Jindal is an idiot

[countryroads89_rivals]

He tried to tell Obama not to make any climate comments during the upcoming 10th anniversary event of Katrina, saying it was politics. The guy just doesn't get it. Sounds like a couple of people on this board. LMAO.
http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/08/rapidly_rising_sea_level_threa.html
http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/08/rapidly_rising_sea_level_threa.html

 

[WhiteTailEER]

He tried to tell Obama not to make any climate comments during the upcoming 10th anniversary event of Katrina, saying it was politics. The guy just doesn't get it. Sounds like a couple of people on this board. LMAO.
http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/08/rapidly_rising_sea_level_threa.html

That's stupid on a lot of levels. One, it's not politics, it's only politics to the GOP. Second, even if it were politics, you're going to tell a politician to not talk about political topics?

97% of climate scientists say it's so.
Exxon says it's so.
BP says it's so.
The Pentagon says it's so.
The IPCC says it's so.
NOAA says it's so.
NASA says it's so.

The only ones that don't are the GOP and their sheep ... and of course the big donors to the GOP because acknowledging it disrupts the status quo and they'll never make it to be Trillionaires.


I can see the comments coming. "Polar ice caps are bigger than ever." Umm, actually, no they aren't. Antarctica's ice is increasing, but the Arctic's ice is decreasing. And decreasing at a more rapid rate than Antarctica's is increasing, resulting in a net loss.

 

[mneilmont]

That's stupid on a lot of levels. One, it's not politics, it's only politics to the GOP. Second, even if it were politics, you're going to tell a politician to not talk about political topics?

97% of climate scientists say it's so.
Exxon says it's so.
BP says it's so.
The Pentagon says it's so.
The IPCC says it's so.
NOAA says it's so.
NASA says it's so.

The only ones that don't are the GOP and their sheep ... and of course the big donors to the GOP because acknowledging it disrupts the status quo and they'll never make it to be Trillionaires.


I can see the comments coming. "Polar ice caps are bigger than ever." Umm, actually, no they aren't. Antarctica's ice is increasing, but the Arctic's ice is decreasing. And decreasing at a more rapid rate than Antarctica's is increasing, resulting in a net loss.

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

 

[Keyser76]

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

The DoD and especially the Navy says it's so.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

I don't intend to speak for WTE, but speaking for myself, your post is a classic chicken-egg thing. This climate change is not MY position and I have found evidence to support it, I have followed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that those numerous, reputable scientists listed in his post convince me that it is happening. I'll give you this much; they claim up to 3 feet of rise in the next 100 years and I'm not sure I "buy" that much rise. If it occurs in a linear fashion, it will only be slightly greater than 1 foot. They may not be assuming the rise is linear. And granted, I am a scientist but not a climate science expert.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

Do I always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of truth? I don't think I accept any source as an honest broker of the truth 100% of the time. However, when you have that many different entities (those are just the domestic ones, there are many more global ones) that are studying something that agree on the results ... yes, I'll tend to lend it some credence.

It would be stupid not to ... in fact the only reason not to would be because somebody has a vested interested for it not to be true. Our government isn't creating this ... entities all over the world agree. In case you hadn't noticed, people in the rest of the world don't often agree with us on much.

Let's put it this way ... if this were ANY other topic that has received this much consensus, it wouldn't be held to near the scrutiny this one is. Why is that? Because the biggest and most powerful in the world will be the ones most effected by it being true.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I don't intend to speak for WTE, but speaking for myself, your post is a classic chicken-egg thing.

Go ahead and speak for me ... truth be known, MY original position was that it was a bunch of nonsense. Then I started reading, from more and more sources and I was convinced. It isn't MY position that 2+2=4 ... there's no "position" to take on that.

I did what too many seem to be unwilling or unable to do ... I objectively looked at all information and changed my viewpoint to fit what I found. What I didn't do was to be intellectually dishonest with myself and engage in confirmation bias so that I could "prove" that my original position was correct. In fact, I find that behavior to be the height of cowardice because it shows that somebody is afraid of being wrong ... something that won't hurt anything but their ego.

 

[mneilmont]

I don't intend to speak for WTE, but speaking for myself, your post is a classic chicken-egg thing. This climate change is not MY position and I have found evidence to support it, I have followed the evidence and have come to the conclusion that those numerous, reputable scientists listed in his post convince me that it is happening. I'll give you this much; they claim up to 3 feet of rise in the next 100 years and I'm not sure I "buy" that much rise. If it occurs in a linear fashion, it will only be slightly greater than 1 foot. They may not be assuming the rise is linear. And granted, I am a scientist but not a climate science expert.

Are you offering an argument against yourself, or do you you know something that you prefer not to commit to? I don't think I follow your scientific offering.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

This reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian....what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Are you offering an argument against yourself, or do you you know something that you prefer not to commit to? I don't think I follow your scientific offering.

All I am saying is that the scientific community, worldwide, generally agrees global warming is occurring. I'm not sure there is great agreement on the amount of sea level rise, but they do agree the sea level will raise. I'll also admit that 20 years ago I wasn't convinced global warming was occurring. Make sense now?

 

[mneilmont]

Do I always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of truth? I don't think I accept any source as an honest broker of the truth 100% of the time. However, when you have that many different entities (those are just the domestic ones, there are many more global ones) that are studying something that agree on the results ... yes, I'll tend to lend it some credence.

It would be stupid not to ... in fact the only reason not to would be because somebody has a vested interested for it not to be true. Our government isn't creating this ... entities all over the world agree. In case you hadn't noticed, people in the rest of the world don't often agree with us on much.

Let's put it this way ... if this were ANY other topic that has received this much consensus, it wouldn't be held to near the scrutiny this one is. Why is that? Because the biggest and most powerful in the world will be the ones most effected by it being true.

So I am stupid because people who have been dishonest in the past are making a statement. All of these sources are offering, therefore, I should jump on the bandwagon and scream that the lowerlying properties are going to be flooded and the polar bear are going to be extinct, and Al is ..... . No thanks.

My brother is preaching that the world is coming to an end by the end of the year. He is the most honest person on the earth. I don't take his word for it, because I don't believe he knows that as a fact. I will treat you with the same respect.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

My brother is preaching that the world is coming to an end by the end of the year.

What evidence/data does he have to support this?

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

So I am stupid because people who have been dishonest in the past are making a statement. All of these sources are offering, therefore, I should jump on the bandwagon and scream that the lowerlying properties are going to be flooded and the polar bear are going to be extinct, and Al is ..... . No thanks.

My brother is preaching that the world is coming to an end by the end of the year. He is the most honest person on the earth. I don't take his word for it, because I don't believe he knows that as a fact. I will treat you with the same respect.

Is he a racist too?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

and Al is ..... . No thanks.

And there is the root of it. It isn't that you find that collective to be dishonest ... you just don't want to lend any credibility to Al Gore ... a democrat.

Have those people/entities been dishonest? Sure. I challenge you to find anybody/any group that hasn't.

If it was ONLY Exxon saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If if was ONLY BP saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the Pentagon saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the Navy saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY NOAA saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the IPCC saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY NASA saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY one climate scientist saying it ... I'd be skeptical.

When ALL of those agree, plus about 1000 more climate scientists and many more entities globally, AND I go and read the evidence they have for myself ... then I stop being skeptical. And THEN, I think, "why would anybody deny this given all this evidence?", and I look at WHO is denying it and what they have at stake by denying it ... I stop being skeptical.

What does Exxon have to gain? What does BP have to gain? Acceptance of this actually hurts them. What does NOAA have to gain? What does NASA have to gain?

If 97% of the world's heart surgeons recommended a procedure that would save your life, would you tell them to go suck eggs?

 

[mneilmont]

What evidence/data does he have to support this?

Didn't ask. Not concerned with his source. I do not believe anyone has that knowledge to share. Do I need a source to believe him. I have used no source to disbelieve. Do you really think I should attempt to get a source to verify either position?

 

[mneilmont]

All I am saying is that the scientific community, worldwide, generally agrees global warming is occurring. I'm not sure there is great agreement on the amount of sea level rise, but they do agree the sea level will raise. I'll also admit that 20 years ago I wasn't convinced global warming was occurring. Make sense now?

"Make sense now". So over twenty years, you have changed your mind, therefore, I should accept because you have? Gee, that was pretty easy.
Actually, I have no problem with warming. The problem I have, will there be a cooling period later to offset it? If not, will humans adapt? Is there an absolute problem?

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Didn't ask. Not concerned with his source. I do not believe anyone has that knowledge to share. Do I need a source to believe him. I have used no source to disbelieve. Do you really think I should attempt to get a source to verify either position?

That's the whole point. Climate change is based on evidence and data; an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. So, if the sea level rose 0.13 inch last year, what caused it if global warming is not occurring?

 

[mneilmont]

And there is the root of it. It isn't that you find that collective to be dishonest ... you just don't want to lend any credibility to Al Gore ... a democrat.

Have those people/entities been dishonest? Sure. I challenge you to find anybody/any group that hasn't.

If it was ONLY Exxon saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If if was ONLY BP saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the Pentagon saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the Navy saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY NOAA saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY the IPCC saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY NASA saying it ... I'd be skeptical.
If it was ONLY one climate scientist saying it ... I'd be skeptical.

When ALL of those agree, plus about 1000 more climate scientists and many more entities globally, AND I go and read the evidence they have for myself ... then I stop being skeptical. And THEN, I think, "why would anybody deny this given all this evidence?", and I look at WHO is denying it and what they have at stake by denying it ... I stop being skeptical.

What does Exxon have to gain? What does BP have to gain? Acceptance of this actually hurts them. What does NOAA have to gain? What does NASA have to gain?

If 97% of the world's heart surgeons recommended a procedure that would save your life, would you tell them to go suck eggs?

Are all of the people opposed to your position less learned? Do none of the learned people on the other side have valid positions? Are you equipped to debate them?

If you and your side have all of the knowledge, please share source, and I may reconsider even if they are democrats. If there are some who are more advanced in the field than you and have an opposing view that is justifiable, then, I will tell them to suck eggs.

As previously stated, I do not know which side is correct, but damned if I am going to be swayed by a larger number just because of their numbers. Nor am I going to be swayed by big corp names who have no more credibility/expertise in the subject area than the opposition.

As to people who have no ulterior/financial motive, I would suggest you consider peeling back the onion.

 

[mneilmont]

That's the whole point. Climate change is based on evidence and data; an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. So, if the sea level rose 0.13 inch last year, what caused it if global warming is not occurring?

I honestly have no question/problem with climate change. I see changes near daily. I am old enough to see variances between years. I have enough background to realize there have been periods of change.

Is there a problem caused by the change that living things cannot adapt to? What problems were caused by sea level change last year? Will it correct at a later date? Are there learned people with opposing views with valid arguments? Can models be impacted by introduction of faulty assumptions? And the biggie, what is the measurable impact that humans have/had on the change?

 

[Popeer]

I have enough background to realize there have been periods of change.

Is there a problem caused by the change that living things cannot adapt to? What problems were caused by sea level change last year? Will it correct at a later date? Are there learned people with opposing views with valid arguments? Can models be impacted by introduction of faulty assumptions? And the biggie, what is the measurable impact that humans have/had on the change?

Wait, you're not allowed to introduce any of those into the argument, because it just makes the alarmists sputter that "it's settled!" Nobody wants to talk about the as yet un-numbered changes in the climate over the course of the earth's 4.5 billion years of existence, and they sure as hell don't want to have to explain what caused all the changes in the 4 billion years of earth history before us nasty, greedy, fossil fuel-burning humans appeared. Trying to bring those and the points you made into the discussion will just get you labeled as a denier (even if you agree that the climate is changing and we all know it is because if not we'd still be freezing), because they have to cling to the belief that if humans cause, or even contribute to climate change, then humans can slow or maybe even stop it -- something most of us know is flat not true, because there are too many other factors that contribute to it.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Wait, you're not allowed to introduce any of those into the argument, because it just makes the alarmists sputter that "it's settled!" Nobody wants to talk about the as yet un-numbered changes in the climate over the course of the earth's 4.5 billion years of existence, and they sure as hell don't want to have to explain what caused all the changes in the 4 billion years of earth history before us nasty, greedy, fossil fuel-burning humans appeared. Trying to bring those and the points you made into the discussion will just get you labeled as a denier (even if you agree that the climate is changing and we all know it is because if not we'd still be freezing), because they have to cling to the belief that if humans cause, or even contribute to climate change, then humans can slow or maybe even stop it -- something most of us know is flat not true, because there are too many other factors that contribute to it.

Do volcanoes emit CO2? Just wondering. Are there other greenhouse gases other than CO2? Just wondering on that too.

 

[WVPATX]

Those are some very big sources that you offer to support YOUR position. Do you always accept all of those sources as honest brokers of "TRUTH"? If so, great. If not, why are they offered as a source in this matter? Because they agree with your preconceived position?

I take no position on the matter as long as there are honorable people with knowledge on the matter in disagreement. But, damned if I am willing to bet our entire economy to retool to meet the demand that our government is obviously attempting to create.

He's very, very misleading and dishonest with that post. Everyone agrees that the climate has changed. The planet has gotten warmer over the last 150 years as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. The question is man's role and what if anything can or should be done.

 

[Popeer]

Do volcanoes emit CO2? Just wondering. Are there other greenhouse gases other than CO2? Just wondering on that too.

Yes to both questions, although I don't know why that matters except that the alarmists are fixated on CO2 and not on any other factors that contribute to natural variations in the climate.

 

[WVPATX]

All I am saying is that the scientific community, worldwide, generally agrees global warming is occurring. I'm not sure there is great agreement on the amount of sea level rise, but they do agree the sea level will raise. I'll also admit that 20 years ago I wasn't convinced global warming was occurring. Make sense now?

The climate has warmed. However, we haven't warmed in 18 plus years. The models forecasted continued, unabated warming. The question is man's role, if any. That's where the supposed consensus of 97% of scientists falls apart.

So many predictions of global warmists have failed to materialize. More storms, more violent storms, an ice free arctic, etc. All have been proven wrong. Lots more work to do given the climate's complexity that we simply do not understand very well.

 

[Keyser76]

The climate has warmed. However, we haven't warmed in 18 plus years. The models forecasted continued, unabated warming. The question is man's role, if any. That's where the supposed consensus of 97% of scientists falls apart.

So many predictions of global warmists have failed to materialize. More storms, more violent storms, an ice free arctic, etc. All have been proven wrong. Lots more work to do given the climate's complexity that we simply do not understand very well.

********.

 

[WVPATX]

********.

As Jack Nicholson once said, "You can't handle the truth."

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

********.

I think there are a couple of posters that it isn't worth trying to debate any more (for me) because they just don't like facts; it's like arguing with a 4-year-old. Their response is typically "nuh uh" or "cause" or "you're a fuktard". They can't follow simple logic and can't comprehend what they read. If they read something, regardless of the source and it says what they want it to say, it becomes gospel. PATX is one of those.

 

[WVPATX]

I think there are a couple of posters that it isn't worth trying to debate any more (for me) because they just don't like facts; it's like arguing with a 4-year-old. Their response is typically "nuh uh" or "cause" or "you're a fuktard". They can't follow simple logic and can't comprehend what they read. If they read something, regardless of the source and it says what they want it to say, it becomes gospel. PATX is one of those.

Please tell me where my post was wrong.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Please tell me where my post was wrong.

However, we haven't warmed in 18 plus years. More storms, more violent storms, an ice free arctic, etc. All have been proven wrong.

There are a couple right there. We have warmed over the last 20 years; there are countless graphs that show it. The weather has been very erratic over the last 20 years; 20-inch rainfalls in southern Oklahoma and northern Texas. We are losing ice in the arctic. It's not ice free and no one said it was going to be ice free at this time, but it is decreasing.

 

[mneilmont]

I think there are a couple of posters that it isn't worth trying to debate any more (for me) because they just don't like facts; it's like arguing with a 4-year-old. Their response is typically "nuh uh" or "cause" or "you're a fuktard". They can't follow simple logic and can't comprehend what they read. If they read something, regardless of the source and it says what they want it to say, it becomes gospel. PATX is one of those.

Some of the crap that you demand that we agree with when reasonable people refuse your position, WHAT IS A PROPER RESTONSE? Duh huh and nuh uh are perfectly logical responses. You just get upset because no one will agree with the absolute ******** you attempt to spread.

May I ask what the proper response is to your inquiry as to why sea level rose .13 inch last year if there has been no warming over the past 18 years??? Your settled science of 97 % of scientist say global warming is what gives rise to sea level. How much did the sea rise the year before last when we only had 17 years without warming? What will be the projected rise this year. Is there scientific proof that there is something particular about 18 years?

 

[mneilmont]

Go ahead and speak for me ... truth be known, MY original position was that it was a bunch of nonsense. Then I started reading, from more and more sources and I was convinced. It isn't MY position that 2+2=4 ... there's no "position" to take on that.

I did what too many seem to be unwilling or unable to do ... I objectively looked at all information and changed my viewpoint to fit what I found. What I didn't do was to be intellectually dishonest with myself and engage in confirmation bias so that I could "prove" that my original position was correct. In fact, I find that behavior to be the height of cowardice because it shows that somebody is afraid of being wrong ... something that won't hurt anything but their ego.

 

[mneilmont]

Tail, I attempted to highlight a couple lines from you this AM, but was unsuccessful. Overlook my attempt to paraphrase. You suggested it was cowardice for anyone to reject a popular opinion by saying "What would it hurt anyone ..... . except their pride?" I thought about the coalminers in WV who are being financially placed in ruin because of the arrogance of Obama wanting to create a "Green Energy Economy". Fairly popular opinion at the time, but really growing field that says that environment damage from fossil fuels is not measurable. But there was big push from liberals to create a green energy world. Do you really think miners were not impacted by that decision - beyond pride?

 

[WVPATX]

There are a couple right there. We have warmed over the last 20 years; there are countless graphs that show it. The weather has been very erratic over the last 20 years; 20-inch rainfalls in southern Oklahoma and northern Texas. We are losing ice in the arctic. It's not ice free and no one said it was going to be ice free at this time, but it is decreasing.

There hasn't been any warming in 18 years based on satellite measurements which are more accurate than ground based measurements. This has been widely discussed. Hurricanes are almost nonexistent in the U.S. Tornadoes aren't increasing. Floods and draughts have occurred but experts disagree on what if any influence global warming has had. The US Navy predicted an ice free arctic in 2016. Ice is now increasing in the arctic and the Antarctic recently recorded its greatest ice extent ever.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt

 

[bornaneer]

I have ALWAYS agreed that climate change exists and that mankind contributes to it. Now all you experts please tell me when you expect the planet to start cooling. Most of the science I have seen on the subject says it could take as long as 1,000 years after a complete halt of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental measures like sea level and ocean surface temperature to return to pre-industrial levels. Do you actually think mankind can halt all emissions? Some studies have shown that the production of cement produces more CO2 than all volcanic activity in the world.

 

[mneilmont]

He tried to tell Obama not to make any climate comments during the upcoming 10th anniversary event of Katrina, saying it was politics. The guy just doesn't get it. Sounds like a couple of people on this board. LMAO.
http://www.nola.com/futureofneworleans/2015/08/rapidly_rising_sea_level_threa.html

Are you really qualified to call this man an idiot? Compare his credentials to yours and I suspect that you would be the one who is deficient. Magnet HS grad at the top of class. Brown graduate with honors. Oxford graduate as Rhodes Scholar. He turned down admittance to Harvard Med and Yale Law. Do you really want to call him an idiot. This AM, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and then did some research on education background. You have attempted to mislead again.

 

[WVPATX]

Are you really qualified to call this man an idiot? Compare his credentials to yours and I suspect that you would be the one who is deficient. Magnet HS grad at the top of class. Brown graduate with honors. Oxford graduate as Rhodes Scholar. He turned down admittance to Harvard Med and Yale Law. Do you really want to call him an idiot. This AM, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and then did some research on education background. You have attempted to mislead again.

Jindal would have to lose about 80 IQ points to reach Bidens level

 

[mneilmont]

Jindal would have to lose about 80 IQ points to reach Bidens level

Careful now, I think he has two degrees from WVU.

 

[PriddyBoy]

typically "nuh uh" or "cause" or "you're a fuktard"

"typically", yet you don't cite 1 instance. And your post was in support of "********." What's the point being made with "********?' That it's a source of CO2? You typically bring little to a discussion.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Tail, I attempted to highlight a couple lines from you this AM, but was unsuccessful. Overlook my attempt to paraphrase. You suggested it was cowardice for anyone to reject a popular opinion by saying "What would it hurt anyone ..... . except their pride?" I thought about the coalminers in WV who are being financially placed in ruin because of the arrogance of Obama wanting to create a "Green Energy Economy". Fairly popular opinion at the time, but really growing field that says that environment damage from fossil fuels is not measurable. But there was big push from liberals to create a green energy world. Do you really think miners were not impacted by that decision - beyond pride?

That's really not what I was saying, or at least not what I meant.

I was referring to confirmation bias. If people take a position on something, and then not allow their position to be changed in light of new information/facts, I find that to cowardly. Being wrong will only affect their pride. That also assumes that we are talking about people like you and me talking on a message board. If I'm wrong, it hurts nothing/nobody but my pride. Same with you.

With other things, there's obviously more at stake. If I'm wrong in my position regarding my investments, it affects my family's financial future.

Now. When you talk about policy makers, that's a different story because their actions affect everybody. (including the miners you mentioned) It's even MORE important for them to not engage in confirmation bias, but ironically they seem to engage in it more than anybody. "Look, I found a snowball in DC in February!! Therefore global warming is a hoax"

 

[WhiteTailEER]

May I ask what the proper response is to your inquiry as to why sea level rose .13 inch last year if there has been no warming over the past 18 years??? Your settled science of 97 % of scientist say global warming is what gives rise to sea level. How much did the sea rise the year before last when we only had 17 years without warming? What will be the projected rise this year. Is there scientific proof that there is something particular about 18 years?

There HAS been warming over the last 18 years!!

Do you know where the 18 years comes from? That's is a rather arbitrary number, isn't it? Why not 15 years or 20 years? You know, increments in time that are more commonly used?

The reason is that people can point to the temperature EXACTLY 18 years ago, an El Nino year and say "well, the temperature was __ that year, and it's ___ now, therefore no warming" However, the temperature that year was unusually high, it was an outlier, so it is intellectually dishonest to pick that specific year as a basis of comparison.

If, instead, you actually look at the trend lines, you'll see that the temperature is still increasing. 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last decade. 2014 was the hottest on record, and 2015 is on pace to pass that.

If temperatures were increasing, you would expect to see more record highs recorded and less record lows recorded ... and that's exactly what we are seeing.