Page 108 of 126 FirstFirst ... 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 ... LastLast
Results 2,676 to 2,700 of 3148
  1. #2676
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    How am I supposed to respond to someone who falsely accuses me of doing exactly what he does?
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    ask joe biden
    HAHAHAHA Fucking post of the MONTH!
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  2. #2677
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,944
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Self diagnosis is an important first step, well done rideit!
    The fact that Ron can't see that myopic fools such as himself are being mocked is very telling of his state of denial. I highly doubt that someone as delusional as himself is married, but If he is, he would likely never know he is being cuckolded, even when the evidence is right in his face and in his bed.
    Or he's just a cynical schill, I actually hope the latter for his sake.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  3. #2678
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's worth pointing out that this all started when Ron posted an Australian rainfall chart that had nothing to do with drought conditions in the effected region, had nothing to do with how the drying across portions of Australia is the most large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900.
    Actually we had already resolved that koalas aren't becoming functionally extinct due to global warming. This started up again because you decided to post a summary of some of the "science" in this thread, of which, you got maybe 20% right.

    But to bring it back to Australian rainfall, my chart was entirely relevant, because finding small regional trends in drought is proof of nothing. For example, the fact that the central US has seen significantly less intense heat over the past 70 years is not proof that the globe isn't warming.

    That's why Ron wrong because many of his arguments are either outdated or cherry picked, contrary to his false accusations of me doing the same. For example, the IPCC report referenced earlier in this thread came out before the extreme rainfall paper and several of the ancillary regional paper(s) were released so it will be interesting to see what the next IPCC report says about extreme rainfall. Whereas Ron fell back on the earlier, now outdated, IPCC report to make false accusations of cherry picking.
    My positions aren't outdated or cherry picked. The IPCC report I have most often referenced in this thread came out 1 year ago. In addition to being a cherry picker, you also jump to the conclusion that newer = better. I'd also like to know why you think your opinion is more valid than that of the IPCC?

    The same is true of the hurricane data. Ron’s Forbes article even make the same point. The Forbes article references the 2017 Climate Assessment and mentions updated hurricane research so Ron’s “indisputable facts” are not so unequivocal. It's not cherry picking to cite updated research. In fact, this what the latest 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment has to say:
    “Human-induced change is affecting atmospheric dynamics and contributing to the poleward expansion of the tropics and the northward shift in Northern Hemisphere winter storm tracks since 1950. Increases in greenhouse gases and decreases in air pollution have contributed to increases in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1970. In the future, Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricane rainfall and intensity are projected to increase, as are the frequency and severity of landfalling “atmospheric rivers” on the West Coast.”

    Since the most recent research is so important to you, here is what NOAA has to say, updated Nov 25, 2019:

    "Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, which is also correlated with rising SSTs (e.g., see blue curve in Fig. 4 or Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number of storms would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic."

    "In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase."
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

    Additionally, this quote from the WMO tropical cyclone assessment, is from October 2019: "only 1 of 11 authors agreed with the following statement: ‘the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a detectable increase in North Atlantic [tropical cyclone] activity since the 1970s’."

    Even if it were true that your claim that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased since 1970, what does it matter? What exactly is your point? There hasn't been any increase in landfalls since 1900, and there hasn't been an increase in hurricanes globally.

    This is just like your Australian drought claims - but look! there is drought in SE Australia! But look! there is more hurricane intensity in the West Pacific! You just continue your cherry picking tactics as evidence of global warming.

    The same is true of Ron’s claim that there hasn’t been an increase in heatwaves which is just as wrong today as it was earlier in this thread. Does it even need to be pointed out that increasingly frequent heatwaves in Europe, Australia and across much of Asia is the opposite of cherry picking? Those are, after all, substantial areas of the planet.

    Ron even tried to hang his hat on pre-1950 Australian heatwaves but the summer of 2018−19 was Australia's overall hottest on record during which several major heatwaves occurred and even between the record peak events, temperatures remained high. And prior to the 2019 heatwave, the 2009 southeastern Australia heatwave led to record-breaking prolonged high temperatures in the region. That heat wave was thought to be one of the, if not the, most extreme in the region's history up until 2019.

    The reality is heatwaves are increasing in Australia too.
    Heatwaves are not increasing in Australia:
    Name:  aust-ave-numb-very-hot-days-graph-2016.png
Views: 98
Size:  36.7 KB

    and http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/hea...-abc-say-that/

    Like I said, I can't find any heat wave data on Europe, so I'm going to ignore it and pretend you are right. Asia has a scarcity of data, so its tough to make any strong conclusions there. Australia is not seeing more heatwaves, and the US is seeing significantly less heat waves.

  4. #2679
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    And finally wildfires. There are two large trends at play. Because of human agricultural expansion, intensification and increasing population density there's been a decrease in area burned, the largest of which is African savannas and grasslands, while at the same time there's been a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in other areas like the western United States and the recent fires in Australia. Two things can true at the same time. It's not cherry picking to say climate change has exacerbating wildfires even though globally machines have shrunk the total area available to fires for farmland.

    The bottom line is climate change is exacerbating wildfires in fire-prone ecosystems even though overall those ecosystems are shrinking due to human development.
    A point of mine throughout this thread is that there are so many variables in wildfires that it is impossible to separate out the climate factor from other factors like fire suppression, invasive species, land use, population growth. But we do know, whether looking at decadal or centurial scales, wildfires are not getting worse.

    There has not been a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the Western US. From my first global wildfire study:

    "Few studies exist that have explicitly examined trends in fire severity. These have mainly focused on the western USA, an area where there are particular concerns about increased fire activity [42,70]. Examining trends from 1984 to 2006 for large ecoregions in the north- and southwest USA, Dillon et al. [71] found no significant increase in the proportion of annual area burned at high severity for five of the six regions considered, with the southern Rockies being the exception. For the Sierra Nevada region (California), which was not covered in the previous study [71], Hanson & Odion [72,73] found no general increase in fire severity within the period 1984–2010. Considering ten national forests in California for the same period, Miller & Safford [74] found a significant increase in burn severity for yellow pine–mixed conifer forests. They attribute this largely to decades of fire suppression and other management practices rather than climate, which have led to major changes in forest composition and structure, increases in density and fuel-loading, and hence fire behaviour. Covering the much larger area of the dry forest landscapes of the western USA, including large parts of those examined in the aforementioned studies, Baker [75] found that the rate of high-severity fire in the period 1984–2012 was within or below that of historical century- to millennial-scale estimates."

    Yes, I acknowledge the referenced studies are a bit dated, but regardless, Western US fires are oders of magnitude smaller compared to the early half of the 20th century.

    And finally, no, Australia's fires are not getting worse: https://theconversation.com/climate-...he-point-19649

  5. #2680
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    ask joe biden
    Guess I'm doing it right then.

    I'm not corrupt, he's corrupt!
    No he's corrupt!
    No you are!

  6. #2681
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    I just remember Ron not being able to read graphs.
    Is this still going on?
    I remember you being the insult police. Have you found any instances of me insulting someone without being first provoked? You still working on that?

  7. #2682
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    The fact that Ron can't see that myopic fools such as himself are being mocked is very telling of his state of denial. I highly doubt that someone as delusional as himself is married, but If he is, he would likely never know he is being cuckolded, even when the evidence is right in his face and in his bed.
    Or he's just a cynical schill, I actually hope the latter for his sake.
    I dismiss your 11,000 scientists including Mickey Mouse link, I dismiss your first WaPo article, I dismiss your second WaPo article, I dismiss your illogical belief that expanding world government is an impossibility, but I'm the myopic fool? Have you gotten anything in this thread right?

  8. #2683
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,791
    Once again this is the reason why Ron arguments are like that scene in movies where you realize BOTH pilots are gone is because this is what his own now updated source (IPCC) has to say about the things being discussed on this page:


    "Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heatwaves has increased since the middle of the 20th century."

    "It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends." Which is the same point I made, i.e. about increasing 95th percentile "extreme" events, earlier in this thread.

    For all of Ron's false accusation about cherry picking and so on, his own source refutes his absurd heatwave statement and refutes his accusation about "cherry picking individual papers"


    What's more,

    - Ron keeps ignoring that the drying across portions of Australia is the most large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. It's not a so called regional drought, it's a long term trend resulting from climate change.

    - Ron's joannenova Australia argument failed to include the latest 2018-2019 heatwaves which have since superseded pre-1950 heatwaves in scope and affected area. It was also the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.

    - Ron's Australia's fires are not getting worse "theconversation" article is from 2013 and does not include the unprecedented drought and fires that have happened since.

    - Contrary to Ron's “indisputable facts,” the point about Atlantic hurricane activity increasing is simply the fact that latest 2018/2019 research says the proportion of the highest hurricane intensity significantly increased in the Atlantic so we'll have to see if that tips the balance in subsequent consensus reports.

    - Ron's Western US., per his own assessment, is in fact outdated. Because there are more fires and those fires are larger:

    Over the past six decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of fires in the western U.S. In fact, the majority of western fires—61 percent—have occurred since 2000.

    Those fires are also burning more acres of land. The average annual amount of acres burned has been steadily increasing since 1950. The number of megafires—fires that burn more than 100,000 acres (156 square miles)—has increased in the past two decades. In fact, no documented megafires occurred before 1970.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/s...he-western-us/

  9. #2684
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    1,367
    Thanks for continuing to post useful and accurate information in this thread but you should really stop engaging with ron. He must either be getting paid to post all the bullshit or at the very least knows it's bullshit and is doing this deliberately on his own. Like it has to be trolling, right? Otherwise how can you criticize the cherry picking and sources while at the same time ONLY cherry picking data and sharing garbage discredited sources? How can you claim to be the smartest person in the thread? How can you claim to be smart while ignoring what's staring you right in the face?

    Use the ignore feature and move on.
    Last edited by jamal; 11-28-2019 at 09:18 PM.

  10. #2685
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,944
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Have you gotten anything in this thread right?
    This is the most unintentionally ironic, hilarious things that you have said so far.
    Do you know who is bangin’ Your wife?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  11. #2686
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Once again this is the reason why Ron arguments are like that scene in movies where you realize BOTH pilots are gone is because this is what his own now updated source (IPCC) has to say about the things being discussed on this page:
    "Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heatwaves has increased since the middle of the 20th century."


    I have never disputed that heatwaves have increased since the middle of the 20th century. Even in the US this is true. I have disputed that this is true in the US and Australia where we have longer term records.

    "It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends." Which is the same point I made, i.e. about increasing 95th percentile "extreme" events, earlier in this thread.

    Where are you getting this statement from? SR15 is the most recent IPCC report I have been using. I don't see it in there. Where are you getting that heavy means 95th percentile?

    - Ron keeps ignoring that the drying across portions of Australia is the most large-scale change in rainfall since national records began in 1900. It's not a so called regional drought, it's a long term trend resulting from climate change.
    How in the world is it not a regional drought, when it only in one region of Australia? Since rainfall rates in Australia haven't decreased despite this drought, that means other regions must be receiving more rainfall.

    Further, this is what the SR15 has to say on drought globally:

    "The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale, but that there was high confidence in observed trends in some regions of the world, including drought increases in the Mediterranean and West Africa and drought decreases in central North America and northwest Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013). AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the attribution of global changes in droughts and did not provide assessments for the attribution of regional changes in droughts (Bindoff et al., 2013a)."

    - Ron's joannenova Australia argument failed to include the latest 2018-2019 heatwaves which have since superseded pre-1950 heatwaves in scope and affected area. It was also the hottest summer on record for New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which was 1.35 °C above its previous record. South Australia and Tasmania had their second-hottest summers on record, and Queensland its third-hottest.
    To be able to say that heatwaves are increasing in Australia there has to be a trend. Even if you include the 18/19 heatwaves you aren't going to have a trend.

    - Ron's Australia's fires are not getting worse "theconversation" article is from 2013 and does not include the unprecedented drought and fires that have happened since.
    Basically the same as the last point. You need a trend to say they are getting worse. Tack on the recent fires to the graph in the article, there won't be a trend.

    - Contrary to Ron's “indisputable facts,” the point about Atlantic hurricane activity increasing is simply the fact that latest 2018/2019 research says the proportion of the highest hurricane intensity significantly increased in the Atlantic so we'll have to see if that tips the balance in subsequent consensus reports.
    Still, what's your point? Even if we were to accept that hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic has increased since the 70's, there has been no increase in landfalls, and no increase globally. It doesn't prove anything.

    - Ron's Western US., per his own assessment, is in fact outdated. Because there are more fires and those fires are larger:
    Over the past six decades, there has been a steady increase in the number of fires in the western U.S. In fact, the majority of western fires—61 percent—have occurred since 2000.

    Those fires are also burning more acres of land. The average annual amount of acres burned has been steadily increasing since 1950. The number of megafires—fires that burn more than 100,000 acres (156 square miles)—has increased in the past two decades. In fact, no documented megafires occurred before 1970.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2830/s...he-western-us/
    Dated? Yes. Outdated as in useless? No. Two of those referenced papers cover the period up to 2010 or 2012, which according to your graph include the bulk of the worst fire years and found no increase in fire severity.

    Further, as discussed repeatedly, it isn't possible to isolate climate's role in wildfires compared to other factors like suppression, invasive species, population growth, infrastructure, etc. But we do know that Western US fires have not gotten worse when looked at over a longer timescale.

  12. #2687
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by jamal View Post
    Thanks for continuing to post useful and accurate information in this thread but you should really stop engaging with ron. He must either be getting paid to post all the bullshit or at the very least knows it's bullshit and is doing this deliberately on his own. Like it has to be trolling, right? Otherwise how can you criticize the cherry picking and sources while at the same time ONLY cherry picking data and sharing garbage discredited sources? How can you claim to be the smartest person in the thread? How can you claim to be smart while ignoring what's staring you right in the face?

    Use the ignore feature and move on.
    Yes, all my cherry picking and discredited sources like the IPCC and NOAA.

  13. #2688
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    This is the most unintentionally ironic, hilarious things that you have said so far.
    Do you know who is bangin’ Your wife?
    I could have predicted this would be the direction you would go. I could try to claim that the sky is blue and many of you guys would try to tell me that I'm wrong.

  14. #2689
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,791
    I kinda wish I had never called anything terrible in my whole life so I could’ve saved it for when ron said he refuted that bunch of things haven't happened with "indisputable facts" on the previous page and then said "I have never disputed" those things happening on this page.

    It's a mountain of lies and feigned ignorance from ron.

  15. #2690
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I kinda wish I had never called anything terrible in my whole life so I could’ve saved it for when ron said he refuted that bunch of things haven't happened with "indisputable facts" on the previous page and then said "I have never disputed" those things happening on this page.
    This is dishonest. When have you ever seen me claim that heatwaves haven't been increasing since 1950? I have always emphasized long term data when talking about heatwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's a mountain of lies and feigned ignorance from ron.
    The classic cop-out, but that type of talk does make your lackeys foam at the mouth, so well played.

  16. #2691
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,944
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I could have predicted this would be the direction you would go. I could try to claim that the sky is blue and many of you guys would try to tell me that I'm wrong.
    So, as predicted, you aren’t married. Got it.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  17. #2692
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    So, as predicted, you aren’t married. Got it.
    He was but couldn't handle her alarmist clock waking him up all the time. He tried to tell her that nobody gets fired for not showing up at work on time.. Time is all a myth manufactured by the clock makers to scare the general public in to conforming to un necessary temporal norms.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  18. #2693
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,256
    "Countries from Siberia to Australia are burning: the age of fire is the bleakest warning yet"

    "On any day, between 10,000 and 30,000 bushfires burn around the planet.
    "Realms as diverse and distant as Siberia, Amazonia, Indonesia, Australia and California are aflame. The advent of “the age of fire” is the bleakest warning yet that humans have breached boundaries we were never meant to cross."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-warning-yet

  19. #2694
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,108
    The number of major fire years, in which more than a million acres burned, has also increased in Alaska, says Rupp. Although there were only eight major fire years from 1950 to 1989, from 1990 to 2018 there were 11 years in which more than a million acres burned.

    https://time.com/5657188/alaska-fire...limate-change/

  20. #2695
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,897
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I remember you being the insult police. Have you found any instances of me insulting someone without being first provoked? You still working on that?
    Yup. Right here ^. Nope, haven't needed to, especially after I conceded that a lot of people have insulted you.

    But really, if your point is that the globuhl warminz folks are just a bit over the top and screechy, maybe it's time to consider your own tone?
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  21. #2696
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Yup. Right here ^. Nope, haven't needed to, especially after I conceded that a lot of people have insulted you.
    Your initial assessment wasn't wrong because ron's tactics are an insult, too. Among the more insidious games ron plays is feigning ignorance about previously discussed topics.


    For example, on the previous page ron asked "Where are you getting that heavy [extreme rainfall] means 95th percentile?" but the definition of rainfall two or three standard outside the norm for a given time period was discussed at length earlier, all with the typical back-and-forth that is characteristic of these discussions.

    And again, Ron repeatedly asked, "How in the world is it not a regional drought, when it only in one region of Australia? Since rainfall rates in Australia haven't decreased despite this drought, that means other regions must be receiving more rainfall" or describing it as a"small regional trend" when the question was already asked and answered.

    Rainfall across south and eastern and southwestern Australia has declined long term while rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia. So answer is, unlike regional drought in the past, per the discussion 3-4 pages ago, Anthropogenic long term warming is the most important driver of changing climate patterns in Australia. In other words, it's like asking how can the American West be drying when rainfall is increasing in the American Northeast?


    Those are just two of the many, many examples of ron's attempts to poison the well. It's asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, or making the same arguments from the beginning over and over even though those arguments were debunked or updated.

    Skeptics don't have to accept the answers or the updated information but pretending the questions haven't been answered or the discussion hasn't been elucidated is an insult both to the individual and to the community as whole.

  22. #2697
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,897
    My assessment was that he couldn't read graphs, so no real point in engaging.
    Props to MV for taking the time.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  23. #2698
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your initial assessment wasn't wrong because ron's tactics are an insult, too. Among the more insidious games ron plays is feigning ignorance about previously discussed topics.


    For example, on the previous page ron asked "Where are you getting that heavy [extreme rainfall] means 95th percentile?" but the definition of rainfall two or three standard outside the norm for a given time period was discussed at length earlier, all with the typical back-and-forth that is characteristic of these discussions.
    I know we have discussed rainfall, but I do not recall ever having a discussion where we determined that 'heavy' means 95th percentile. I'm not sure what your point is anyway because I have never denied that rainfall has been increasing, I've taken issue with 'extreme' rainfall increasing. You seem to believe that heavy = extreme.
    And again, Ron repeatedly asked, "How in the world is it not a regional drought, when it only in one region of Australia? Since rainfall rates in Australia haven't decreased despite this drought, that means other regions must be receiving more rainfall" or describing it as a"small regional trend" when the question was already asked and answered.

    Rainfall across south and eastern and southwestern Australia has declined long term while rainfall has increased across parts of northern Australia. So answer is, unlike regional drought in the past, per the discussion 3-4 pages ago, Anthropogenic long term warming is the most important driver of changing climate patterns in Australia. In other words, it's like asking how can the American West be drying when rainfall is increasing in the American Northeast?
    Your answer was useless drivel. It is of course a regional drought because it is confined to a region of Australia. How can that regional drought be blamed on CO2 when there has been no increase in drought in Australia, and no increase in drought throughout the world?

    To further enforce the realities of natural climate variability with relation to droughts, California experienced a 180 year drought and a 240 year drought within the past 1300 years. And yet, the recent small drought in California was being blamed on CO2. Imagine if that happened today!

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...cientists-say/
    Those are just two of the many, many examples of ron's attempts to poison the well. It's asking the same questions over and over without caring about the answers, or making the same arguments from the beginning over and over even though those arguments were debunked or updated.

    Skeptics don't have to accept the answers or the updated information but pretending the questions haven't been answered or the discussion hasn't been elucidated is an insult both to the individual and to the community as whole.
    If those are your two examples of me 'poisoning the well,' then you have nothing on me. Your repeated accusations of me lying, misrepresenting, or having been debunked, without ever providing real evidence other than your cherry picked studies that don't conform to consensus or real data is shameful behavior.

  24. #2699
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    "Countries from Siberia to Australia are burning: the age of fire is the bleakest warning yet"

    "On any day, between 10,000 and 30,000 bushfires burn around the planet.
    "Realms as diverse and distant as Siberia, Amazonia, Indonesia, Australia and California are aflame. The advent of “the age of fire” is the bleakest warning yet that humans have breached boundaries we were never meant to cross."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-warning-yet
    No surprise that you have learned nothing.

  25. #2700
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    588
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    My assessment was that he couldn't read graphs, so no real point in engaging.
    Props to MV for taking the time.
    You guys will never live that down will you? All because I didn't look closely at a graph, because next to the graph in large font was the the number I expected to see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •