I watched Al Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel and I was not impressed. But before I review it I’ll disclose my biases.

I’m of the opinion that there is some global warming but that we have more time to fix it than some alarmists would have you believe. There is no tipping point and the Earth isn’t going to turn into Venus. But putting pollution into the air is a bad idea and anything that reduces that is a good thing.

While I applaud those who generally increase environmental awareness I’m also a scientific purist and lying about science is worse than the benefits of stirring up environmentalists.

I also think it’s worthless to just talk about problems without talking about solutions. The “what are we going to do to fix it” is the most important part.

And, as you all know, the real hero in the environmental movement is Elon Musk who started Solarcity, the world’s biggest solar installer, the guy who made the electric car practical, and is now developing grid storage technology and building the world’s largest batter factory.

Having said that, here’s my review.

I found the new Gore movie as a self serving piece to position Al Gore as the center of the climate change movement. This movie has very little to do with science and everything to do with fanning the culture war. I think Gore is using this movie to position himself for a run for president in 2020 and is trying to use this movie to take credit for things he had nothing to do with.

The movie was full of misleading information. There was a scene about some Florida road being flooded and implied that sea levels had risen to cover the road, but didn’t actually say that. He also shows, as you can see in the trailer, that there was flooding of the World Trade Center memorial during Hurricane Sandy, and implies that this is proof of sea level rise. But considering the memorial is just a few blocks from the ocean one can easily see where during a hurricane there might be some water running into the hole. And that’s just plain dishonest.

Unlike the original movie which provided some useful scientific information that was maybe 2/3rds correct, this movie provides no new useful information about science and is mostly misleading. The subject of the movie is about spreading political hatred and has nothing to do with solving environmental problems.

The movie seems to imply that you can reverse climate change by voting against it. But the way it really works is that geniuses working in labs and experimenting for years develop the technologies for solar, wind, batteries, and electric cars necessary to actually create a method to give up burning things for energy. Governments can create tax incentives and fund research to fund the development of cleaner technologies, but government can’t actually do much more that creating a favorable environment.

The bottom line, while encouraging people to care about the environment is a good thing, doing it in a misleading manner is a bad thing. Al Gore’s movie is all about Al Gore and like Trump and other politicians he is exploiting the culture war for political purposes. And in culture war politics Democrats always lose. Democrats need to clean house and run on issues of substance and Gore is not the guy for that rile.

This movie isn’t going to make anyone smarter but is going to just create needless anger that is more likely going to hurt the environmental movement than help. So I’m giving it a thumbs down. If you watch the above trailer you’ve seen the movie.

Me and Al Gore 1996.



  1. Hmeyers says:

    Bit of crying wolf part 2.

    If I recall the first movie blamed Hurricane Katrina on man-made activity, claimed it would increase.

    It’s been over 10 years since a major hurricane hit.

    A real problem is when you make a number of sensationalist predictions, the 2nd time gets judged on the results of the first time.

    The environment is very important, there are very bad problems and sensationalizing isn’t necessary.

    I also think the global warming hype may have a negative impact on getting action done on other things, such all the damn plastic we throw away and the rising plastic content of the oceans.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I’m not worried about plastic because it’s not toxic. I’m more worried about overpopulation.

      • MikeN says:

        UN projections say don’t worry. Maybe 10 billion won’t be reached. 12-13 is the peak.
        However, IPCC projections for the 8.5 scenario from which all the alarmist propaganda arises calls for much higher population, Nigeria at one billion by itself.

  2. MikeN says:

    Looking at that picture, who would have guessed that 20 years later Gore would be the crazy one?

    • Hmeyers says:

      Al Gore is the used car salesman of climate change.

      It might be a good car, but you aren’t going to take his word for it.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sZznOdH4p4

        Crabber says where is the sea level rise? Gore says sea level rise is bad.

        • Hmeyers says:

          Sea levels rising is an undisputed fact.

          There are no scientists that think the sea levels are not rising.

          Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. The Netherlands is mostly under sea level and has for centuries adjusted their dykes.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            While I agree on the details, I think you would find scientists that disagree. Much of the sea level rise comes from adjustments for changes in the ocean floor. Studies of tide gauges tend to disagree with the satellites as well.

          • Hmeyers says:

            Perhaps one that got in F in science or is a member of the Flat Earth Society.

            “Today’s interglacial level is near historic highs and is 130 meters above the low level reached during the Last Glacial Maximum 19,000–20,000 years ago.”

            You know the native americans walked from Russia to Alaska a 6-12 thousand years ago?

            Right?

            Sea levels have rising long before the word “global warming” was a thing.

            Whether or not there global warming, we are receding from an Ice Age.

  3. Hmeyers says:

    Clip of the day

    Bill Maher and Al Gore.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaW9V5O_504

    Talking to Gore:“When the sea levels rise, we could lose Venice, we could lose Florida,” Maher stated. “And who would know better about losing Florida?”

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

    1. I watched Al Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel and I was not impressed. But before I review it I’ll disclose my biases. /// yeah…with nothing new to say, why watch? It sounds like it could have been relevant by explaining why pulling out of the Paris Agreement was bad and as you say: what to do now as an alternative, like support all the various State and City actions that are proposed. Like Paris: all too late and all to insufficient…but perhaps setting a foundations for when we pay attention.

    2. I’m of the opinion that there is some global warming but that we have more time to fix it than some alarmists would have you believe. /// What is your basis for that comfort level? Anything???…….or just “feelings.”

    3. There is no tipping point and the Earth isn’t going to turn into Venus. /// Objectively WRONG. There are tipping points all over the place….for various events/catastrophes. NOT including becoming Venus…but a disruption in society causing a collapse: no doubt about it. Its going to be hard to avoid. The exact mechanism/tipping point is unknown…but they keep multiplying.

    3. But putting pollution into the air is a bad idea and anything that reduces that is a good thing. //// Agree….and also with your notion that its always a cost/benefit analysis. There indeed is no reason to waste money on feel good environmental issues of little impact.

    4. While I applaud those who generally increase environmental awareness I’m also a scientific purist and lying about science is worse than the benefits of stirring up environmentalists. /// Having opinions without rationale or facts is not purist. Its just the opposite. You use science to understand the earth is heating up, then reject the very same science to claim we have time.

    5. I also think it’s worthless to just talk about problems without talking about solutions. The “what are we going to do to fix it” is the most important part. //// Exactly so.

    6. And, as you all know, the real hero in the environmental movement is Elon Musk who started Solarcity, the world’s biggest solar installer, the guy who made the electric car practical, and is now developing grid storage technology and building the world’s largest batter factory. /// He’s a good man…I won’t quibble.

    Having said that, here’s my review.

    7. I found the new Gore movie as a self serving piece to position Al Gore as the center of the climate change movement. /// Yep, thats what movies are for…. like the books they all publish. Rarely are they worth the watch or the read.

    8. Marc Perkel says:
    8/5/2017 at 7:27 pm

    I’m not worried about plastic because it’s not toxic. I’m more worried about overpopulation. //// Lots of birds/turtles dying from ingesting too much plastic. May not be directly toxic, but its directly killing. While dumped plastic netting floats around ensnaring many large creatures leading to their deaths from starvation…… the toxic concern is still some years off as the plastic degrades to micron size and enters the very bottom of the food chain. Will algae and diatoms die off the same way birds do…or just what will happen? No one knows.

    Its not an either/or proposition. All the harms to the environment take their toll……..creating tipping points for various issues.

    • MikeN says:

      The plastic has already degraded, been consumed. That island of plastic floating in the Pacific is a myth.

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

        Lyin Mike===>no change. Kinda like all the right wingers: no change. “New Day…. Same BS.”

        • Everyone says:

          Give the “right wingers” shit a rest.

          Is everything fucking right-wing or left-wing to you?

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

            No not everything. But this forum is infested with Right Wing Non-Think, talking points, and completely irrelevant yapping, so the subject does regularly arise as when Universally Accepted Scientific Principles are rejected after reading an article in a business journal.

            I don’t think “I” talk about the Left Wing all that much.

            Not that it matters. I do try to mix in some facts with my political assessments. You should give it a try. You know: actually present anything on point?

            Try.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Didn’t see any facts in your response. Look it up. The so-called garbage patch is not visible from space or even a boat, because the plastic has disintegrated, with less than one particle per square meter.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            NoF*ckingSense: the fact provided is that Mike continues to lie. You know that and post as if you do not. Can’t read, can’t directly state an idea……..a clown bus for you and your crowd.

            You know I was saying Mikey was lying about the plastic island as that is what you responded to. Just plain stupid. Its not a myth: its a METAPHOR.

            NFS: your response is “classic.” If you can’t see it, then its not a problem.

            What a friggin loon.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            And you already know the details of this Pacific garbage patch, that they get degraded to smaller and smaller pieces, nothing visible above the surface, etc. Yet you call someone a liar for pointing out the same. You should have known that some of this has been consumed and entered the food chain, because you wrote about eight years ago on this site!
            Unless you think the time from then was 10-20 years, your statement is false
            “the toxic concern is still some years off as the plastic degrades to micron size and enters the very bottom of the food chain. “

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            NewFormatSux says:
            8/7/2017 at 7:07 pm

            1. And you already know the details of this Pacific garbage patch, that they get degraded to smaller and smaller pieces, nothing visible above the surface, etc. ////Correct….except for what you may be hiding in your etc.

            2. Yet you call someone a liar for pointing out the same. /// Yes…it is a lie that there is no garbage patch. The fact even if true that you can’t see it on the surface is so completely irrlevant that calling it a myth is a LIE. Do you not understand plain English????

            3. You should have known that some of this has been consumed and entered the food chain, because you wrote about eight years ago on this site! /// I do know that. Has it been 8 years? Ha, ha….why…. THAT is deplorable!!!!

            4. Unless you think the time from then was 10-20 years, your statement is false
            “the toxic concern is still some years off as the plastic degrades to micron size and enters the very bottom of the food chain. “ ////This sounds like a quibble. Lyin’ Mikes point that you confirm is that there is no plastic because it can’t be seen. Again==>problem with the plain meaning of words? To your point…plastic degradation is a process. Without knowing anything……..I “know” some of the plastic is at the micron level right now and entering the very bottom/base of the food chain. The larger pieces will take years if not centuries to get there…but its not sinking and getting subducted to the Earth’s core…its here with us forever….perhaps eventually to merge with our DNA. NO ONE KNOWS what the effect of this will be……….but like burning trillions of tons of co2…..its never been done before.

            So NFS: where is the myth?

          • MikeN says:

            Reading comprehension failing you again? What did I start my comment with. That the plastic has already been degraded and consumed. In response to your statement that it is in the future. I assumed that you are like the other liberals who get propagandized and thinking that there is a large island of garbage floating in the Pacific. I didn’t know what you wrote about the garbage patch, and had I known I would not have written that it is a myth, since your thinking on it is correct.

  5. Ah_Yea says:

    I’m impressed. Marc, every once in a while you really hit the nail on the head!

  6. Ah_Yea says:

    One other thought about the movie.

    Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. Smart people tend to see other people as smart as they are, and smart people see this movie as a political and financial vehicle.

    The general public will swallow every word. They will believe.

    This movie is a proselyting tool with Al Gore as the Pope.

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

      Horrible meaningless BS. Not a single point made.

      Just yapping.

      Why don’t you do better? Be a role model for Pedro and Lyin Mike………and……….and……….the whole peanut gallery?

  7. Rex says:

    If you just present a bunch of dry scientific facts in a movie nobody will watch it or get motivated to do anything about it. Obviously Marc, you no nothing about marketing. Your Republican opponents know much more and are winning.

    • Marc Perkel says:

      I guess we agree the movie is marketing and not science. I contend that Al Gore is the product being marketed.

      • Ah_Yea says:

        Bingo!

        As I said above, “This movie is a proselyting tool with Al Gore as the Pope.”

  8. McCullough says:

    Al Gore needs to reduce his own “footprint” if he wants to be serious about this. He’s just another hypocrite.

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

      compared to other equally rich world leaders: he has.

      Did you ever complain that Ghandi make his cotton garb too luxurious to be competent regarding what he advocated? ===>or is it ab hominem all the way down?

      IOW: be relevant. Be specific.

      • McCullough says:

        Har. I guess saying that google is your best friend, at this point is “pointless”?

        Or do you want me to do actual work….for free?

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

          I don’t think google is relevant to much here.

          You make an idiot ab hominem attack on The Algore thinking if effective it will speak against AGW? ======>it doesn’t.

          So, even if we define the life style of an international leader attending conferences and trying to change public opinion while living in 3 or 4 oversized Mansions while he gets driven to work in his Big V-8 limo==so what?

          The science is the science. Try to get relevant.

          • Professor Johnnycakes says:

            I wax romantic on Science as well, but who writes Science now? Who pays for science & who distributes Science grants? And… that’s as far down the rabbit hole I wanna go.

          • Professor Johnnycakes says:

            As much as I feel compelled to go with the group… I’ll agree with you. Guess my point was, “Who writes Science Fact?” kinda like “Who writes history?”

            Politics in Science >shivver< almost always bad.

            Not a popular stance with the kids today, but I want to know the next iceberg is solid enough to hold me before I abandon the one I'm standing on. In my overalls even.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            I don’t know what “group” you feel commonality with……..but obviously you should sever those ties, at least internally while outwardly performing as you feel constrained to do.

            In context, it sounds like “students”? I hesitate only because that would be really stupid and not up to the mark you have demonstrated by initially disagreeing but then recognizing your error regarding science and politics…. to the degree you have done so.

            I just recalled some statistic of a “total human knowledge curve” that is now doubling at the rate of like every 10 years or so? Its close enough to think of all that knowledge coming from science??? Its definitional, so people can quibble as we do.

            I’ll take another guess and assume you don’t read much science. By definition, science is written by scientists. Pop literature is written, and mostly read, by people who don’t do science. Don’t confuse one with the other. HMyers made reference to this. HM has a lot of good ideas to start with…. then never applies them well. Ha, ha……well… he’s half way there.

            Life is a journey

  9. NewFormatSux says:

    >the real hero in the environmental movement is Elon Musk

    I can never respect someone whose hero is a criminal.

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

    I don’t plan on watching the film…but after seeing a review of it on Fareed Zakaria, maybe I should.

    In opposition to Marc:

    1. The movie was full of misleading information. /// None was shown in the clip and it covered your points.

    2. There was a scene about some Florida road being flooded and implied that sea levels had risen to cover the road, but didn’t actually say that. /// Correct. What was said and shown was a bright sunny day without storms AND WHAT HE SAID WAS: “the flooding is caused by HIGH TIDE.” If you owned up to the requirements of being a pure scientist…. you would acknowledge your error here. We will all wait.

    3. He also shows, as you can see in the trailer, that there was flooding of the World Trade Center memorial during Hurricane Sandy, and implies that this is proof of sea level rise. But considering the memorial is just a few blocks from the ocean one can easily see where during a hurricane there might be some water running into the hole. And that’s just plain dishonest. //// Again: TOTALLY NOT WHAT HE SAID. What he said was that the current model of sea level rise said that possible flooding at WTC was predicted for 20-30 years from now…..but it has come earlier than thought raising the concern that all the models are too conservative…..and the TIPPING POINTS are going to be reached sooner: ie: less time to minimize the effects of AGW.
    Why is your reportage so full of simple direct errors?

    Of note and interest, The Algore mentioned what I have posted here regarding the number of 100 or 500 or 1000 year weather events are coming at us now every 3-4 years. So….large hurricanes have not hit as predicted in the Gulf Area….but at the same time the largest Typhons ever on record hit the Phillipines a few years ago…..and then the second largest hit 2-3 years later.

    I know……its a chaotic impossible to precisely predict system. BUT THE TRENDS ARE OBVIOUS………..especially for pure scientists.

    Just look. Fer Christ sake open your friggin EYES: and just look. As you already dismiss water lapping on your shoe laces, I’m sure the water up to your chest will be dismissed in the same manner.

    Silly Hoomans.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Sea level has been rising for centuries. Now Al Gore would like to blame it on cars.

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

        That is correct: because without the cars, sea level would be decreasing….we are actually right now in a “natural” cooling phase……..but we hoomans are overcoming it by burning fossil fuel.

        Its all related.

        but who you gonna believe? Your own uniformed talking point from who knows where or the entire body of informed and knowledgeable scientists?
        You probably vote Republican thinking they are on your side?

        BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

        Silly Hoomans.

        • Hmeyers says:

          Bullshit.

          Even if we hit a legitimate cooling period like the Little Ice Age, sea levels will still rise — and the sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age as well.

          Glaciers have been receding from Canada/Rocky Mountains/Alaska/Greenland/Russia/Norway for all of recorded history.

          A little cooling is not going to stop it.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            >the sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age as well.

            I wasn’t aware of this. But even if this is wrong and Bobbo is correct, I don’t see how he gets anywhere with the argument that if it weren’t for CO2, we’d be in an Ice Age right now.

          • Hmeyers says:

            Because measuring the sea levels is critical to the Netherlands, lest the whole damn country flood …

            They kept written records of the sea level and did so for centuries!

            http://www.kwaad.net/Van_Veen_1954_Fig.1.jpg

          • Ah_Yea says:

            Wow Hmeyers, that’s a fantastic chart!

            Shows conclusively that the current rise in sea levels started around 1800 and hasn’t changed it’s trajectory much since then.

            Makes one think.

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

            Oh_No!==>did it cause you to think about why the sea level has not stabilized or gone down?

            No?

            ………………..How surprising. Not that you didn’t think about that, but that you call your kneejerk response thinking to begin with.

            Raise your hand along with Oh No here: Who here disagrees on any other subject that has 97% agreement of the qualified scientists?

            After cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and Round Up is good for your diet…… what have we got?

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

            NFS==you denier types ((see how adroitly I avoided the use of Right Wing Nuts? I mean….. who here can’t respond to criticism…. valid or not?)) sure don’t read very well. Or is it memory…. or purely evil intent on your part? Of course….I always order the combo plate when offered a choice. ymmv.

            I did not say a coming Ice Age. I said a “cooling trend.” And to be fair, its only been mentioned here and there…no overwhelming consensus on the issue as is the evidence and concern for AGW.

            The anti-Science, pure scientist, position is that we should be able to add trillions of tons of co2 to the atmosphere and there should be no important effect from such activities. You know==============> like friggin Magic.

            The evidence for this is that when relatively minute amounts of Freon were put in the atmosphere, we were creating an ozone hole. We stopped putting Freon in the atmosphere, and the ozone hole closed up.

            I know: its unbelievable that so little Ozone could have such an effect.

            …………………silly hoomans.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Manmade chemicals causing an ozone hole is not the same as CO2, natural consumed by trees.

            Even that story is not accurate, but no one is really following the ozone story anymore, except that China and India are making money from the global warming carbon offsets by making and destroying chemicals they are allowed to make under the Montreal Protocol.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Cooling trend didn’t cause a sea level drop before.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1880-2013.png

            This movie can’t be misleading since no one is watching it. Last week of July, it finished in the US behind an Indian movie.

  11. ± says:

    Some unknown mechanism makes the earth’s temperature rise and then CO2 rises. The earth gets warm before atmospheric CO2 increases. This is documented by 420,000 years of ice core records. This makes it impossible for CO2 to be the causal agent of increasing temperatures in pre-industrial times and unknown whether it is an agent of significance now.

    AGW is almost certainly total political bullshit. 👎🏻

    http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

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

      From your link: “Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.” /////

      Gibberish. But I am rewarded to see the dismal muck you have to reach into to find any support at all.

      Silly hooman.

      • ± says:

        You are the most typical of all religious fanatics. When presented the “link” you so often demand, you have no comeback except name calling and 🙊 🙉 🙊.

        Even your lord god and savior, Gore, acknowledges that in 420,000 years of core samples, the temperature rose first, then the CO2 rise followed. Then the temperature fell first and then the CO2 levels dropped. If you don’t think this is reason enuff for thinking people to question the current dogma, that is because the dogma is your religion.

        [no assinine rejoinder here]

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

          The temp causes co2 rise is on every “How to Respond to Science Denier Dumb Ass Arguments” that there is.

          I’m not even bothered to look it up.

          Its like saying: “Evolution can’t be true because there are still monkeys.”

          You know: really “deep.”

          • ± says:

            For 420,000 years, CO2 IS NOT THE CAUSAL AGENT of global warming. Some unknown mechanism caused the earth to warm and then of course the CO2 will rise for lots of reasons. Then the earth starts to cool for [mechanism unknown] and of course the CO2 will go down. Now all of a sudden according to all you Gore acolytes, it doesn’t matter that CO2 was never before the causal agent, but you are going to say that suddenly it is now.

            AGGGggghahahahaahhahehehehar. You and all people like you are pathetic laughing stocks to anyone who isn’t a sheep.

            [no insipid, pseudo-pithy, bon mot here]

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            Post Menopausal: its not “suddenly now”. Its the result of the Industrial Revolution and the burning of of Coal followed quickly by turning to Petroleum. The Burning of Fossils Fuels which had never before in the History of the Earth been done…..if you are looking for stupid Headlines…. and the consequences of that after 200 years of activity.

            “Suddenly” only for pea brains. Oh: I see you are first in line….. as usual.

            Not a “scientific fact” in the Group of you.

            “Deplorable.”

          • ± says:

            [to bobbo and all other Gore sycophants]

            An unknown mechanism has made the earth’s temperature rise and fall as recorded in ice core samples for 420,000 years. It was not the CO2 level since the CO2 level always lags the temperature. CO2 has never been the driving cause of earth warming in the past. And YES you SUDDENLY now say it will be causal when it hasn’t been before.

            This is your religion and you want to shove it down everyone’s throat . It isn’t even a defensible religion.

            Also, this thread is another magnificent example of you NOT addressing the facts and reason presented to you. You are just a troll.

            [idiotic effluvium eschewed here]

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            PM==your pile of BS does not make any more sense just because you repeat the same message.

            Kinda like Little Marco: you got nothing to say except whats been programmed into you.

            Worse than deplorable…….. just plain stupid.

          • ± says:

            [to bobbo]¹

            There ya go name calling again when you have nothing. What is a pile of BS? What is it that you can’t/don’t/won’t understand? <—- rhetorical questions given who they're posed to

            I have made very specific statements backed up by evidence. Evidence that your lord god Gore AGREES with. I have shown how the central tenet of AGW dogma is open to question by thinking people. You have not addressed a single specific thing that I said and explained why it is wrong (in your opinion). So all you can do is name call. You have identified yourself as a typical AGW zombie, incapable of defending your position with reason, you can only resort to invective.

            Agggggghahahahahaheheheheheehar. You are truly laughable. Does anyone on this forum take you seriously?

            [mercifully avoided idiotic comment here]

            ¹the pseudo hierarchical format of this forum truly sucks and should be an embarrassment to the handlers

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          PM==your worn out BS regarding co2 driven by temps has been stated above….and linked to authority below.

          I’ve never been an Algore supporter…… but the Science is the Science. The only science you Deniers have is to misquote what is right in front of you and think you have made an argument.

          I mean…………….”if”………… I wanted to deny AGW…I wouldn’t use one of the most debunked arguments in the History of the dispute. All your argument reveals is your ignorance on the subject. I linked to Scientific America directly on your point. What have you got?

          Nothing.

  12. Martin says:

    Thanks for the review; useful insights.

    After watching for six decades, I yet to see a politician ever get science even close to right. Never! And, global warning is the prime example of politicians muddling up the facts and fanning emotions just to pontificate endlessly to satisfy their egos and suck even more taxes out of ordinary citizens.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Kennedy put us on the moon.

      You are welcomed.

      • martin says:

        Kennedy’s vision to go to the moon an unparalleled success. I don’t recall Kennedy trying to engineer the project; he didn’t. He provided vision.

        I’m not able to see that Kennedy’s vision to go to the moon is an analogy in any sense of the word for climate change policies being proposed by politician. I can’t even find any credible, stable, or logical data indicating whether or not climate change is real enough that humans can influence it. There never was a question as to whether or not the moon was ¼ million miles away and if a rocket was properly designed and guided according to the laws of physics it would arrive at the moon. I learned yesterday, climate change data from Australia the last few years has been manipulated to support the climate change narrative and does not reflect the real temperatures. Comments?

        My English sometimes is not so good so: Analogy – I’m thinking is a comparison between two things, for the purpose of clarification. Did I use it correctly.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          martin: your English is just fine. Its your facts that are wrong….in varying degree, with some of it just opinion and not subject to right or wrong.

          1. Kennedy’s vision to go to the moon an unparalleled success. I don’t recall Kennedy trying to engineer the project; he didn’t. He provided vision. /// Correct. And the retard Bush said the same thing with Mars as his goal. Kennedy was right, BushtheRetard was wrong. The difference between a liberal and a conservative. Your statement was about what politicians were “right” about science. You have agreed Kennedy was right about science. Kennedy was wrong about many things…don’t go changing the subject rather than recognize almost all general statements have their exceptions. Speaking of Engineers though….Hoover was an engineer. Got the Dam right……..screwed the pooch on the economy just like every Republican does.

          2. I’m not able to see that Kennedy’s vision to go to the moon is an analogy in any sense of the word for climate change policies being proposed by politician. /// BS. Most of the Politicians in the World have the science right and recognize AGW (aka: Human Caused Global Warming) is a significant issue/threat to human society RIGHT NOW…and it will only get worse in the coming years. The great majority of politicians are proposing actions to lower carbon footprints: just as they should, just as the science says.

          3. I can’t even find any credible, stable, or logical data indicating whether or not climate change is real enough that humans can influence it. //// Then you are willfully BLIND and not credible. http://www.ipcc.ch/ and Thousands of other websites………all available to you if you take the blinders off.

          4. There never was a question as to whether or not the moon was ¼ million miles away /// or that it was made of soft cheese?

          5. and if a rocket was properly designed and guided according to the laws of physics it would arrive at the moon. /// Oh….properly designed? Well name a single issue that doesn’t apply to? We can time travel in a properly designed vehicle according to the law of physics. BS like that?

          6. I learned yesterday, climate change data from Australia the last few years has been manipulated to support the climate change narrative and does not reflect the real temperatures. Comments? /// So what? Every advance in Science has fraud going right along with it. Do you think fraud in cancer research means there is no cancer? Silly comment.

          7. My English sometimes is not so good so: Analogy – I’m thinking is a comparison between two things, for the purpose of clarification. Did I use it correctly. /// Yes you did but then you switched, or changed, the analogy. Thats bad thinking. Your language is fine.

  13. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Hmeyers says:
    8/6/2017 at 8:29 pm

    Bullshit.

    1. Even if we hit a legitimate cooling period like the Little Ice Age, sea levels will still rise — and the sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age as well. /// Your evidence/basis/authority/LINK for this inanity is ………what? And even if there were going to….the fact remains they are rising higher/faster than they would without AGW. Sea levels rise and fall per average global temps. If the temps go down……what MAGIC are your providing to make they act just the opposite of the physics involved?

    2. Glaciers have been receding from Canada/Rocky Mountains/Alaska/Greenland/Russia/Norway for all of recorded history. //// Yes, and that rate significantly increased in the last 100 years because of AGW. You make the point….. even when thinking you aren’t. Like Oh_No…its not thinking at all.

    3. A little cooling is not going to stop it.//// Little defined as not enough to stop it? Right you are. Little defined as just enough to stop it?……Why yes it would.

    Silly Hoomans.

    • Hmeyers says:

      I’m not arguing for or against anything.

      I’ve cited sources contradicting what you say.
      I’ve cited sourced demonstrating that the guy you were arguing with is also wrong.

      Both of you are wrong.

      This is why people without a science background like you and the other gentleman can’t even have a sane argument.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        Hmeyers says:
        8/7/2017 at 5:50 pm

        1. I’m not arguing for or against anything./// Yes, you are. Ha, ha…..can’t even understand what you write……or just want to re-interpret it for your own purposes???? JUST LOOK!! Its right there…as shown immediately below.

        2. I’ve cited sources contradicting what you say.
        I’ve cited sourced demonstrating that the guy you were arguing with is also wrong. /// Be specific.

        Here are your links: as they appear top to bottom:
        a. Clip of the day, Bill Maher and Al Gore.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaW9V5O_504 /// didn’t watch it. I don’t follow AlGore. But what is quoted is correct in all regards, and Maher did make a funny. Whats your beef?????

        b. Netherlands, lest the whole damn country flood …They kept written records of the sea level and did so for centuries!

        http://www.kwaad.net/Van_Veen_1954_Fig.1.jpg // So what? IOW: whats your point. They kept records. It shows sea level going up. Thats exactly what AGW does. I don’t think you are follow “any” argument at all.

        c. Well…..there is no third link. So…you stand on two completely irrelevant links and think you have “disproved” “both of us” but you aren’t for or against anything?

        3. Both of you are wrong.////Sadly, by reading what you actually post, rather than devining what you think you are saying: you’ve got nothing. BE SPECIFIC.

        4. This is why people without a science background like you and the other gentleman can’t even have a sane argument. /// It does take two. What is your neutral position on people who can’t deal with the truth so they incorrectly characterize some position rather than provide actual quotes so that people can tell they are being honest if not insightful?

        You don’t need to be a scientist to know that stating that sea level is going up is not proof as to WHY its going up.

        Silly Hooman……….and HM… you are better than most. Still totally deficient. Actually make an argument that is supported by a link….rather than whine as you are.

      • ± says:

        Hmyers, humor someone. Please provide your explanation of why CO2, not shown to be causal for global warming as indicated by 420,000 years of ice core evidence, is suddenly in any substantive way causal for global warming in the industrial age. And yes I know the history of increased man made CO2 since 200 years ago. That is not part of the question.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          Mankind burning of fossil fuels dumping trillions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere in amounts not seen for 200 Million Years: Yes…not a part of your question….just 100% the Answer to your question.

          Did you even read the link provided discussing why ITS COMPLICATED and merely looking at co2 vs temps is moronically inappropriate????
          No you did not….. or you don’t understand it, so you ask a question that was directly answered. IE: There is also solar output, Earths revolutions around the Sun (They verary in several different cycles one being about 250,000 years===>it and others are all in the Models of Climate Change!!!!)

          Too subtle for Conservatives: its not the change that is taking place but rather THE RATE OF CHANGE that is going to cause NOT THE PLANET, but human society the challenges that are clearly present.

          • ± says:

            bobbo, you keep changing the subject as you always do when you can’t address the argument. I’ve only been talking about one thing in this thread, but you have avoided it every time, usually by changing the subject.

            Everyone who has been following this thread knows now that for 420,000 years temperature rise creates more CO2, not vice versa, then temperature fall creates less CO2, not vice versa. But now, in industrial times, SUDDENLY, CO2 will be substantially causal for earth warming when it NEVER WAS BEFORE. You posted links that did not address this. Does this make you a liar? I think so because you’re not stupid enuff to post a thread that doesn’t address what you are defending when there is nothing at the link which is relevant to the question.

            Also, bobbo, this post is not really for you, because it is foreknown from your typical way of responding to just about anyone on this forum that you will not address what was said to you when you are wrong; instead, you just use your pseudo response as a spring board for whatever unrelated bullshit you need to post next.

            This post is so everyone can see that bobbo can NOT address the simple logic that geologically substantiated hard evidence has shown that A does not cause B for 420,000 years¹. Now SUDDENLY, B is going to be out front leading A according to AGW dogma.

            To quote bobbo “… your pile of BS does not make any more sense just because you repeat the same message. …” . So bobbo, if you can’t address the simple logic above in your response (your links didn’t, just as you never did), then just sit back, have another beer and move on and leave this thread as another testament to your irrelevance and worse.

      • Hmeyers says:

        @ +/-

        I wasn’t referring to you.

        Bobbo said the sea levels would decrease if it weren’t for global warming. I provided human records that showed sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age (a period that ended in 1850 +/-). Bobbo was wrong.

        Another person said the sea levels weren’t rising. I also demonstrated that guy was also wrong.

        (You and Bobbo are arguing about different observations about CO2 and temperature. I’m not sure if we even know why the Ice Age happened or why it ended. Most ideas involve solar output and the Earth’s wobbly rotation.)

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          ” I provided human records that showed sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age (a period that ended in 1850 +/-). Bobbo was wrong.” //// Netherlands records are localized short term records saying NOTHING about Global climate.

          You have your basic definitions/science wrong.

          Climate is COMPLICATED. Climate is what happens THE WHOLE WORLD OVER……not in the Netherlands…….and not the area of the Little Ice Age. There is nothing inconsistent with seal levels rising or lowering with localized ice conditions gaining or decreasing. Sea level is a global phenomenon (with surprising variation) while “Little Ice Ages” are only a very small part of the picture.

          I did a quick google…the wiki always being more readable than most. “- The oldest tide gauge readings of sea level date back to 1700 AD e.g at Amsterdam (Van Veen, 1954).
          http://kwaad.net/SeaLevel-MiddleAges-LittleIceAge.html

          The Little Ice Age was Between the early 14th and late 19th centuries…so measurements starting in the 1700’s miss most of the action. For that action, we don’t have tide gauges…we have sediment layers proxies and so forth that show only a very slightly rising sea (meaning there were downs as well): “No agreement or consensus has been reached so far on the matter.”

          On point: “Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age” https://newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age/ “Some climate sceptics argue that the warming we are now experiencing is simply due to the planet recovering from the Little Ice Age, a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1350 and 1850. But the key question is why it was colder during the Little Ice Age. And why didn’t the climate remain that way, or even get colder still?”

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          Hmeyers says:
          8/7/2017 at 7:15 pm

          @ +/-

          I wasn’t referring to you.

          Bobbo said the sea levels would decrease if it weren’t for global warming. I provided human records that showed sea levels were rising during the Little Ice Age (a period that ended in 1850 +/-). Bobbo was wrong. ///// Sadly……your conclusion is NOT SUPPORTED by your evidence or argument. What happened in one place at one point in time is IRRELEVANT to other places and other times. as stated at https://newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age/

          “The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.”

          /// Now…..guess what is causing the oceans to rise now as we are NOT receiving more heat from the Sun?

  14. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Post Menopausal on Earth for all these years and still unable to unlearn what he first hears says:
    8/7/2017 at 1:24 pm

    [to bobbo and all other Gore sycophants]

    1. An unknown mechanism has made the earth’s temperature rise and fall as recorded in ice core samples for 420,000 years. /// The mechanisms are all known sufficient for the concerns being raised. EG: Its mostly the output of the sun, Earths distance from it, and the components of our Atmosphere. You have to be retarded to think otherwise.

    2. It was not the CO2 level since the CO2 level always lags the temperature. CO2 has never been the driving cause of earth warming in the past. And YES you SUDDENLY now say it will be causal when it hasn’t been before. /// You are bone headedly wrong: https://newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

    3. This is your religion and you want to shove it down everyone’s throat . It isn’t even a defensible religion. /// I agree like your analysis Religion is pretty stupid and indefensible. When have I said “believe” rather than look at the Science?

    4. Also, this thread is another magnificent example of you NOT addressing the facts and reason presented to you. You are just a troll. //// Mirror.

    5. [idiotic effluvium eschewed here] /// Yes….here and above.

    What a dolt.

  15. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Just for grins, I’d really like:

    1. Marc Perkel to discuss his misleading characterization of what The Algore said. Your conclusions could still be made, but your supporting facts are WRONG ……. and should be corrected. After all….some people here think you are “right on.” Don’t you owe it to the record????

    2. McCullough to recognize and admit that an ab hominem attack with nothing more says nothing about any substantive issue. Whatever you think of The Algore, that has ZERO to do with AGW.

    Simple truths.

    • ± says:

      Hopefully, bobbo being drunk explains part of this post. But I think bobbo has shown that he is capable of being incoherent while sober.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        Anything substantive?

        Drunk or sober……………………………

  16. Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;

    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

    there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

    and drinking largely sobers us again.

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierian_Spring)

    I don’t try to comment on massively complicated issues like particle physics, DNA twiddling, or global warming.

    I do, however, know how to “follow the money.” And there are rich entities that have a vested interest in discrediting the idea of AGW. That we know for sure.

    I’m disinclined to believe in massive secret global conspiracies, whether they be the “liberal media” or whatever pro-AGW scientists are called. If your position depends on the existence of massive global conspiracies, I am disinclined to believe you.

    • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

      dagnabbit, messed up my block quotes. After the link is my commentary.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        Even Standard Oil is admitting it is a pile of ……..disinformation. The puppetheads just haven’t have the memo read to them enough times.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Felon Musk has gotten 5 billion in government subsidies over the last decade. Do you think he has a vested interest in ensuring that the government continues to engage in policies that purport to fight global warming?

  17. Hmeyers says:

    Bobbo, the global warming isn’t about whether or not the sea level is rising.

    It is about whether or not the sea level is rising faster than normal.

    Prior to the Ice Age, the Atlantic and the Pacific were not separated by the Panama region.

    The sea levels would need to rise another 85 meters for this to happen, which at the current rate of 3.2 millimeters per year will take 25,500 years.

    • Hmeyers says:

      Might add that it is suspected that South America and Antarctica used to be connected by a land bridge 40 million years ago.

      http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/lstokey/2005/1/v42n2-haug1en_5731.jpg

      http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-the-isthmus-of-panama-put-ice-in-the-arctic

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      HM….there is only one ocean.

      A good dictionary will have a map.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Hmeyers says:
      8/8/2017 at 1:08 pm

      Bobbo, the global warming isn’t about whether or not the sea level is rising.

      It is about whether or not the sea level is rising faster than normal.

      xxxxxxxxxxx

      Let me draw your attention once again to what is quoted and linked to above:

      “as stated at https://newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age/

      “The Earth does not have some natural temperature to which it always returns. If it cools, then it must be receiving less heat from the Sun or radiating more into space, or both. If it warms, it must be receiving more heat or retaining more heat.”

      Ergo: the sea level rising is PROOF that the Earth is warming. From the link, it is either because of increased heat input, retention of heat received….(or I’ll add or a combo of both).

      Our best understanding of all the natural cycles is that we should be in a slight cooling period right now…but sea level is going up…so we are heating up. The only answer is something in the atmosphere is retaining heat. And the only identified growing component is ………
      ……………………………………… what could it be?…………
      …………………………………………………
      …………………………. you’ve known it all along =====>

      yep.

    • Hmeyers says:

      You apparently are having difficulty separating topics and separating issues.

      The sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.

      The Global warming debate is about whether or not sea levels are rising faster than they should.

      • Hmeyers says:

        Not even Al Gore would argue that sea levels wouldn’t be rising if there was not global warming.

        He is arguing that we are increasing the melting.

        No one is arguing that the glaciers aren’t melting.

        Is that your position? That humans are making the glaciers melt?

      • Hmeyers says:

        Obviously you have not seen charts showing glacier retreat over the ages.

        The global warming argument is that the glacier retreat is happening 2-3 times faster than what is natural.

  18. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    HM: you’ve been told twice now: There is NO SHOULD*. Only cause and effect.

    *To the degree (sic!) there is a should….the Earth should be cooling with oceans stabilized for a slow decline in sea level. But that is not happening. Ergo: AGW.

    Just like the IPCC has been saying for the past 30 years.

    Yes…humans are making the glaciers melt. How retarded can you get HM? AGW==the A is Humans……G is the glaciers …. W is the melting. What do you need….neon lights… or electrical shocks to your genitals?

    • Hmeyers says:

      So you are of the opinion that the glaciers were not retreating in 1700s and 1800s?

      The people in Norway had people writing about the subject of glacier loss hundreds of years ago.

      And Canada has always had a historical interest in the topic.

      And biologists too because some animal species like wolverines live in those habitats and have moved northward over the centuries.

      Interesting how many fields of science are wrong according to Bobbo.

      Geologists are wrong. Biologists are wrong. Historians are wrong.

  19. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    HM: you’ve been told THREE TIMES now: There is NO SHOULD*. Only cause and effect.

    *To the degree (sic!) there is a should….the Earth should be cooling with oceans stabilized for a slow decline in sea level. But that is not happening. Ergo: AGW.

    Just like the IPCC has been saying for the past 30 years.

    Yes…humans are making the glaciers melt. How retarded can you get HM? AGW==the A is Humans……G is the glaciers …. W is the melting. What do you need….neon lights? Shocks to the Genitals obviously does not work.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    So, lets recapitulate:

    So you are of the opinion that the glaciers were not retreating in 1700s and 1800s? /// It doesn’t matter. If you are saying such activity is “proof” that Earth has been in a warming cycle==see the THREE TIMES linked material on why you are wrong.

    The people in Norway had people writing about the subject of glacier loss hundreds of years ago. /// Yep. Just imagine that what happened at any one point in time and place has a different mix of causation than what is happening at any other time and place. Why is this so difficult for you to grok?

    And Canada has always had a historical interest in the topic. // Canada is a political construct. It has no interest in anything except as a metaphor for actual people involved.

    And biologists too because some animal species like wolverines live in those habitats and have moved northward over the centuries. /// Wolverines? ha, ha. So…what does that mean? I suppose that it is getting warmer? AGain for the 10th time: the fact of warming says nothing about the WHY of warming. SEE THE FRICKING LINK.

    Interesting how many fields of science are wrong according to Bobbo. /// No…just your application of what I have said. I see you are an attendee if not graduate of the Marc Perkel school of pure science?

    Geologists are wrong. Biologists are wrong. Historians are wrong. /// I have agreed with every “fact” you have posted…except as to causation. You really are being a very silly boy.

    xxxxxxxxx

    How can you be helped HM? //// “He’s dead, Jim!”

    • Hmeyers says:

      The global warming debate is not about
      1) whether or not the sea levels are rising
      2) whether or not the glaciers are melting.

      The global warming debate is about whether humans are increasing the rate of these.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        There is no debate.

        ……………….where ya been?

        • Hmeyers says:

          Ok 🙂 Haha!

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            Well……………… there isn’t. Among the scientific community.

            OR……………… are you of the opinion there is a debate over evolution because of the numbers who build museums with Jebus riding a dinosaur.

            aka: Its totally reasonable to have your own opinion…but its total BS to think your opinion counts just because you can find some other dingbats to agree with you.

            Thats koolaid drinking territory.

            There is no dispute that AGW is the fact of the matter.===>97% of qualified scientists and 100% of formal organizations agree. Even fricking Standard Oil Agrees.

          • Hmeyers says:

            Who are you arguing with and what is the topic?

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            You. AGW.

          • Hmeyers says:

            My position is that it AGW is a possibility.

            And that humans are capable of screwing up about anything.

            So we should look into it.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            There is no debate.

            ……………….where ya been?

  20. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    HM==have you been tracking the arrival of self driving trucks?

    The change…………it is a coming.

    https://google.com/search?q=trucks+to+go+AI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    • Hmeyers says:

      There aren’t going to be self-driving trucks.

      Have you ever watched a truck turn at an busy 4-lane or more intersection?

      Or seen a truck stuck under a bridge due to a misjudgment of height clearance.

      Maybe very, very smart trucks that can reduce the training level for the driver.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        There is no debate.

        ……………….where ya been?

        Each route is surveyed. Routes/bridges NOT ALLOWED that would cause such problems.

        When such accidents do occur ONLY ONCE: the entire fleet gets an update and it never happens again.

        Like AGW…………I don’t think you understand AI at all.

        At least……………. you are consistent.

      • Hmeyers says:

        You should find a betting site that allows you to place a huge wager on self-driving trucks.

        And then place such a bet.

        If you are that convinced.

        I would be impressed.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          I agree……….but I don’t bet. The joy of winning is far less than the agony of defeat. As usual, the stumbling block is not the outcome….. but the spread.

          They already have trucks making the hauls. There is too much “conservative money” behind cutting the labor force….not even to mention how much safer the road will be. Accidents here and there….as stated, learning experiences for the ENTIRE FLEET. Not affected by uppers/downers/lack of sleep/alcoholism/road rage/troubles at home… etc.

          The future is so bright…………I need Google Glass.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            Oh… did see an interesting twist last night on the Google Truck that drove 1000 miles without incident with a safety driver. That safety driver was aiming for a job that would be actively driving trucks by remote control……..just like our drones that have been in use for years now.

            I don’t know if that would be for special routes/payload or just what….. but it shows reality is more nuanced than our stupid uniformed notions of it.

  21. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:
    8/8/2017 at 7:55 am

    Just for grins, I’d really like:

    1. Marc Perkel to discuss his misleading characterization of what The Algore said. Your conclusions could still be made, but your supporting facts are WRONG ……. and should be corrected. After all….some people here think you are “right on.” Don’t you owe it to the record????

    2. McCullough to recognize and admit that an ab hominem attack with nothing more says nothing about any substantive issue. Whatever you think of The Algore, that has ZERO to do with AGW.

    Simple truths.
    Reply

    ± says:
    8/8/2017 at 4:38 pm

    Hopefully, bobbo being drunk explains part of this post. But I think bobbo has shown that he is capable of being incoherent while sober.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    PM: you imply that what I posted is incorrect in some fashion. I will challenge/ask you also to actually engage an issue rather than throw shit on the wall.

    What did I say that was in any way at all not correct and WORTHY of being responded to…………substantively. Not Pedro-esque.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Ha, ha………this is niggling at me.

      I am Fact and Truth DRIVEN. Its only after that that my “values” come into play. Its what makes me pragmatic, anti-theist, existential, Man of Science, and reading the dictionary.

      It does (obviously) upset me when people so obviously and with abandon misrepresent what is right in front of all of us or use logical fallacies as if they were cogent comments.

      Then we have pure ab hominem of no worth at all.

      I note I posted my last comment when the comment count was 105 and then it went what should have been 106 to 104.

      Dues again?

    • Hmeyers says:

      Rhetoric and social pressure aren’t science.

      Those are the tools of religion.

      When we can’t explain the 1940-1970 cold period, models need to be able to do that to be considered having predictive power.

      Cutting CO2 and energy efficiency are the right things to do anyway. No one benefits from dirty air, smog or fuels that pollute.

      Non-polluting renewable energy should in-theory be the cheapest energy and the best for us.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        Hmeyers doing his best but in a totally disconnect way says:
        8/9/2017 at 11:14 am

        1. Rhetoric and social pressure aren’t science. /// Thats correct. Science is Science. What’s your point?

        2. Those are the tools of religion. /// Yep…the dither not worth the effort.

        3. When we can’t explain the 1940-1970 cold period, models need to be able to do that to be considered having predictive power. /// No they don’t. You are asking for precision that the model does not need. A ruse. In the nature of rhetoric and NOT science.

        4. Cutting CO2 and energy efficiency are the right things to do anyway. No one benefits from dirty air, smog or fuels that pollute. /// There is no reason at all to cut co2 unless it causes AGW. Explain otherwise?===========>you can’t.

        5. Non-polluting renewable energy should in-theory be the cheapest energy and the best for us. /// No. Eveything conditioned on assumptions and reality. Technology and alternatives. Inherent cost and so forth.

        Crude oil bubbling up out of the ground is the cheapest energy source there is. It is the cheapest….its just the opposite of the best for us.

        So wrong…..so often. Amusing.

  22. Hmeyers says:

    Off-topic, but I think Kim Jong Un is getting played.

    When sanctions are approved, getting other countries to cooperate and make commitments is important.

    And asshat Kim Jong Un is easily triggered into irresponsible threatening statements …

    Makes it easy for diplomats to get commitments from surrounding countries to strongly enforce the sanctions.

    Kim Jong Un is a moron.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Sadly………everything you accurately say re KJ…….is true of the Dumpster as well.

      Its hard to find winners in a contest of clowns.

    • MikeN says:

      Trump had changed it from US vs North Korea to North Korea vs UN especially China. Check out his tweets on North Korea and China, challenging Chinese honor in a gentle way that they can’t take care of their little brother. Probably why he bombed Syria, with Chinese in the room.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        I agree. And it could be all of the (crazy) choices….. ie: Trump could have one goal and stumble into another one quite easily. It is fun to piece pieces of history together for whatever narrative is desired.

        Was Trump bombing Syria WHILE China President was visiting him a “very clever plan” or just a bull in the China shop?

        Sadly……….I go with Bull. There is just too much shit.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Posts like that help Trump. He is meeting Kim’s multidecade pretending to be crazy with his own crazy.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            I don’t think anyone is pretending. Well…. all the talking heads on Infotainment. They certainly are pretending…….they know anything.

  23. ± says:

    Sure. Your paragraph to McCullough has no meaning to anyone except you and the little man on your shoulder, and maybe, if this is an insider thing, McCullough. (not referring to grammar)

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Derp.

      I notice the count jumped ahead to 110. Hmmm…. like taking tide readings or co2 concentrations…….you got to average things out?

  24. MikeN says:

    Bobbo, you say sea level goes up with global average temperature, yet the Wikipedia chart shows almost continuous increase, even during cooling periods. So the sea level rise is either not connected to global average temperature, or it is connected to global temperature averaged over longer time frames. Given the thermal expansion of water, I will assume the latter is correct.
    This is why I accuse you of declaring we would be in an ice age but for global warming. A regular cooling spell has not produced sea level drop in the past.

    • MikeN says:

      Oops, additional possibility- Wikipedia is wrong.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Mickey…….I appreciate the argument you are making….but:

      you gotta be specific…….with a link.

      What cooling period………..where?………….LINK.

      In a complete absence of CONTEXT…..I will just guess that whatever cooling you are talking about was localized and limited: NOT GLOBAL. Sea Level Rise is GLOBAL…with appropriate lag times and feed backs even making that simpler relationship more complicated than the uninformed would have it.

      By (my?==as I am no expert, but I’m not an idiot) Definition: if the sea level is constantly going up: there has been no cooling period. See how that works?

      “global averages over a longer period of time”==>doesn’t make any sense on its face and doesn’t match the charts/data.

      Thermal expansion: by definition IS GLOBAL WARMING. That issue goes to glacier melt…a close but not the same issue.

      Your accusation is just plain stoopid….espcially twice issued……as if you can’t learn a thing, even when your face is rubbed in it.

      Its like saying if I put a pitcher of water in the refrigerator……it cannot cool, it can only change to ice.

      Stoopid.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        You gave the wikipedia link yourself in the past. Cooling period that HMeyers just talked about not modeling correctly.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          I give lots of links. Understand them too.

          Be specific…..do I have to ask this of every response? “One Day”………you’se guys might figure out how to engage an argument? Support a position??

          Think Straight???????

          Yea…… I doubt it too.

  25. Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

    While y’all are arguing about AGW, Trump is off the leash again, running around pooping on the carpet. Last time it was abruptly deciding (without consulting his generals) that trans people have to be kicked out of the military.

    This time, he had the piece of paper in his hand he just had to friggin’ read, about the opioid crisis in America. And instead, once again without consulting any of his staff, he blurted out irresponsible BS about “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” No, we’ve seen it pal. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it sucked. The depths of this man’s shallowness are amazing.

    He’s on you, wingnuts. You voted for him. You bought his BS.

    Go ahead, try to argue that Clinton would have been worse. 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄 🙄

    • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

      Actually, maybe Steve Bannon and that little nazi Miller thought that threatening nuclear war was a good idea. 🙄

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        Who knows?….but that Neo-Nazis who said USA is no longer a Super Power and is now a Hyper Power certainly supports nuking the rest of the world.

        ………..during the campaign………Trump portrayed himself as anti-war. don’t think you can hang this stupidity on the voters. IN THE MAIN: Trump was seen and has proven to be “a disrupter” of the status quo. He just has gone further than anyone thought he would do……….and loaded up the swamp with more alligators in a way he also promised not to do.

        As always: its a combo plate.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Hey Playdoh, even The Nation isn’t willing to absorb the New History of Russia is now the bad guy because Trump.

        https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

        • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

          Interesting article! Though as he says in the beginning, it’s not necessarily an either-or thing… multiple things going on at once, but if it was an inside leak job that’s pretty disturbing.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      ‘Fire and fury’ was excellent. For decades, the response from the US in response to Nork bluff of craziness was ‘We want to have diplomacy to settle down this crisis but all options are on the table.’ Now Trump has rocked the new kid out of his comfort zone that his daddy and granddaddy taught him about. On top of that we have liberals like you and bobbo declaring Trump is crazy, so now Mr Lil Kim has to wonder if his bluffing will end up with him dead.

      • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

        Not only him dead, you Trump-sucking moron, but millions of the rest of us in the world.

        NFS, you are a world champion Trump sycophant. Whatever idiotic thing he does, we can always depend on you to support it. Congratulations. 🙄

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Duh. That’s why appearing crazy is crucial. Kim doesn’t know if Trump is considering that others will be dead. If Trump is willing to take the losses Kim is threatening, he can’t keep doing what he is doing.

          • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

            LOL. Sorry NFS, you can polish that turd all you want but it still stinks. Trump’s an idiot. We all know it. The sooner you admit it the sooner you’ll be on the road to recovery.

            But thanks for giving us insight into the “thought processes” of a Trump supporter.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Lil Kim has threatened to drop nuclear weapons on America, and liberals are very angry at Trump’s rhetoric.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        I actually lean towards taking NK out with conventional weapons. The start could be announcing and shooting down any missile launch. Let NK then make “an existential decision.”

        After that… the chips start falling.

        Using Nukes……….no. Unless NK did. Just a parity thing to advise Russia and China.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Russia, China, South Korea, for their own reasons do not want Kim taken out.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            I agree…… “Publicly” they don’t. Don’t know how deep that position really is. None of them benefit at all from NK with Nukes.

            When NK is right now only threatening the West……its easy for them to posture lack of interest.

            Thats why I think USA has more options than may be apparent besides Trumps blustering.

            The thing about History is…. you never know who/what is right or wrong….even after the dust settles.

            “War is not about right and wrong….but whats left after.”

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Of course they benefit. China and Russia do not expect NK will use nukes against them. So it is just an irritation for the US, good for China and Russia. SK does not want nukes there. They also do not want reunification as they would be paying.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          Here is an excellent short video with lots of info I didn’t know comparing NK and SK military capability….not even including the USA.

          Its sad we can’t really work up a strategy with SK/Japan to decide what our position “should” be. I tend not to want to “trust” NK not to be as nuts as they say they are. Taking people at their word has a lot of merit. If SK is willing to live under the threat of NK missile attack…. should the USA as well? I don’t think so…. but its a closer questions than vomiting BS.

          https://youtube.com/watch?v=qSUG-a6cX9g

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea’s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community . . . This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea’s isolation.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Why would you want to take out NK? Back to the main thread topic, NK is implementing the global warmer paradise of low electricity usage. A nuclear war would reduce emissions globally, and nuclear fallout would have a cooling effect. The emissions cuts could reach 50% if the war expands to Russia and China, and even more if you bring in India and Pakistan.

      • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

        OK everyone, put down your toy guns, take off your plastic helmets, put away your toy soldiers, take a deep breath, and read this about North Korea.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          I stopped reading at: “Kim’s regime may be evil and deluded, but it’s not stupid.” //// Anything after that statement is simply lip flapping.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            How many times has Kim done this crazy act? How many times has he actually attacked a country?

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            He can’t attack China or SK==so he simply kills his own family and competing generals while imprisoning and torturing his own people while building missles with no other purpose than to strike USA…as first strike or in retaliation.

            He is currently mouthing he will shoot “near” Guam. Threatens Japan all the time.

            Whats your point?

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Of course he can attack China or South Korea. In what world can he attack USA but his missiles won’t reach South Korea or China? The media likes to point out that they have heavy artillery that can wipe out 25 million people in Seoul, but he has never done that either. The claim itself is technically untrue. He has maybe a few pieces that can reach the northern part of Seoul, not the same as all his weapons being capable and located in range.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            If he is so stupid and evil, why doesn’t he ever attack?

    • Phydeau, not actually packed with Wall Street veterans says:

      Of course science is flawed, you wingnut moron. That’s an essential quality of science. Everything we know about science is theories. We keep on learning, and refining, and getting clarity. But those looking for absolute “truth” must rely on religion. Which probably explains why so many wingnut morons love religion and hate science. 🙄

      That’s two steaming loads of BS from you in one thread, NFS. Congratulations. 🙄

  26. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Wow. The new format on this forum really does suck. Very hard to “follow” any argument. The format was easy before the big change a few years ago…..it did flow.

    So, I apologize for missing the error filled post by pm. I respond because its as close to “fact” based a response as this thread has provided so far. No links….but… best the little pointy heads can do……….

    ± says:
    8/8/2017 at 5:25 pm

    1. bobbo, you keep changing the subject as you always do when you can’t address the argument. /// Thats a dither.

    2. I’ve only been talking about one thing in this thread, but you have avoided it every time, usually by changing the subject. /// Ha. ha……at Point 1 above you talk about how I keep changing the subject. So…….your second statement here is disproved by your first statement. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. SO —-easy. As I do always change the subject: I wish I liked candy…as taking it from a baby is so easy. Yes…. its a metaphor.

    3. Everyone who has been following this thread knows now that for 420,000 years temperature rise creates more CO2, not vice versa, /// I don’t know that. My memory is that temp/co2 charts going “way back” do show that relationship. The time periods escape me. Thats why we need LINKS to actual charts/data so that we can all be on the same page with one another….rather than relay on anyone’s faulty memory, or made up BS. What you have liked to was some Youtube I haven’t watched…and a chart of sea level rise. Neither of those present/support your position of temp vs co2 for the past 420K years. I’m sure such a chart is out there….. but its no one’s job but yours to produce it.

    4. then temperature fall creates less CO2, not vice versa. /// temperature fall or rise does NOT produce more or less co2. This is a very basic causation error. the relationship is NOT CAUSUAL but concomitant==ie both are caused by some other factor(s). Basic science you obviously don’t understand.

    5. But now, in industrial times, SUDDENLY, CO2 will be substantially causal for earth warming when it NEVER WAS BEFORE. //// Jesus Christ is this really stupid. When you “suddenly” burn trillions of tons of fossil fuels that has never been done before INDEED new conditions are created. Its like saying in industrial times SUDDENLY CARS will be substantially causual for traffic accidents when in NEVER WAS BEFORE. What a dope.

    6. You posted links that did not address this. /// The link provided directly addressed this. Figures you can’t understand it. Have an 8th grader explain it to you.

    7. Does this make you a liar? /// No… it makes you an idiot that can’t read. An understanding of science is not even required.

    8. I think so because you’re not stupid enuff to post a thread that doesn’t address what you are defending when there is nothing at the link which is relevant to the question. /// Derp.

    9. Also, bobbo, this post is not really for you, because it is foreknown from your typical way of responding to just about anyone on this forum that you will not address what was said to you when you are wrong; instead, you just use your pseudo response as a spring board for whatever unrelated bullshit you need to post next. //// Ha, ha. I do post very consistently. But here we do connect as I am not responding just to you but also making the record for anyone who has the interest ……… and can read. This is knocking on the door for Perkel and McCullough to stop feeding the stupidity.

    10. This post is so everyone can see that bobbo can NOT address the simple logic that geologically substantiated hard evidence has shown that A does not cause B for 420,000 years¹. /// Please provide a link to this logic.

    11. Now SUDDENLY, B is going to be out front leading A according to AGW dogma. /// Yep. thats why its called complicated. Lag times, feed back, other variables. Its not simple and straight forward as you wish.

    12. To quote bobbo “… your pile of BS does not make any more sense just because you repeat the same message. …” . So bobbo, if you can’t address the simple logic above in your response (your links didn’t, just as you never did), then just sit back, have another beer and move on and leave this thread as another testament to your irrelevance and worse. /// from the link: the temperature of the Earth is the combo plate of how much heat it receives interacting with how much heat the Earth retains. The measurements show the amount of heat received by the Earth changes in slow modulation that is very predictable and stable: easy to model. That modelling being done…it is determined the Earth is heating up…as shown by constant sea level rise and glaciers melting. So…the only conclusion is that something is making the Earth retain heat more. An analysis of all the known variables is made and the CAUSATIVE AGENT is determined to be co2. Why is it apparent that in years gone by co2 increases lagged behind temp increases? It all comes down to taking samples in small areas and claiming that is representational for the rest of the globe. Its like saying it rained last night at your house…so it must have rained everywhere all over the globe?

    Here it is at https://thinkprogress.org/yes-deniers-nature-reports-global-warming-was-preceded-by-increasing-co2-levels-during-last-eba58a9b8c0/

    “What they found was that in Antarctica, there was indeed a bit of warming that preceded the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide — but just a little, and only by a couple of hundred years. In the rest of the world, Shakun said, “global temperature clearly lags the CO2 buildup.” Cause, in short, really did come before effect.”

    I know….information/data/causation established. What will your brain do?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

      Darn. co2 is causally related to temp…. and vice versa. I got a brain fart and was thinking of something else. Arguing will do that to you. Always good to recognize, admit to, and learn from errors.

      I was thinking that “just” lowering the temp does not increase or decrease co2…. but the reverse is true…. assuming other variables are held constant.

      “Excuse………………me.”

      • Hmeyers says:

        Here is how I view things. Doesn’t have anything to do with AGW, per se.

        In any heated topic there are 3 sides to the story:

        1) Your side
        2) Their side
        3) What neither side will tell you

        Alarmists lie. Deniers lie. Alarmists are funded by special interests. Deniers are funded by special interests.

        At the end of the day, both alarmists and deniers lie and both alarmists and deniers have money at stake in the power struggle.

        Both alarmists and deniers seek to hide information from you.

        Neither side is willing to have an honest discussion.

        For your consideration.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          Whats your point?

          For grins……I am going to watch the OP video with the purpose of identifying factual errors, bias, unsupported statements……………
          ………..
          ………………………
          ………………………………… based on
          ………………………
          ……….

          what is actually said.

          Its an exercise. view the pros, view the cons, score, weigh, balance===I don’t see any value in considering that liars lie.

          The Sun comes Up?

          Trump is a buffoon?

          etc.

          Back in a few…….however long…. if the door bell doesn’t ring.

          HM….I respond to another facially earnest post of yours this morning. Now…I can’t find it or your response…Hmmm…different thread? Word search doesn’t bring it up either. I can see MY response getting lost…but not yours???

          The vagaries of life.

  27. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    3secs: Trump says its freezing and its supposed to be 70 degrees. //// This is about local weather. Nothing to do with AGW.

    25 sec: Algore says sea level rise and storm surge would flood 911. /// It did. ///Marc says it was the result of the storm surge of Hurricane Sandy. Well…..its the combo plate. The sea level has been going steadily up, the chart posted here repeatedly. I don’t see any disagreement except for the notion of “proof” which cannot be provided. The only proof is non-specificy event trend lines. We have those in spades.

    55 sec: Algore says we are seeing positive change but its not enough./// This is true.

    1:15: Virutally every Nation has agreed we need to get to zero emissions. /// This is true.

    1:25: Trump argues he will cancel billions earmarked for combatting climate change. /// He is going thru with this last I heard: gutting the EPA, pulling out of Paris Agreement when permitted.

    1:30: Algore says the next generation will look back and say “Wht were you thinking?” //// True…although they and the current generation are saying that NOW!

    1:48: Algore: this movement is in the tradition of all great movement that has advanced human kind./// Well….I’d say, not yet. The challenge is there, but not the response as yet. Unlike the Space Shot….lack of Presidential Leadership is a big part of it, along with the Partisan divide, and the backboneless Dumbos.

    2:10: Algore don’t let anyone tell you we are going to get on rocketships and to to Mars. This is our home /// Totally agree on both points.

    xxxxxxxxxx

    No review of the flooding in Miami. So the OPVideo is just the teaser and not the main film? Good. I don’t need to see the main film. We can nit pick the definition/application of “proof” in climate studies, or the Greed of The Algore, but the science is the science.

    Burn trillions of tons of fossils fuels……….and you can expect change. Silly to argue exact details otherwise.

    WE NEED A MOON SHOT TO GREEN ENERGY. Details to be disagreed with and debated===>but chosen, funded, and implemented.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      Why a moon shot, when you have said that green energy will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

        Lag time.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          The lag time for your brain to comprehend an argument?

          You’re the one who said it’s happening soon if not already. Now you declare lag time. All the science that’s not deliberate propaganda to scare people like you says a decade here or there makes no difference.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

            You don’t understand what lag time means at all……………..

            Post thats a fact and ask for an explanation.

            No charge.

      • bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

        ……and its cheaper now, all costs in.

        The main issue now is it requires a higher up front long term investment for general consumer use.

        Google the German experience and see how win/win/win social programs can get Solar faster than ever thought possible. All voluntary and without subsidies of any kind except funding the effort, and getting paid back for it.

        • ± says:

          Your German win/win/win sounds like typical green lies.

          Here is another link you can ignore. Agggghahahahaehehehehehar.

          https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?q=germans+abandoning+green+energy

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            ± says:
            8/11/2017 at 1:01 pm

            1. Your German win/win/win sounds like typical green lies. //// How so??

            2. Here is another link you can ignore. Agggghahahahaehehehehehar.

            https://www.ixquick.com/do/search?q=germans+abandoning+green+energy //// I am interested in the Con’s of any position…especially those I recommend……….but Damn My Soul…I’m still surprised you can be such a blithering idiot.

            I D I O T.

            Worse than nfs. Still….kinda funny in a pathetic Pedro sort of way.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            Agggghahahahaehehehehehar.

            I have been meaning to compliment you on this parallel construction/mocking.

            You have potential….if you can clean the shit out of the way.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          So no need for a moon shot then. Just some money to build some infrastructure.

          Make up your mind.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            The either/or fallacy when I so often give you the combo plate?

            You really are slow witted…….as if the Moon Program did not involve money and new tech?

            Same with AGW. This may blow your mind, but like the sequencing of the Human Genome when started: estimated to take 15 years to accomplish with off the shelf tech. So…the funded organization added NEW TECH for advanced computers and algorhythms and the genome got decoded in 5 years.

            Money Plus Tech.

            I know………..its all about solving the lag time.

            Suck It. SUCK IT BIG TIME.

            Hoser!

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Well, there doesn’t seem to be any readily available dictionary definition that isn’t sending a spacecraft to the moon.

            So let’s try to define this. It is either an easy effort or a hard effort(moonshot).
            If it is an easy effort, then there is no need for a moonshot. If there is a need for a moonshot, then it is not easy, and you can’t say the renewables are going to become cheaper by themselves, because that is an easy job.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Or I am misunderstanding when you say ‘this requires a moon shot’. Perhaps you mean you wish to send people to the moon.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

            Why are you so jealous of the territory occupied by Pedro?

            Its been said, or very directly implied…… if not here, then on other threads:

            Moonshot to overcome the ……………..
            …………………………………………
            …………………….. wait for it……………
            ………………………..
            ,
            ,
            ,
            ,
            ,
            ,
            ,
            ………………. lag time.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Cheaper now, cheaper soon, means no or little lag time. Again, DECADES of inaction is irrelevant, according to the science. It’s the end result of how much CO2 that matters.

          • ± says:

            NewFormatSux, don’t stop. It’s high entertainment to watch bobbo’s typical crash and burn. And if his handlers pop in here and check up on him, he might lose his commission.

  28. NewFormatSux says:

    There’s still hope that North Korea could stop being a problem.

    http://truepundit.com/swarthmore-marxist-group-disbands-after-students-realize-theyre-rich-and-white/

    • bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

      NFS==your link doesn’t connect to NK at all.

      Assuming you’re not just a blithering idiot…..I have to confess I don’t understand what connection you are thinking of. ie: NK doesn’t have a lot of white Swathmore college students.

      Explain this to me if you would and cure my ignorance.

      No charge……….I assume?

      • ± says:

        [issued forth bobbo in apparent dead earnestness]

        “…Explain this to me if you would and cure my ignorance. …”

        AAAaaaaaaggghghahahahahahahehehehehar. Didju ever consider a career in stand up comedy?   😆 😅 😂 🤣😆 😅 😂 🤣

  29. bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

    “By now, we’ve all heard that 2016 was the hottest year on record, and that heat-trapping greenhouse gases hit their highest concentration ever, surpassing 400 parts per million for the first time in nearly 1 million years.” /////

    http://climatecentral.org/news/the-crazy-climate-records-from-2016-you-havent-heard-much-about-21706?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatecentral%2FdjOO+Climate+Central+-+Full+Feed

    Let the stupid………..continue.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Acute Vision, or just blithering Peeping Tom's says:

      Edit this into the lead for that post:

      “These Are the Crazy Climate Records from 2016 You Haven’t Heard Much About”

    • NewFormatSux says:

      A record that goes back less than 150 years. When you have a general warming trend, you will tend to set records. What next, high temperature records vs low temperature records as proof of impending doom?

      • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

        D O L T.

        …………………still a stretch for Pedro though.

        Good job.

        Admit you are an idiot, ask for an explanation, and I will provide.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

          Notice….I don’t make that offer to everyone…(Pedro)… so please do be cautious. You do have just a tinsy weensie little space to slip even farther down.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 6792 access attempts in the last 7 days.