|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 9, 2014 14:46:47 GMT -8
So, if the Arctic is losing ice to the extent that year round commerce is in the offing, why are they building icebreakers?
Algore told us that the Arctic would be ice free last summer, by the way...
Wha' Hoppen?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 9, 2014 16:21:04 GMT -8
So, if the Arctic is losing ice to the extent that year round commerce is in the offing, why are they building icebreakers? Algore told us that the Arctic would be ice free last summer, by the way... Wha' Hoppen? I said nothing about ice free during the winter. Doubt that Gore said ice free in the summer either. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 9, 2014 16:52:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 9, 2014 16:53:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 9, 2014 17:01:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 9, 2014 19:32:03 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 10, 2014 14:13:54 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. LOL >>"When you read his words they were always qualified."<< >>"Some forecasting models suggest...."<< >>"Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date."<< hahahahaha One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived. -Niccolo Machiavelli- If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap Al Gore says, fine. No skin off my nose. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 17, 2014 14:23:16 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. The warmist would be better served using words like that since their alarmist retoric has been shown to be wrong. Computer models have all greatly over predicted warming over the past 18 years - there has been none. Their theory relies on unproven massive positive feedbacks. It is a scam feed by the money of governments who want it to be true and by the willing press and willing acedemia who love the solutions to this no-problem. Question: do you still doubt Gore said the entire polare ice gap will be completely gone in 5 years, after I posted a video of him saying that? How about agreeing that Al Gore is a opportunist who is making millions on his scams. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 17, 2014 14:31:44 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. Here you go: www.icecap.us/www.climatedepot.com/www.c3headlines.com/Try these. They are 3 of my favorites. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 17, 2014 14:37:28 GMT -8
Thanks for the article, Bill. It says the Russians will be using them to escort vessels through the winter. Now if you think that Russia is building an Arctic seaport and buying icebreakers to extend the shipping season year around is proving they are not buying the "scam", let me just say....LOL You were using the fact that they built the port as proof that they believed the warmists bull. The 40 year contract for ice breaking shows your proof is non-existent. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 17, 2014 16:28:31 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. Here you go: www.icecap.us/www.climatedepot.com/www.c3headlines.com/Try these. They are 3 of my favorites. All deniest sites. You are in your own echo chamber, Bill. As I said, fine with me, be a kook. No skin off my nose. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 17, 2014 16:33:03 GMT -8
All deniest sites. You are in your own echo chamber, Bill. As I said, fine with me, be a kook. No skin off my nose. Yes, that is why I linked them. You said you perused some of those sites. I wanted to make sure you got some good ones.
That word was often used to describe a lot of folks who changed the way the world believed things. "Kooks" are later known to be the wise ones who saw the truth when everyone else was clinging to the status quo. It has happened over and over in history. Most of those "clingers" were just gullible. I am happy to be on the "kook" side of this instead of the "gullible" side. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 18, 2014 8:39:51 GMT -8
Meanwhile in the real world there is a new collection of studies showing increased CO2 not only creates more and bigger plants but also creates plants that have more good things that make them healthy to eat. Oranges, for example, have more vitamin C when grown with elevated CO2. www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals//health_promoting_c02.pdfCO2 is plant food. more CO2 makes plants grow faster, bigger, with less water, while creating healthier food. If CO2 had decreased from 400 PPM to 350 PPM, then we would really would have something to worry about. |
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Apr 19, 2014 4:49:18 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 19, 2014 9:44:16 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. Indeed, the winter was severe in the East this year. On the other hand the West It was different. Here in San Diego it was nicer than usual for us. I had strawberrys and tomatoes all through the " winter". Did we have winter at all? Explain that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 19, 2014 9:49:59 GMT -8
Bill, I perused about half a dozen denier websites with hysterical headlines, but when you got into the meat, there was no beef. When you read his words they were always qualified. Along the lines like this, "Some forecasting models suggest than there is a strong probability that the Arctic Sea could be ice free by some date." That is a paraphrae, of course. However, since conservatives like to put words in other peoples mouth's they can make up whatever they want. If it makes you feel better about yourself to believe the crap you post, fine. No skin off my nose. Indeed, the winter was severe in the East this year. On the other hand the West it was different. Here in San Diego it was nicer than usual for us. I had strawberrys and tomatoes all through the " winter". Did we have winter at all? Explain that. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 21, 2014 12:09:35 GMT -8
Indeed, the winter was severe in the East this year. On the other hand the West it was different. Here in San Diego it was nicer than usual for us. I had strawberrys and tomatoes all through the " winter". Did we have winter at all? Explain that. Explain that? Really? When one puts forth a theory in science it is up to that person to explain things that diverge from the hypothesis, not the other way around. The assumed truth is always the null hypothesis. That is how science works: Warmists say: 1. Man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere has been the cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to almost all the recent warming. 3. That recent warming is harmful in the long term. 4. The cost of mitigating that harmful warming is less then the opportunity cost for that economic activity. They need to explain anything that diverges from those points. 18 years of no warming is a huge divergence. They don't have a clue. If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2014 13:24:27 GMT -8
Indeed, the winter was severe in the East this year. On the other hand the West it was different. Here in San Diego it was nicer than usual for us. I had strawberrys and tomatoes all through the " winter". Did we have winter at all? Explain that. Explain that? Really? When one puts forth a theory in science it is up to that person to explain things that diverge from the hypothesis, not the other way around. The assumed truth is always the null hypothesis. That is how science works: Warmists say: 1. Man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere has been the cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to almost all the recent warming. 3. That recent warming is harmful in the long term. 4. The cost of mitigating that harmful warming is less then the opportunity cost for that economic activity. They need to explain anything that diverges from those points. 18 years of no warming is a huge divergence. They don't have a clue. If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause. Perhaps you should also address your petty tirade to Aztec89. Hmmm? BTW, where is that hundred year chart of temperatures? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 21, 2014 14:02:59 GMT -8
Explain that? Really? When one puts forth a theory in science it is up to that person to explain things that diverge from the hypothesis, not the other way around. The assumed truth is always the null hypothesis. That is how science works: Warmists say: 1. Man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere has been the cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. 2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to almost all the recent warming. 3. That recent warming is harmful in the long term. 4. The cost of mitigating that harmful warming is less then the opportunity cost for that economic activity. They need to explain anything that diverges from those points. 18 years of no warming is a huge divergence. They don't have a clue. If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause. Perhaps you should also address your petty tirade to Aztec89. Hmmm? BTW, where is that hundred year chart of temperatures? The little ice age ended in 1850. Warming since that point should not be a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 21, 2014 17:43:02 GMT -8
How long before people recognize a political farce disguised as a debate over something real? Cycles people, just cycles.
|
|
