Climate Cult Exploits Harvey

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

So tell me how global warming accounts for the fact that 14 major tropical cyclones made landfall in the US between 1926 and 1969, but only 4 have done so from 1970 through 2017?  Aren't we much warmer now, so shouldn't the frequency and intensities of storms be reversed for those periods?

Now B&K, I know you don't honestly expect an answer to your logical question, do you?  Just defective comments or memes are all you deserve.  Putting forth FACTS shall not be met with reluctant acceptance; rather, scornful denigration of your logic, since those who opt not to believe in logic will attempt to invalidate your logic with nonsensical replies.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

My question was first, but if you feel my statement was a violation to the TOS, feel free to hit the report button.  Keep in mind that doing this admits that global warming is in fact a religion.

Actually, my data about the lack of credibility of Pielke on this topic came first, did you take a gander at those links? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

My question was first, but if you feel my statement was a violation to the TOS, feel free to hit the report button.  Keep in mind that doing this admits that global warming is in fact a religion.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

See what I mean?  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Now B&K, I know you don't honestly expect an answer to your logical question, do you?  Just defective comments or memes are all you deserve.  Putting forth FACTS shall not be met with reluctant acceptance; rather, scornful denigration of your logic, since those who opt not to believe in logic will attempt to invalidate your logic with nonsensical replies.

Do you think that labeling someone a cult member because they belive the current science is NOT scornful?   Is cult member supposed to be some sort of compliment?  To me, I take deep offense at being labled a cult member.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Here's the facts, Jack... In order for there to be global warming, things have to be getting (wait for it) WARMER!!  And guess what?  In an era of global cooling, temps have to be trending towards COOLER!!

 

It's called climate change.  Been going on for millions of years.  Long before man was around.  It's a natural cycle, neither of which can be sustained for long (globally speaking.  In man years, many lifetimes).

[Dashinka 24,448]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Actually, my data about the lack of credibility of Pielke on this topic came first, did you take a gander at those links? 

Yep, and I addressed that in my response.  However historical records do not lie regardless of the person stating the fact unless you are aware of a lot more major tropical cyclones that hit between 1970 and 2017 that were only recorded by the global warmists.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IDWAF said:

Here's the facts, Jack... In order for there to be global warming, things have to be getting (wait for it) WARMER!!  And guess what?  In an era of global cooling, temps have to be trending towards COOLER!!

 

It's called climate change.  Been going on for millions of years.  Long before man was around.  It's a natural cycle, neither of which can be sustained for long (globally speaking.  In man years, many lifetimes).

Good to know Joe, what is your science degree in?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yep, and I addressed that in my response.  However historical records do not lie regardless of the person stating the fact unless you are aware of a lot more major tropical cyclones that hit between 1970 and 2017 that were only recorded by the global warmists.

Did you look at all of those links in less than 15 minutes?  And addressed them how?

[Dashinka 24,448]

3 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Do you think that labeling someone a cult member because they belive the current science is NOT scornful?   Is cult member supposed to be some sort of compliment?  To me, I take deep offense at being labled a cult member.

Do you think being labeled a racist nazi for voting for Trump is fun?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Then perhaps you should type things that are facts, not blindly quoting things that come from people sounding... cultist?

 

It's really not all that hard.  Just look outside the box that you currently believe holds all the facts.  The universe is MUCH bigger than all of us, and the (not always) brilliant minds that want us to believe we are destroying the climate are doing so for a reason.  And it's NOT for the benefit of their grandchildren's grandkids.  Do we affect the environment?  Certainly.  Are we as humans having the largest effect on it?  I doubt it.

 

Ponder this: What was the final outcome of the first 3 ice ages, and how much influence did man have on them.  

 

1 minute ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Do you think that labeling someone a cult member because they belive the current science is NOT scornful?   Is cult member supposed to be some sort of compliment?  To me, I take deep offense at being labled a cult member.

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Do you think being labeled a racist nazi for voting for Trump is fun?

did I do that? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Do you think being labeled a racist nazi for voting for Trump is fun?

That's different.  And you are racist for even bringing it up!!  Reported...

[Dashinka 24,448]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

Did you look at all of those links in less than 15 minutes?  And addressed them how?

Those links are irrelevant to my question.  You can easily do your own research to see that there were more major storms in the earlier period than in the current period as my question posited regardless as to who is saying it. 

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

That's different.  And you are racist for even bringing it up!!  Reported...

[Dashinka 24,448]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

did I do that? 

Did I label you a cult member?  I was just following the policies regarding starting a topic using a published article by using the headline in the title.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Those links are irrelevant to my question.  You can easily do your own research to see that there were more major storms in the earlier period than in the current period as my question posited regardless as to who is saying it. 

They speak directly to the lack of credibility of the scientist cited in the article..why is that not relevant?