the term “hottest” in a headline supposed to move us? Seriously?

Should we all get someone to fly across the Atlantic so they can transport us to Europe on a luxury yacht to help Save the Earth™ on our next European vacation?

The click-bait journalism typified by terms like “hottest”, “climate emergency”, and now “climate catastrophe” helps explain why the public is largely indifferent to the global warming issue, at least if we are asked to spend more than a few dollars to fix it.

This is why the alarmist narrative has moved on from temperature, and now focuses on wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, and sea level rise. Yet, none of these have worsened in the last 100 years, with the exception of global sea level rise which has been occurring at a rate of about 1 inch per decade for as long as it has been monitored (since the 1850s, well before humans could be blamed).

And, just in case some new visitors to my blog are reading this, let me clarify that I am not a denier of human-caused climate change. I believe at least some of the warming we have experienced in the last 50 years has been due to increasing carbon dioxide. I just consider the fraction of warming attributable to humans to be uncertain, and probably largely benign.

This is fully consistent with the science, since the global energy imbalance necessary to explain recent warming (about 1 part in 250 of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system) is much smaller than our knowledge of those flows, either from either theoretical first principles or from observations.

In other words, recent warming might well be mostly natural.

We just don’t know.

^ This

[original PM]

[Old Greg]

2019 the Third Least-Chilly in the Satellite Temperature Record << Roy Spencer, PhD



^ This

Ah. The good Dr Spencer.

In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."

[WTFH]

Just saw the title of this thread and thought it was about (Prince) Andrew.