Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[BGnight]

I love how some TGR jongs say they "debunked" factual data. You're worse than snopes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using TGR Forums mobile app

[neufox47]

https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/econo...kiarserpfa9iA/

F R A U D

Attachment 296048

Attachment 296049

Attachment 296050

You are a fool.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/iceligh...ice-satellites

[SumJongGuy]

You're worse than snopes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using TGR Forums mobile app

Let's see some examples of Snopes being flat out wrong.... about anything...

[Timberridge]

I'm about to debunk some heads.

[rideit]

Let's see some examples of Snopes being flat out wrong.... about anything...

And then he can post some inaccuracies in the New Yorker.

[basinbeater]

We have not answered the real question "WHO THE FUCK IS RON?"
Pardon my shouting, but this needs to be answered.

Until then, this thread is just monkeys flinging poo at each other.

We will never know. His head is too far up his ass to be identified.

[Timberridge]

Ok. That's the first thing that makes some sense around here.

How about this?
Let's put this thread to rest, and we'll come back to it around 2039 and evaluate all the different claims being made. If Miami is like 110F every day and South Beach is under 2 feet of seawater then Ron is just fucking wrong. If not, then I guess he's right.

[SumJongGuy]

And then he can post some inaccuracies in the New Yorker.

Ya but whattabout The Onion?

[rideit]

Well, whadya know, speaking of the New Yorker

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...MpadtCnb17ullM

[BGnight]

No arguments against heat wave or forest fire data?? You guys are weak.

[MultiVerse]

It's already been covered. Feel free to read back through this thread.

BGnight won't though because intense and specialized training and research on the part of scientists, which objectively debunks BGnight's narrative, is antithetical to his world view. In his mind, and his source knows how easily people like him are fooled, science is belief and belief is science.

Instead, and in response, he attempts to mask his cluelessness by repeatedly claiming that he's trolling.

[BGnight]

Let's see some examples of Snopes being flat out wrong.... about anything...

Lmao, Snopes is the farthest thing from an objective source. And what a team of experts they are! LOL

[BGnight]

It's already been covered. Feel free to read back through this thread.

BGnight won't though because intense and specialized training and research on the part of scientists, which debunks BGnight's narrative, is antithetical to his world view . In his mind , and his source knows how easily people like him are fooled, science is belief and belief is science.

Why would I want to read over posts of completely biased non experts debunking factual data? I'd rather just troll you idiots.

[rideit]

Lmao, Snopes is the farthest thing from an objective source. And what a team of experts they are! LOL

So, you can’t find a single thing they have been wrong about.
Facts are so...pesky...for you clowns

[neufox47]

Lmao, Snopes is the farthest thing from an objective source. And what a team of experts they are! LOL

You spray some bullshit videos that are 45 minutes of idiocy and we’re supposed to spend all day proving the world is round? Nah. I wasted enough time showing that his ice graph was either bullshit or highly misleading.

[WMD]

) ( ) )
_(_____)____(_____(__(_
\ Denying /_
\ climate change / |
\ doesn’t /___|
\ make it /
\ less /
\_ real _/

[old goat]

No arguments against heat wave or forest fire data?? You guys are weak.

The fire data is acres burned, which depends not only on forest and weather conditions and number of fires but how aggressively and successfully fires are fought. In the 19th early 20th century, many fires in remote unpopulated areas were allowed to burn while the ability to fight fires in dry windy conditions was limited. As time went on and more people moved to forested areas fires were fought much more aggressively with increasingly sophisticated techniques and technology such as smoke jumpers (1930's), air tankers and helicopters, chemical fire suppressants, etc. Since the 1980's yearly acreage burned has been increasing, despite aggressive firefighting.

The subject remains complicated. For example, in California a large number of fires in recent years were caused by poorly maintained PGE electric lines. As PGE is forced (hopefully) to improve maintenance and vegetation clearance and as it increasinly shuts off power during red flag conditions, one would hope to see a reduction in acreage burned, at least temporarily until worsening climate overwhelms prevention efforts. Of course, shutting off power for days at a time during fire season (which is year round in many parts of the state) has its own human and economic cost--costs attributable to AGW.

As far as the heat wave "data", both graphs are unattributed, so no comment.

Anyway, the argument is not what's happened already--nothing we can do about that--but what will happen if we continue to do nothing. Even if you are right and heat, fires, and loss of ice are not happening--you're like the guy who falls from the top of the Empire State Building and as he passes every floor thinks "Well, so far so good."

If your source for data on global warming is an investment advisor, what d o you expect?

[ron johnson]

- Who does Ron think "they" are? Because Ron’s own NOAA source has this to say about hurricane activity on the whole, “These global-scale changes are not necessarily projected to occur in all tropical cyclone basins.”

"They" are the climate alarmists. The people pushing every major hurricane as evidence of global warming, and telling us how much worse they are going to get from more carbon emissions.

-- Does Ron think people in regions who might be affected by intensifying hurricanes are "hysterical" ?

WMD lives in Montana. He seems pretty upset about it.

--- Is the National Climate Assessment (U.S. Global Change Research Program) also in on Ron’s globalist climate conspiracy? Because, among others, the 95th percentile extreme rainfall evidence came in part from that American organization.

Yes, the NCA is an incredibly biased political institution. For instance, look at how they ignore the data from before 1960 to make it look like heat waves are getting worse:

Now look at these graphs from https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ :


And from the EPA:



The NCA is also only focused on the US, so its kind of irrelevant to society as a whole if 95th percentile extreme rainfall is increasing in the northeast US if its not increasing on a global scale.

----- Does Ron know what the word consensus means? Because earlier in this thread Ron posted evidence of medium confidence for more extreme rainfall associated with climate change and then more recent evidence (2019) was presented. Why is Ron disagreeing with his own source? Does Ron realize there’s ongoing research taking place?

No, I posted evidence of medium confidence of increased heavy precipitation. That is not the same as extreme rainfall. That was from SR15, the most recent IPCC report released in October 2018. Why do you automatically assume more recent = better? Why do you insist on cherry picking specific studies as proof of your positions? Do you not understand that the supposed purpose of the IPCC is to assess the research as a whole and present their conclusions to policymakers and the pubic? What is your problem with the IPCC and the "settled science consensus" when it comes to hurricanes and extreme rainfall?

----- Is Ron ignoring the existence of high confidence evidence for greater numbers of heatwaves associated with climate change?

See above for what happens to your evidence of heatwaves when you stop cherry picking.

------ Since it is virtually certain (99%) there will also be fewer cold days and nights, and instead more hot days and nights does Ron think there's no cause for concern?

Concern? Sure. Catastrophe and extinction? I don't see evidence supporting that kind of hysteria. But the fact remains that we don't have the technology to do anything about it anyway.

[iceman]

You funny mang.

Hi-fukkin-larious.

Keep beating that puppy though.

[iceman]

I'm gonna tell you the truth: The world is not ending. But fuck you anyways.

[Buster Highmen]

The funniest thing is that if anyone is hysterical, it's rj and bg.

[iceman]

oh for sure. the word "shrill" absolutely jumps to mind. Too funny.

[Buster Highmen]

oh for sure. the word "shrill" absolutely jumps to mind. Too funny.

fuck, read my mind.

[Norseman]

Posting with great fervor

[SumJongGuy]