CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

whether politicians agree or not on a scientific issue has no bearing on the facts of the science.

where is the evidence that the US was elected to take all the blame?

 

I am happy to report I have e mailed a top climate scientist.

He says the Democrats game is to scare people. To make them think doomsday is near if they refuse to believe man causes climates.

 

I caught on TV that the Dutch are building up their dykes to ward off rising sea level.

It seems the Dutch bought this theory that man is raising holy hades with climate.

So, why isn't the USA preparing as if for war?

Florida is vulnerable first per the shouters.

But nothing is being done to protect Florida.

One wonders why?
http://www.climatechangenews.com/20...e-flood-defences-to-cope-with-climate-change/

 

Google is your friend.

http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/

 

Shows what you know or better, what you don't know. How does it feel to be a political tool?

 

Yep, you certainly don't know what you don't know. It shows. The activists need useful idiots to carry their water and fear is the vehicle.

 

Well, I read your site. A lot of talking. And hoping that the Florida Government and or the Federal Government takes some sort of action to defend Florida. They say with or without government, they will hold more meetings to discuss what to do.

 

As they should. They have some time

 

I don't debate links. You can use it to quote the study, or present the parameters of the scope & premise of the study. But merely posting a link just tells me that you have no clue about what is being said, & are just bluffing with some appeal to authority with the link.

Summarize the study, post the evidence & standards for gathering it, & i'll be glad to look at it. I hope you understand. Links are not evidence, & it not my desire to go through the web & refute every link that you guys come up with. i'll deal with your arguments, & you certainly can post a link to a study, if it supports your claim.

I understand most scientific jargon, as long as you don't get too technical for the sake of obfuscation. Make your case, present the evidence, & i'll scrutinize your conclusions & opinions about the study.

 

I posted tons of science. You are allergic to science. Lol

 

He might be allergic to ignorance.

 

Nah. It's science. Lol

 

You post assertions & propaganda. You also end every post with 'lol'... I do not consider that to be 'evidence' of AGW.. it is, however, evidence of something else.

 

And you post nothing. And that is hilarious. Lol

 

Also note the usual tactic of turning the conversation away from any evidentiary based discussion, to slurs, question of intelligence, appeals to authority, deflections & plain old insults. That is all that propagandists have. Does anyone post any REAL studies, with REAL evidence of the claim? Of course not. It is a mandate to believe, nothing else. This is not science. This is not logic & critical thinking on display. It is religious devotion to a political agenda, nothing else.

I'm still waiting for ONE scientific study that compels a conclusion of AGW.. Not more assertions... not the opinion of some self proclaimed 'expert', but the real data & real evidence that what is claimed is even possible, much less it is actually occurring.

 

I posted tons of evidence from the best scientists in the field. You have nothing. Lol

 

It would be a science studying that kind of ignorance.

 

Do you not see the irony & hypocrisy in this brief statement? You start out, not presenting evidence, but attacking the intelligence of your political enemy. You have NO 'facts of climate change', but merely ad hominem against a poster.

Show me. One valid study, with the evidence, standards for collecting the data, SOURCE of the data, & the compelling conclusion for AGW. You cannot. There is no such study. All you have is inference, speculation, & a political agenda. And to cover the impotence of your arguments, you attack the skeptics & critics. That is not science. You don't prove a scientific concept by ridiculing those who question the evidence, the data collection, & the conclusions. That is dogmatism.

 

1. Not 'unequivocal', but speculated. where is such data that is not extrapolated or assumed or 'created' by computer models? Certainly you don't suggest that at the turn of the last century, there was data on the temps of the earth's surface across the globe?
2. No 'evidence' says that. That is the 'theory'. The evidence merely is. It is up to thinking people to interpret this evidence (which is quite sketchy, at best) to mean something.
3. Projections are not evidence. They are projections, based on a lot of assumptions, none of which can be proved, & which have a terrible track record of reliability in the AGW community.
4. Seriously? 11,000 years? You have empirical data for all of this?

There is no evidence.. none that is based on science, anyway. Look at the alleged 'evidence' for this claim. It is all based on speculation, extrapolation, computer models, & conflict of interest for a political agenda. There is little to no science in this field at all. It is a politically driven agenda, with mandated, fear mongering beliefs. It is an insult to science to claim this is a 'scientific' debate. It is not. It is a religious debate, & you cannot convince true believers in a religion of anything that is contrary to the tenets of their faith.

 

You have been shown the evidence. It does not please your gas and coal overlords. The heretics must be attacked.

 

The government is not a believer. Sure, you are, but I am not.

 

Show us energy as reasonable as coal and natural gas or gasoline and we want to talk to you.

But all you want to do is frighten people.

So far, there is but one country that actually has moved dirt on a project due to their anticipated rise in sea levels.

Do you want to know what CA is doing? Building a super fast train. Later people will mock CA for the expensive boondoggle. It is already well above expected costs. And this state needs water protection, not trains.

Protection in the form of larger reservoirs or desalination plants.

 

Hey, I have not reminded you previously nor today. That is not my case.

What can you put into your car that takes you so far so cheaply as gasoline?

It is not a sail mounted to the roof of your car.

 

Paint was cheaper when we put lead in it but science told us not to do that anymore.
Aerosols were cheaper when we put CFC's in them but science told us not to do that anymore
Asbestos is cheaper than other insulation but science told us not to do that anymore.

The point should be obvious.

 

Explain the connection to climate???

Thus far your analogies won't work.