1997vs2015-latest-still.jpg

Could this be the end of California’s drought?

Forecasters are warning the West Coast could be hit by what may possibly be the strongest El Niño season on record later this year.

Forecasters with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center told reporters Thursday warming ocean waters nearing North and South America could bring some much-needed rain – along with some other potentially hairy weather – to the region in what one climatologist described as a “Godzilla El Niño”.

The drought was blamed on global warming. So if it rains too much what will they blame? Global warming! No matter what happens – it’s global warming. But it will be good news if we get a lot of water. Even if it means flooding.



  1. MikeN says:

    Recent paper has shown no increase in drought over the last century.

    Now if droughts are caused by global warming, and there is no increase in drought, then the conclusion is no global warming.

    If A then B, is the same logically as if (not B) then (not A).

    So every time the climate activists lie about various scary scenarios like global warming causing more hurricanes, drought, blizzards, etc, they are setting themselves up to disprove global warming.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

      Your error is that AGW does not “cause” droughts. AGW only increases the probability of same. There are other factors involved…..like location.

      Doofus.

      Such a stupid analysis, I assume it was done for humor….but I post for Pedro.

      • MikeN says:

        So Earth has just beat the odds for the last 100 years?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

          What “odds” are you talking about Mickey?

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          Oh….Sorry Mickey….I see what you mean.

          So………….where’s your link?

          My own impression is th at while drought has been big news in Ca this year, that is too localized to form a “Global” view. Globally, same with desertification that was Big News across Southern Sahara Desert, and off and on news in China…and that too is not Global.

          ……….but I suspect……….. you got no link.

          Also related, man diverts water to farm crops which denies local natural flora its historical water source…and that is happening all over the world, but is not normally thought of as “drought.”

          • MikeN says:

            >but I suspect……….. you got no link.

            Yea, you always suspect that.

  2. Hmeyers says:

    It doesn’t matter if there is global warming or not.

    What is for certain is there is acid rain and smog, and a great deal of sulfur and mercury in coal.

    China burns about 40% of the world’s coal, and their air is a health hazard.

    Natural gas is very cheap due to fracking and putting economic pressure on the coal. And natural gas is very clean.

    Coal companies are screaming — but then again — those companies are government-granted monopolies.

  3. Ah_Yea says:

    It would go well with California’s 3 seasons.

    Fire,
    Flood,
    Earthquake.

  4. Likes2LOL says:

    End to California Drought == Beginning of California Mudslides

    It’s all part of the Circle of Life (and/or Death), depending on whether or not your number comes up. 😉

  5. Mr Diesel says:

    So you live in an arid climate and bitch about the lack of water?

    Recycle all the urine on the streets of SF from their 7,000 homeless. That should help out.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

    Demonstrating his conservative roots, in a fury of inane party talking points, Hmeyers says:
    8/13/2015 at 6:12 pm

    It doesn’t matter if there is global warming or not. /// Its the most important issue of this centry/all time. Humans could survive a limited nuclear bomb exchange….but we are on the cusp right now of initiating a cascade of environmental catastrophes that will wipe out most of life on the planet. Heres the relevant question: What happens when you put too much co2 into the atmosphere?====>Thats right knuckle dragging science denying retards: we all die. Relevant issue: how much is too much? It used to be said 350ppm that changed to 400ppm when we went over 350. Now, we are over 400……so I guess the new level of denial for our species is 450ppm? But with China, India, and USA still increasing our amounts of co2 output………………….we…… are …….. all ……….d0omed. The only way AGW doesn’t matter is if you are a misanthropic existentialist.

    What is for certain is there is acid rain and smog, and a great deal of sulfur and mercury in coal. //// add there is a lot of sequestered CARBON in coal and you will have a more compete expression of what is “for certain.”

    China burns about 40% of the world’s coal, and their air is a health hazard. /// Yes….as stated…… a health hazard: FOR THE WORLD.

    Natural gas is very cheap due to fracking and putting economic pressure on the coal. And natural gas is very clean. /// WHOOOOOSH…….. the sound of the obvious going over your head. Its only clean compared to burning coal. There are NO CLEAN carbon based energy sources. Basic Science on which y ou fail.

    Coal companies are screaming — but then again — those companies are government-granted monopolies. /// screaming? about what…. but who cares. I don’t think they are monopolies just to round out your complete idiocy of a post.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    “Blame hot and cold events, droughts and flood, on Global Warming.” /// Yes…. that is exactly right. These are weather events. Specific Weather events are caused by general CLIMATE conditions.

    F*cking Idiot Hoomans.

    • Hmeyers says:

      No, it doesn’t really matter is global warming is real.

      The things we need to be doing …
      1) Renewables
      2) Slash pollution
      3) Better energy efficiency/gas mileage/electric vehicles

      Should be done anyway. I don’t particularly know if any global warming is really happening — however, I do like it being a major issue to cause emphasis on on the above actually getting done.

      i.e. Remember back when fuel efficiency standard sat idle because shitty General Motors makes gas guzzlers. So I’m down with the environmental agenda.

      But he’s why it doesn’t matter:

      1) If we are headed for a doomsday in the next 100 years, we wouldn’t be able to change in time. = Doesn’t matter.

      2) What if the amount of CO2 we put out is beneficial for the ecosystem or has no real damaging effect.

      CO2 isn’t even 1 part per 2500 of our atmosphere and we’ve been burning coal and fossil fuels for quite a while now.

      • Marc Perkel says:

        Good points. I don’t buy 2/3rds of global warming. However we should be switching over to renewables and implementing population control.

  7. Mr Diesel - No more bush in the White House, Hillary's or Jeb says:

    To celebrate I’m going to burn some tires tonight on a bonfire.

    Maybe that will help flush this place quick enough so that I will see it die before I do (or at the same time).

    • ± says:

      If your pathetic D/R party serves up another bush as their nominee, you will soooooo fucking vote for it. Slobbering and all to the polls.

      Think about that. That is you and 10s of millions of other Americans.

      We are so fucked.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

    To the OP…. El Ninos “on average” occur every 3-7 years?….and haven’t broken our current drought…so no reason to think they will break it in the future.

    I did google some to see how many months of storage water an El Nino provides and how many months of use California can store. My gut tells me with very strict control saving all we could, yeah…we might be able to squeak by with add treated waste water, multiple use of gray water, de-sal and so forth.

    …………too many people………. not enough time. Lets all cry for the aborted unwanted fetuses.

    Now……… as we haven’t had an AGW for awhile, I’m off to google what the kill point is. The information is out there, just not organized or presented that way…….that I have found yet.

    Mere warming and ocean rise itself would not kill off hoomans. It would disrupt society throwing us into another dark age….but the warming will trigger some other event (eg-releasing the caltrates) that will cause mass extinction of most animal life….don’t know about plants. The discussion close to on point always switches from ppm to how much average temp rise it would take for possible trip points.

    I pity the kiddies.

  9. spsffan says:

    Hopefully, this “Godzilla El Nino” will occur before any more money is spent on “beautifying” the Los Angeles River.

    The LA River channel was designed and built in response to the floods following an El Nino episode in 1933(or thereabouts). We have a lot of newcomers and folks with short memories here in LA. But I remember well 1969, 1979, 1984(maybe is was 85), 1997 all of which unleashed torrents of water into the LA River that will wipe out the so called beautification efforts in about an hour.

    Of course, what we really need more than rain in LA is snow up in the Sierra Nevada. That’s where the water is stored. If we’re lucky, we’ll get both and drown a few politicians while we’re at it.

  10. I H8 Schwartzeneger-ville says:

    Oh, come on! El Nino? La Nina? When will the San Andreas fault go and swallow you clueless “Cali-fates” into the fiery depths of hell (AGAIN)?!

    (Hint: Washington, as bad as it is, is NOT the biggest problem in America. Just WHERE do you think the political criminals go to get any seed money or “message” out?!)

    I’ve never understood stupid and can’t imagine why building on, or even near a fault zone would seem like a good idea. Ya sure. Japan has little or no choice with them also being in the “ring of fire”. Quite frankly, Japan has nowhere to GO except into the ocean. But add in California’s history of drought, flooding and violent over-crowding? And then having an entire CONTINENT where people could MOVE to?!

    I can just hear the new social movement now, which could ONLY originate in L.A. or San Francisco somewhere: “Stop Continental Drift!” Next thing you know we’ll all have to start thinking about how hard we WALK for fear of triggering another earthquake! (You obese fat-ass ugly mid-westerners are in for a rude surprise if that ever happens. Think, taxes!)

    Yes! Texas stole California’s slogan. It should be: “California: It’s like a whole other country”. Strike that! It’s like a whole other WORLD!

    Hello? Planet HollyWEIRD?! Get ready for some more water. Tears count, don’t they?

    • Der Kommissar says:

      End to Cali…What’s next? The overdue earthquake that ruptures the San Andreas fault, changing stop-and-go into just plain stop in the fast lanes of Los Angeles and San Francisco? The sudden rush into the sea of enormous ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, flooding coastal cities worldwide, making Sandy’s inundation of New York just a short preface to a book of many more chapters?
      What is going on? For decades forward-looking people have warned of potential disasters ahead for this planet, if we don’t change course and pay more respect to the Earth. Such people were dismissed as out-of-touch doom-sayers, but now many see their valid concerns in a clearer light.
      http://5thworld.com/Paradigm/Postings/!Knowledge/Weird.html

      Pack your bags folks, we’re going away.

  11. iwishiwasaballer says:

    Someone actually thinks like this

    It doesn’t matter if there is global warming or not. /// Its the most important issue of this centry/all time. Humans could survive a limited nuclear bomb exchange….but we are on the cusp right now of initiating a cascade of environmental catastrophes that will wipe out most of life on the planet.

    What an idiot

    • Hmeyers says:

      Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

      CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is significantly more common in the atmosphere.

      Why would a small change in a less powerful greenhouse gas that makes up way less of the atmosphere have much of an effect on temperature?

      I don’t expect a reply, I figure you are one of the rabble who probably doesn’t even have an educational background in science.

      Repeating what someone on TV told you is probably the very best you can do in this world.

      And there’s no shame in that.

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

    OMG!!!!!!! The stupid is deep with these two……………..

    ………………..Really?

    ……………….Honestly…………….I did think more of both of you.

    While Already said or implied or the basis for the concern to begin with………….I invite both of you to THINK and then respond with an actual sensible alternative/contradictory ‘FACT rather than attitude or belief statement.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Hmeyers says:
    8/14/2015 at 1:29 pm

    No, it doesn’t really matter is global warming is real.

    The things we need to be doing …
    1) Renewables
    2) Slash pollution
    3) Better energy efficiency/gas mileage/electric vehicles ///// No reason to do anything of those things ABSENT global warming. Continuing as we have is generally Cheaper, involves less regulation and oversight, has a supporting infrastructure in place, and alot of vested interests making big money===>IE==all the reasons that are fighting against acknowledging AGW is here.

    Should be done anyway. /// Again—why?

    I don’t particularly know if any global warming is really happening /// You equally don’t know it isn’t either. So–what do you use to cure ignorance….the latest flyer in your mailbox, or SCIENCE!!!!!

    — however, I do like it being a major issue to cause emphasis on on the above actually getting done. /// Why do those expensive more complicated things?

    i.e. Remember back when fuel efficiency standard sat idle because shitty General Motors makes gas guzzlers. So I’m down with the environmental agenda. /// Name and connect your dots. This really doesn’t mean a thing.

    But he’s why it doesn’t matter:

    1) If we are headed for a doomsday in the next 100 years, we wouldn’t be able to change in time. = Doesn’t matter. /// No…we are “right on the cusp” as the cascade of horribles hasn’t started.

    2) What if the amount of CO2 we put out is beneficial for the ecosystem or has no real damaging effect. /// Magical non-think of the very worst sort. “What if sticking a needle in your eye has no real damaging effect.

    CO2 isn’t even 1 part per 2500 of our atmosphere and we’ve been burning coal and fossil fuels for quite a while now. //// Yes, and the Earth reacted to it and dealt with the initial input, but as you imply……it builds up over time….. and the time to recognize the SCIENCE of the build up ……..was 1977.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Marc Perkel says:
    8/14/2015 at 3:58 pm

    Good points. /// They are each and every one pieces of shit.

    I don’t buy 2/3rds of global warming. /// Name one RELEVANT fact, observation, concern that is wrong.

    However we should be switching over to renewables and implementing population control. /// Forever WHY absent the concern of AGW?

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Hmeyers says:
    8/14/2015 at 1:54 pm

    Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. /// Yes, it is……whats your point?

    CO2 makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is significantly more common in the atmosphere. //// Yes it is…. whats your point?

    Why would a small change in a less powerful greenhouse gas that makes up way less of the atmosphere have much of an effect on temperature? /// Because the climate effects on earth are BASED ON a bascially stable within a range of atmospheric water vapor. WV is a green house gas meaning it heats up the air…. but it also reflects and refracts incoming UV so that the net effect of WV is close to zero. Basic Science.

    I don’t expect a reply, I figure you are one of the rabble who probably doesn’t even have an educational background in science. /// One of your good buds?

    Repeating what someone on TV told you is probably the very best you can do in this world.

    And there’s no shame in that. /// Yes, there is, as demonstrated.

    I think I’ll start the weekend early.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Bobbo, quit being anti-science.

      It is making the Flying Spaghetti Monster very angry with you.

      Your quest to reject science so you can argue with right wingers doesn’t make you different than the creationism crowd.

      It makes you the same as them.

      It’s like watching 2 mental retards who are both wrong argue with each other.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Name the science I am denying.

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and free speech advocate says:

    The logic is remarkable.

    If we fix AGW, a beneficial side effect would be reduction in pollution (of various sorts but probably not plastic such as in the various gyros) and it would act to conserve (make more efficient) automobiles if they went green …………….BUT …………. the two issues while related are not the same.

    You can reduce pollution of everything but carbon without affecting AGW at all.

    You can recycle and make more efficient all you want and still not affect AGW at all.

    It depends on what you are m ore specifically talking about.

    It was about 2 years ago I heard for the first time that 75% of proven oil reserves NEED TO STAY IN THE GROUND. Not to prevent pollution or increase efficiency …. but to stop carbon pollution. Its why the pipeline and drilling in the Arctic is so misguided. Risk damaging the aquifer and sensitive wildlife to get a resource that should stay in place to begin with. Makes no sense.

    Know what I mean?

    • Hmeyers says:

      Ok, so you disagree with me and then re-post exactly what I said as “your idea”.

      If we get renewables working, the oil needs to stay in the ground regardless of whether or not there is AGW or not.

      Electricity can power cars.

      Electricity cannot power jet airplanes.

      We need to save the high energy density fuels because we may never have more of them.

      And yes, in that context we don’t need to get tearing up the environment in the Yukon.

      The difference: I can get to the point without the unproven boogeyman of AGW even being involved in the equation.

      ME > YOU.

      owned!

      • bobbo, in point of fact says:

        Hmeyers says:
        8/15/2015 at 7:03 pm

        Ok, so you disagree with me and then re-post exactly what I said as “your idea”. /// Its not so much that I disagree with you but rather that SCIENCE disagrees with you. I am not scientist, just evidently more widely read, on this subject, than you, Marc, and other DENIERS here. And to whatever reposting is…I don’t understand how such reposting can exactly what you said as in the main, I disagreed with what you said or showed that it was irrelevant. This could be pinpointed if y our responded point by point as I so often do. Gross generalities can often sound good….they just fall apart when looked at more closely…… you know…. as a factual matter.

        If we get renewables working, the oil needs to stay in the ground regardless of whether or not there is AGW or not. /// Lets focus on this statement. Absent the concern for AGW….why does oil need to stay in the ground?

        Electricity can power cars.

        Electricity cannot power jet airplanes. /// Of course it can….and does. Easy to google planes in the sky with ideas of them becoming permanent low altitude electronics platforms. If y ou mean they cannot take over special missions or general aviation….I agree….EXCEPT…electricity can make jet fuel out of co2. …. does have to be scaled. Like all the other issues….its one of the new tech still being worked on, cost, and timing.

        We need to save the high energy density fuels because we may never have more of them. // // Simply not true.. High energy density fuels or long chain hydrocarbons can be manufactured from bio-mass, co2 from the air or combustion products etc. Again: scale, cost, and timing are t he relevant issues.

        And yes, in that context we don’t need to get tearing up the environment in the Yukon. /// Or any other context.

        The difference: I can get to the point without the unproven boogeyman of AGW even being involved in the equation. //// AGW is proven….making you a SCIENCE DENIER. See how that works?

        ME > YOU.

        owned! /// The overwhelming consensus of qualified scientists (97 percent of individuals and 100% of formal societies) says AGW is here and now and will devastate our society if action is not taken to correct this.

        Note: “proven” like everything else in SCIENCE is accepted until a better idea comes along.

        Sadly, the show on CSpan got replaced by something with military uniforms….my sound was off. Hope that show is on again. Maybe HMyers can be stuck with pins?

        Ha, ha………..silly hooman. Lets take “any gas at all” pump it into th e atmosphere, and believe that nothing will happen after several centuries…… because you can’t “prove” anything…..even after it happens.

        Marc—I know you are working on that one item y agree with HMyers about. I remain your curious reader.

  14. jpfitz says:

    El Nino is now a weather possibility, no? Why the alarm? We landed on the moon and we set speed records both on wheels and with wings. With real progress comes change, changes in a lot of fields of science.

    Unfortunately nature had to be a forgone care in mans early formation as a survivor, the instinct to propagate and tribe was very strong.

    I can’t blame cars for my east coast problem. I like to drive to clear my mind. But yeah, cars have an impact.

    “What do raindrops get if they go to an event that is cancelled?”

    “A sun check.” haha

  15. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    ………………………..Science Deniers………………………

    An important word/idea. Often incorrectly used just to indicate disagreement with another persons views, or as a bald insult especially when paired with “knuckle dragging” or other colorful phrases, but on its own it can be purely objective and telling.

    When you deny generally accepted scientific theories, or just facts, but even data points, YOU are a science deniers. Someone who refuses to think, learn, change one’s mind when the evidence is clearly against you. Its a human vice, we are all subject to it. Thinking is Hard and takes energy. BUT, like juggling, it is a skill, and if you practice, you can get better at it.

    When you argue that water vapor is a stronger green house gas and more present than co2 so why worry about co2 and your only then LEARN that water vapor UNLIKE co2 is also highly reflective of solar rays, then you h ave to confirm both of those facts and resolve the importance/accuracy of your original statement.

    Being ignorant and wrong is not Science Denying. That occurs only when you ignore the learning experiences placed before you and you CHOOSE to keep your mind closed. You become a knuckle dragger when being told the truth and unable to refute it, you continue THINKING and worse arguing for what you can’t support.

    Like every dumb ass thing confronted and not responded to above. Best Case: you are researching the truth of claims made. Worst Case: you are totally comfortable not changing a belief once formed.

    Here’s a way to test yourself: watch tv programs that disagree with your current position. Resolve and ACT ON the conflicts. Heres a good starter: Today on CSpan 1 at 7PM PST: “Discussion on Science Skeptics”—“Science, astronomy, and climate change experts discuss how to get science deniers to believe scientific facts.” ///// Ha, ha. Sounds naive to me.

    “How do you get a Religious person to accept reality?” Answer: You can’t. If you could, they wouldn’t be Religious in the First Place.

    If you don’t “actively” confront your own ideas, and change th em from time to time…………………you are missing out on one great joy of being alive.

    Sucks to be you.

    • MikeN says:

      From the description we should conclude bobbo is a science denier.

      I will quibble that it has anything to do with acceptance of science, and is merely an attempt to link opponents to the Holocaust. Michael Mann wrote in his book about how particularly hurtful it was for a certain scientist he knew to be called a Nazi given his family died in the Holocaust. Yet he continues to use ‘denier’.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        What science have I denied?……………by direct implication, yes, I doubt the Earth is not experiencing more drought—but I hardly denied science when I asked you for your link. See how that works?

        Mickey—while I do think you flat out lie from time to time, I have also noted that quite often what you post when you vaguely refer to “recently published” you have when ch alleged come up with what you saw. You usually have misread it, but at least you had something.

        There is general scientific consensus that there is AGW. AGW will generally cause dry places to get drier, and wet places to get wetter. There will be more rain, but also hotter days, and most relevant to most issues of drought: less snow, or more to the point….less snow pack. IE===more drought.

        Got a link?

  16. CrankyGeeksFan says:

    I don’t see any mentioning of these two terms:

    First, the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge – a ridge of high pressure off the northwest Pacific coast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridiculously_Resilient_Ridge

    and The Blob – an area of higher sea temperatures than normal mainly off the coast of Washington State,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)

    Notice the warmer sea temperature stretching from western Cuba across the Gulf of Mexico. (Also, the warmer waters of the Gulf Stream just east of Florida.)

  17. More global warming fruitcakes in their Prius
    Don’t forget to add in dangers of GMO by Monsanto

  18. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See: Lo gically, we must take immediate and even extreme action to avoid AGW:

    https://youtube.com/watch?t=447&v=zORv8wwiadQ

    Guy in video says the catastrophic event could even occur in the next ten years. So…. the tipping point concern is being stated right n ow. Still too much uncertainty, conjecture, alternative scenarios, conservative scientific bias to start tearing out hair out?

    Yes, the very nature of the challenge before u s.

    Its interesting the way the chart and argument is laid out, it “feels” like the yea/nay decision is a 50/50 proposition. BUT with a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that AGW is HERE==NOW== is it really a 50% change the scientists are wrong? Or something very much more remote–making the chart analysis all that more impactful.

    I post because I’d like my species to continue into the future. Right now….I don’t think its going to happen. THE LAG TIME between loading up the atmosphere with co2 and co2 OVERHEATING the atmosphere/ocean is just too great in time and consequence. aka==by the time we all sufficiently agree we gotta do something, we will also finally accept science and also agree its too late.

    Sucks to be hooman.

    • Hmeyers says:

      “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See”

      You can’t be judging videos by whether it is good entertainment.

      Or whether it is “what you want to hear” or “it fits nicely with what I would like to believe”.

      You have to move to the next level: is it science?

      Demand proof. And make the world a better place!

      Science is one true way! It’s the only way.

      There is no other way than science. Jesus, if he were alive today and if he is the liberal peacenik that I think of him of, would be saying the same thing.

      Science is the beginning. The middle. The end.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist asking what will SkyNet think of AGW? says:

        Attempted sarcasm aside, what you have stumbled on is that science is falsifiable.

        If you believe in something that can’t be falsified, then you are holding a religious belief….not a scientific one.

        Should we count up how often religious based notions have been falsified when meant to explain the universe we are a part of?

        But say HM===on what other issue can you name that 97% of the scientists more likely than not are “wrong”?

        ………..you can’t come up with any because…..it happens once a century. Don’t confuse one famous scientist being quoted repetitively by the popular press.

        As you say: go with the Science.

        and when you don’t: You are DENYING SCIENCE.

        Hey…there are worse things.

        • Hmeyers says:

          Only a religion has 97% of people agreeing on anything.

          There are certainly not 97% of scientists agreeing on anything more complicated than basic math.

          Scientists never agree about anything.

          • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. Let's apply says:

            You know HM—its actually dishonest to twist the issue/statement like that. I did think about adding “qualified” to scientists but did not think I had to lower the discussion that much to connect with you. But, that is the level of your Denial.

            But unlike your ilk, at least you provided a link. From your link: ” Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists,….” When talking about climate….. the consensus that counts is QUALIFIED CLIMATE scientists.

            What your article really shows is that this is a complicated subject requiring expertise. Being scientifically trained is not enough. You don’t go to a foot doctor to remove a sex toy from your anus….. you specialize.

            Silly Hooman.

          • Hmeyers says:

            We have established, at least in this case:

            1) You automatically believe information given to you if you want to believe it.

            When presented with a preposterous “97% of science believe something”

            2) You accepted it as true automatically, despite it not making sense and defying all logic about that profession in general.

            I know you can do better than that in the future.

            It isn’t like you don’t have a strong interest and curiosity in the topic.

  19. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Well, thats enough google for me. Interesting how you give a subject a break, go back to it later, and you find new stuff.

    Turns out the best key phrase for finding the end of the world scenarios is “tipping point.” Interesting to read that several experts have stated we have ALREADY passed several tipping points right now….but there is no consensus as others disagree saying we can still avoid the consequences if we take action. THAT is n ot consistent with what a tipping point is supposed to be?==> or…and maybe more likely, there are tipping points to bad outcomes, or even worse ones?

    …….interesting to think about and how my mind has been Hollywoodized. Have we passed the tipping point already for absence of arctic ice in the Summer? Yes/No…but that is a tipping point to an almost inconsequential situation. Its what continues to evolve after there is no ice….ie to a stable new condition of a frozen Eu rope if the conveyor belt is interrupted which would happen in a few weeks as I understand it. Caused not by temps so much as by a never before existing fresh water layer in t he Northern seas.

    Ha, ha…….. but as Einstein never said: “Maybe that will be good for us?”

  20. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. Let's apply says:

    Hmeyers says:
    8/18/2015 at 2:11 pm

    We have established, at least in this case:

    1) You automatically believe information given to you if you want to believe it. /// How so? Isn’t the TRUTH HM that this applies to you so much more???? ((Hint: the answer is yes.))

    When presented with a preposterous “97% of science believe something” /// “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    2) You accepted it as true automatically, despite it not making sense and defying all logic about that profession in general. /// Made up shit words. What do you think the consensus is about Einsteins theory of Space/Time? How about Evolution??? You can find rock hard SCIENCE DENIERS there too.

    What “automatic” and “not making sense” and “defying all logic” is better displayed by whom when saying: “Water vapor is much more important green house gas.” Or—you can’t make an electric plane. You know: ignorant gibberish.

    I know you can do better than that in the future. /// I am quite constant across space and time.

    It isn’t like you don’t have a strong interest and curiosity in the topic. //// Thank you, yes I do as I have documented here. Why don’t you join me?

    SCIENCE DENIER. It may have insulting atributes but it can also be purely an application of the definition. It fits you “on this subject.”

    Prove me wrong. NAME the statement I make on faith/ignorance. ………………go ahead.

    • Hmeyers says:

      That’s an analysis of climate research papers.

      “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%).”

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

      That isn’t polling climate scientists.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Ha, ha………….its expressly OBVIOUS you don’t even know what the words you copied even means. They address different issues.

        Its like somewhere in the article you quote the fact that only 15% of the scientists polled had organge juice for breakfast……….you are jumping on a lower number thinking its relevant: but its not.

        Subtle…I agree. Maybe if you had read to the end of the paragraph:

        “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

        IOW==is a paper that states no opinion on a particularly phrased question for or against the proposition?

        Know what I mean?

        • Hmeyers says:

          Well, I don’t think you intentionally posted bad information.

          And you can find incorrect summaries some booger-picking web admin or secretary typed up.

          But it’s pretty clear there isn’t a poll of climate scientists where 97% of them agreed on anything.

          The people pushing that stuff are lying just like all the other lobbying groups lie and put out false statistics.

  21. Der Kommissar says:

    Mars or Bust! Earth is just about finished and it’s not like we can just drill more holes, throw up filling stations, more muffler shops and fast food joints in order to survive.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 8250 access attempts in the last 7 days.