The Sun-Climate Effect

There has been no increase in hurricane strength.

 

One degree C in the last ~150 years is not warming strongly. The claim that human CO2 emissions are the climate control knob is meets no scientific method proof standards. It’s a claimed consensus made by those don’t apply the standards of scientific proof.

And regardless global warming is beneficial. The major cost increases associated with global warming is increased air conditioning costs. The climate catastrophe alarmists play right into the 100 year plan of the Chinese Communist Party.

 

I provided 4 links.

Should I provide more?

Nah. You'd ignore them as well. Your religion commands that.

Sure it does. A prediction was made, experiment by observation was conducted, the experiment verified the theory. That's the definition of science.

In contrast, reality flatly contradicted the theories of your side. Therefore, your side's theories are wrong, no matter how devout your faith in them is.

And now you're going off on a Gish Gallup, including a kook political rant. Way to establish credibility.

We on the rational side don't have to use such tactics. We can just point to the facts.

 

Hurricane strength was greater in the 1920's and 1930's. Your links are localized, rely on models, only consider a limited time span, and thus are bogus.

The facts are clear - there is no scientific basis for claiming that human CO2 emissions are the global warming control knob. Regardless global warming is beneficial - always has been and always will be.

There is a Judeo-Christian principle - do unto others .... The economic damage being done to low income families in the global community by the climate catastrophe fanatics is reprehensible.

 

Ah, the "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" argument. It's about all deniers have.

Every claim there is false. You didn't look at the links. Come on, 'fess up, it really is that obvious.

We get it. Your religious beliefs are very strong. However, being that all the data contradicts them, don't expect anyone else to embrace them.

There's also a "don't lie" thing, which most denier ignore.

 

Links? Let me guess - you got this from Rumble? Newsmax? Tuckums? Faux?

 

I am over this principle and now will only provide links when they do

 

Because my statement about hurricanes in the 1920’s and 1930’s is factual.

Your links are bogus. You obviously didn’t pay attention to what you posted.

That’s funny.

 

Pelkie Jr. (from the book “Disasters and Climate Change”) using data from the NHC and normalizing for inflation, household wealth, property density, and population.

Read Jack’s recommended book “The Climate Puzzle”. 500 pages of lies??

 

Links are a dime a dozen. Anything can be proven using internet links as confirmation bias. Fully referenced and footnoted books which can be checked for accuracy are the only reliable source of information.

 

Nice try.
Fail.
One. Just one.

 

Not falling for Brandolini’s law - you define the parameters correctly and then we will discuss it further

 

Ha! Are you trying to tell me you are incapable of performing a critical analysis on the content of a link?

 

Yep! Sure is!
BTW you might find this interesting it is Pielkie talking about what he got wrong
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-i-got-wrong

 

You obviously did not read the link you posted above. He has not gotten anything wrong on published data.

 

Look directly above.

 

I did read it - did you? You know the bit after

I am betting (and it is a pretty safe bet given the time between when I posted and you replied) that you only skimmed the post in fact he states he was wrong more than once

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-i-got-wrong

 

What you did was NOT repeat NOT a critical analysis

 

As I pointed out these were predictions for the future and not data analysis of what has occurred where he has been accurate.

 

Ah, no.

 

Sigh. For the umpteenth time, it is the absence of supernova activity that promotes warming. You are supporting my point. Increased GCR presence promotes cooling.

 

You should acquaint yourself with the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis.

 

The "parameter" in this case is simple.
Pick any one of the doomsday predictions made in the last 100 years or so.
I randomly picked this list for you, but feel free to suggest one to your liking from any list to your liking;
The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists | 710 WOR | Mark Simone (iheart.com)

Show that it was accurate.
Then we can talk about how much longer we have as a species on this planet.

 

Lols!


Lols! Your list starts with

Lols! 1895! Why not just write a list of every newspaper report that has been wrong ever?

It also ends in 2008 we have 15 years of more data since then.

Also - did you read this list because it is bloody confusing as to what point is trying to be made and who they think are making the errors I.e.

is it implying James Inhofe (you know the guy with the snowball) was wrong? I mean I certainly agree with THAT!

 

And GCRs have increased, the earth has seen ... strong warming.

Oops. So much for the GCR theory.

No matter how much you love your theory, if the data says it's wrong, it's wrong. The data says your theory is wrong.