Fossil fuels

[kallend 1,621]

brenthutch

*********>Global warming = natural, predicable


?? CO2 doesn't cause El Ninos. Are you getting your science from Breitbart again?

Tell that to Kallend.

I didn't claim CO2 had anything whatever to do with El Ninos. That was pure speculation on your part.
Sorry, my bad. You must have accidentally misposted when you linked to an article about El Niño induced coral bleaching, in response to my post about the moral superiority of fossil fuels.

Oh BTW, very funny.

You mean the article I posted (post #2, this thread) that mentions NEITHER El Nino events NOR CO2 levels?

(IOW your reading comprehension sucks.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

From your article,
“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

Sometimes comprehension involves more than just reading.

[billvon 2,384]

>“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two
>mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

>1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water
>that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

That would be . . . you who attributed that to CO2.

When you can't even keep your own BS straight any more . . . you might want to stop dispensing it as rapidly.

[brenthutch 383]

billvon

>“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two
>mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

>1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water
>that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

That would be . . . you who attributed that to CO2.

When you can't even keep your own BS straight any more . . . you might want to stop dispensing it as rapidly.

I was channeling the bed wetting warmist. Bill, seriously, you know better. I hope.

[normiss 620]

Do any of your posts make sense?

[kallend 1,621]

brenthutch

From your article,
“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

Sometimes comprehension involves more than just reading.

You, brenthutch, made a strawman and have been caught out. I did NOT mention either CO2 or El Nino in that post, and neither did the article I linked. YOU brought el Nino and CO2 into the discussion.

Maybe you get away with inventing strawmen elsewhere, but it doesn't work here.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

brenthutch

***>“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two
>mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

>1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water
>that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

That would be . . . you who attributed that to CO2.

When you can't even keep your own BS straight any more . . . you might want to stop dispensing it as rapidly.

I was channeling the bed wetting warmist. Bill, seriously, you know better. I hope.

When you resort to name-calling it is clear that you know you've lost.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

kallend

***From your article,
“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

Sometimes comprehension involves more than just reading.

You, brenthutch, made a strawman and have been caught out. I did NOT mention either CO2 or El Nino in that post, and neither did the article I linked. YOU brought el Nino and CO2 into the discussion.

Maybe you get away with inventing strawmen elsewhere, but it doesn't work here.

Why then, did you respond to a post about the moral superiority of fossil fuels, with a link to an article about coral bleaching?

And what is this, if not a strawman?

"Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them."

A slice of humble pie might go well with the crow you are eating.

[rushmc 18]

From James Shott who wrote on the Patriot Post.
He echo's what we see here sadly.

Quote

A few years ago, Hal Willis, a scientist from the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society after 67 years as a member. Why? He cited the global warming/climate change issue and the blind allegiance to global warming theory by so many of the Society’s members, as well as the organization’s failure to challenge these members in the name of true scientific investigation. Moreover, he noted that billions of dollars of research funding is a major reason the practice of true science on climate change has been replaced by ideological advocacy.

Of the climate change issue Willis said, “It is the greatest pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a scientist.” His position has support from other scientists, among them Dr. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Prize-Winner for physics.

Giaever joined more than 70 Nobel Science Laureates in signing an open letter in October 2008 expressing strong support for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who had proclaimed that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” Seven years later, Giaever believes Obama’s warning was a “ridiculous statement.” He told a Nobel forum last July, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen is emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT. Citing the growing shrillness of the cries about “global warming” during his 30 years there, during which time he says “the climate has changed remarkably little,” he notes that the less the climate changes, the louder the warnings of climate catastrophe become.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

From a book written by Gerrit van der Lingen. The book is “The Fable of a Stable Climate, the writings and debates of a climate realist"

Quote

Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the “scientific” theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based been borne out by actual data. We are not seeing any high frequency of emergency situations or events. There has been no increase in the number of floods. Just as there has been no increase in the number of droughts. We can see that the speed of the wind in the hails in some areas is decreasing contrary to the statements made by the people who support the Kyoto Protocol. We are not witnessing a higher incidence of contagious diseases, and if there is a rise, it has nothing to do with climate change.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

I should have included this in the other post. So, at the end of his book he says the following, which I totally agree with.

Quote

When future historians will be studying the present global mass hysteria about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming (MMGW), they will most likely shake their heads in total disbelief. They may well compare it with other such historic irrational hysterias, like the tulipomania in Holland in the 17th century. …

The belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause, or will cause catastrophic global warming is a … totalitarian belief. It does not allow ‘critical discussion’. Those scientists who try are vilified. Over the years I collected the following abuses: ‘climate change deniers’, ‘cashamplified flat-earth pseudo scientists’, ‘the carbon cartel’, ‘villains’, ‘cranks’, ‘refuseniks lobby’, ‘polluters’, ‘a powerful and devious enemy’, ‘profligates’. The list is endless. …

By saying that the science of climate change is ‘settled’ and not open to further discussion, clearly shows that the belief in man-made global warming is not based on proper science, but is a neoMarxist, intolerant ideology. It is anti-science, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-growth, antihumanity, anti-progress.

And I have one more question to all you alarmists. If the science is settled, why are these so called scientists still asking for and receiving millions (if not billions) in research grants?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

brenthutch

******From your article,
“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

Sometimes comprehension involves more than just reading.

You, brenthutch, made a strawman and have been caught out. I did NOT mention either CO2 or El Nino in that post, and neither did the article I linked. YOU brought el Nino and CO2 into the discussion.

Maybe you get away with inventing strawmen elsewhere, but it doesn't work here.

Why then, did you respond to a post about the moral superiority of fossil fuels, with a link to an article about coral bleaching?

And what is this, if not a strawman?

"Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them."

A slice of humble pie might go well with the crow you are eating.

And now you demonstrate that you don't even know the meaning of "strawman".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

And I have one more question to all you alarmists. If the science is settled, why are these so called scientists still asking for and receiving millions (if not billions) in research grants?

Same reason we still spend millions on malaria research and prevention despite having known for a century what causes it and how it is spread.

What is your next stupid question?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 620]

In all my MIT/Navy training, we were always told there is no such thing as a stupid question.
This forum has fully changed my perspective on that.

[brenthutch 383]

Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

[brenthutch 383]

kallend

*********From your article,
“The severity of bleaching in the central section is less, and closer to the intensity of the first two mass bleaching events on the Barrier Reef, in 1998 and 2002,"

1998, 2002, and 2016......all moderate to strong el'nino events. Where do you think the warm water that precipitated the bleaching came from? CO2?

Sometimes comprehension involves more than just reading.

You, brenthutch, made a strawman and have been caught out. I did NOT mention either CO2 or El Nino in that post, and neither did the article I linked. YOU brought el Nino and CO2 into the discussion.

Maybe you get away with inventing strawmen elsewhere, but it doesn't work here.

Why then, did you respond to a post about the moral superiority of fossil fuels, with a link to an article about coral bleaching?

And what is this, if not a strawman?

"Even coral polyps are joining in the hoax. I wonder what NOAA, NASA, The UK Met. Office, JMA and the National Academy of Sciences used to bribe them."

A slice of humble pie might go well with the crow you are eating.

And now you demonstrate that you don't even know the meaning of "strawman".

Now you are grasping at straws...man

[normiss 620]

brenthutch

Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

Is that even possible?

[brenthutch 383]

normiss

***Still can't bring yourself to explaine your initial response to my OP.

Is that even possible?

We will see.
Give him a few hours to get his thoughts together.

[normiss 620]

Two reasons,

First, mispeellings, again.

Second, explanations have thus far failed to be absorbed.

Good luck.

[DanG 1]

Quote

First, mispeellings, again.

Isn't there a rule about criticizing someone else's spelling or grammar?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 383]

"I don’t give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."
Mark Twaine

[normiss 620]

I'm not sure, you might ask the moderators.
A lot of us sure do point it out with regularity when it's people who are near impossible to understand due to their grammatical challenges.
More so when they refuse to own up to it and blame us for not understanding.
If only there was a red squiggly line to help us.

I've been very guilty of it myself. Mock me, I'm good with it.

[quade 3]

DanG

Quote

First, mispeellings, again.

Isn't there a rule about criticizing someone else's spelling or grammar?

No.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

You missed the joke.

The rule is, "When you criticize someone else's spelling or grammar, you will invariable make a mistake yourself."

Normiss misspelled 'misspelling'.

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

quade

***

Quote

First, mispeellings, again.

Isn't there a rule about criticizing someone else's spelling or grammar?

No.

I think he's referring to Muphry's Law.

But I also thought most of the misspellings in the criticisms were intentional.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!