Sahara Desert Snow Storm

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

This rare occurrence on December 19 must have left the global warming believers scratching their heads.

A white Christmas in the Sahara...

6 7 pages already. Nice trollin'!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

To answer your question: Because I was alive and had ran life experience in the rough time frame. There was no need to "research" more subsequently doctored material. Duh. .

Subsequently doctored material?

OK, no point talking to a tinfoil hat.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

6 7 pages already. Nice trollin'!

[This is for the quoted comment, not the depicted individual.]

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by conachair

Subsequently doctored material?

OK, no point talking to a tinfoil hat.

My tinfoil beats your hat.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

6 7 pages already. Nice trollin'!]

Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate the effort I put into it.... it's not easy not being green.

Things were getting quite boring on CF during the month leading up to the new year. It's good to see you back.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Climate science is the definition of softer science and there is definitely big money involved with carbon credits, solar/wind subsidies, electric car subsidies.

This is one aspect that I truly don’t get with the intentionally uninformed (is that better than “denier”?); by any calculation the money in this debate is massively weighted to one side. The status-quo carbon burning side is magnitudes more resourced than those on the "carbon credits, solar/wind subsidies, electric car subsidies” side. Hundreds of billions, nay trillions sit on that side of the equation. There is money on the green side, but it is many factors less.

Even one of the principle arguments against “going free” build on this fact; that doing so will hurt the economy b/c so much money is at stake. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim massive economic harm, while at the same time arguing all the financial incentives are on the other side. Makes no sense…

As for soft science, I do not include geology, hydrology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, solar physics, glaciology, and all the related mathematical and statistical computational disciplines to be soft. But to each his own.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is one aspect that I truly don’t get with the intentionally uninformed (is that better than “denier”?); by any calculation the money in this debate is massively weighted to one side. The status-quo carbon burning side is magnitudes more resourced than those on the "carbon credits, solar/wind subsidies, electric car subsidies” side. Hundreds of billions, nay trillions sit on that side of the equation. There is money on the green side, but it is many factors less.

Even one of the principle arguments against “going free” build on this fact; that doing so will hurt the economy b/c so much money is at stake. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim massive economic harm, while at the same time arguing all the financial incentives are on the other side. Makes no sense…

As for soft science, I do not include geology, hydrology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, solar physics, glaciology, and all the related mathematical and statistical computational disciplines to be soft. But to each his own.

It must drive you to drink (copious amounts of beer) to now know that more than half of America is now "intentionally uninformed."

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is one aspect that I truly don’t get with the intentionally uninformed (is that better than “denier”?); by any calculation the money in this debate is massively weighted to one side. The status-quo carbon burning side is magnitudes more resourced than those on the "carbon credits, solar/wind subsidies, electric car subsidies” side. Hundreds of billions, nay trillions sit on that side of the equation. There is money on the green side, but it is many factors less.

Even one of the principle arguments against “going free” build on this fact; that doing so will hurt the economy b/c so much money is at stake. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim massive economic harm, while at the same time arguing all the financial incentives are on the other side. Makes no sense…

As for soft science, I do not include geology, hydrology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, solar physics, glaciology, and all the related mathematical and statistical computational disciplines to be soft. But to each his own.

Nor do you apparently understand government grants, old money vs new money, or the economic theory encompassed by the velocity of circulation of fruitcakes. Glaciology is not a soft science??? BTW, sociology, perhaps the ultimate of soft science has numerous statistical components. But, truth be told, most of what is said about climate change (take your pick of positions) on this forum is generalization, with very little in the way of direct measurement, repeatability, and actual observation (except as weather). It is overwhelmingly as reliable as tomorrow's weather forecasts to which is is related, but tens and hundreds of times removed as far as proven accuracy. I cannot say any prediction is actually wrong until the time frame for the prediction comes up. Thus far, the climate forecasters have not done well.

[Tayana42]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It must drive you to drink (copious amounts of beer) to now know that more than half of America is now "intentionally uninformed."

Less than half by 2,900,000 votes.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It must drive you to drink (copious amounts of beer) to now know that more than half of America is now "intentionally uninformed."

Oh Ken, you must know by now that I never need an excuse to drink copious amounts of beer .

[Reefmagnet]

The true deniers in this argument are the ones that deny that even if warming is absolutely caused solely by human generation of carbon dioxide there is not a damned thing of any substance we can do about it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Less than half by 2,900,000 votes.

True, if you're counting illegal aliens and dead people.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The true deniers in this argument are the ones that deny that even if warming is absolutely caused solely by human generation of carbon dioxide there is not a damned thing of any substance we can do about it.

And those of us actually rooting for global warming. Don't forget us.

Here's to a warmer and brighter future.

Bring on the sunscreen!

[tuffr2]

The real answer to stop the small portion of human caused global warming is men need to keep their peckers in their pants and woman need to keep their legs crossed. Stop population growth. Then stop driving cars/trucks, stop heating your homes, don't build any fires, stop running boat motors, lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc. Cut electricity use by 90%

World population needs to be 500,000,000. Not 7.5 billion.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by tuffr2

The real answer to stop the small portion of human caused global warming is men need to keep their peckers in their pants and woman need to keep their legs crossed. Stop population growth. Then stop driving cars/trucks, stop heating your homes, don't build any fires, stop running boat motors, lawn mowers, weed eaters, etc. Cut electricity use by 90%

World population needs to be 500,000,000. Not 7.5 billion.

Yeah, it was awesome back then.