Senate Democrats Decide To Explain Snowmaggedon To Deniers

This is the reason I so often refer to ‘climate change’, as in, the belief that all changes in the climate are caused mostly/solely by Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, as Hotocoldwetdry. They Cult of Climastrology has created a tautology, whereby everything can either be directly blamed on ‘climate change’ or linked to it in a negative fashion. Witness

Doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation, just warming.

Got that? Heat causes more snow. Must have been super hot during the last glacial age.

First, since records only go back so far, we do not know that. Second, it’s rather disturbing that elected officials use a derogatory term intended to equate non-belief with AGW to Holocaust denial, in effect slurring fellow American citizens they are supposed to represent for Wrongthink.

Hotcoldwetdry. Heat causes more snow. These people really are nuts.

That linked article does nothing to prove anthropogenic climate change. Belief is not causation. Nor are talking points along with unhinged pronouncements. Causation is the argument, one for which Warmists cannot provide rock solid scientific evidence. But, they do not feel the need to provide that evidence, because this is about Belief, and creating more government dominance.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Senate Democrats Decide To Explain Snowmaggedon To Deniers”

  1. Jl says:

    As I saw elsewhere- IPCC third assessment report, 2001:”milder winter weather to decrease heavy snowstorms.” These clowns have no shame.

  2. John says:

    If the Pause can break to heat records in a row it probably caused this storm also

  3. First of all, John, NOAA had the 1997 temperature was 3.83F warmer than 20115.

    Second, there is still no proof of anthropogenic causation. And that is what the debate is over.

  4. Jeffery says:

    You deniosaurs should probably have a grammar school science teacher explain some basic science to you. It’s probably a defect in the subsidized public schools you took advantage of. You’re welcome.

    Got that? Heat causes more snow. Must have been super hot during the last glacial age.

    This moronic statement is odious jimhoft-like.

    Of course, none of this proves that this monster storm is caused by the warming Earth, although the accumulated evidence of an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of these storms supports a tenet of the Theory of AGW.

    And we know why the Earth is warming – greenhouse gases that we are adding to the atmosphere.

  5. Jeffery says:

    First of all, John, NOAA had the 1997 temperature was 3.83F warmer than 20115 (sic).

    Did you read Tony’s post? The same post where he claimed the

    monthly US

    temperature anomaly graph proves that 2015 was the third warmest global year since 2000? LOL. He’s claiming that since December 2015 in the US wasn’t as warm as He’s an embarrassment.

    From the NOAA page he quoted, he forgot to quote this part:

    Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.

    Good thing NOAA didn’t try to hide or change the change. What would Tony and the Deniosaurs have to whine about then?

    There’s no telling what Tony has done to manipulate the data to get his desired result but what’s certain is that he’s wrong – again.

    Actually Sou points out exactly what the hapless Tony did to manipulate the data. Read if you want see how lost Watts is the data sea. Pitiful.

  6. And we know why the Earth is warming – greenhouse gases that we are adding to the atmosphere.

    Prove it with hard raw data using the Scientific Method, rather than talking points. Your computer models have utterly failed.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Every surface dataset shows 2015 as the warmest year in recorded history and the satellite “temperatures” calculated from radiation data gathered a few miles above the Earth’s surface show 2015 as the 3rd or 4th warmest (and the temp still increasing).

    Next year will likely be warmer yet!

    Is our rapidly warming climate contributing to extreme weather? Perhaps.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Prove it with hard raw data using the Scientific Method

    What further evidence do you require?

    I don’t have any computer models, so mine haven’t failed. The computer models developed by climate scientists predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause warming, which is true. CO2 is increasing; Earth is warming.

    Scientists predicted this a century ago without computers!

    Do you deny that the Earth has warmed about 1 degree C in the past century, much of it in the past 40 years?

    Do you deny that humans have increased the CO2 concentration 40% by burning fossil fuels?

    Do you deny that CO2 absorbs radiation?

    Do you have a plausible explanation for the rapid warming of the Earth we’ve seen?

    What further evidence do you require?

    The oceans are warming, the land is warming, the atmosphere is warming, Arctic sea ice is melting, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting, ocean pH is decreasing, sea level is increasing. Until now the entire Holocene temperature record (from the Holocene “optimum” several thousand years ago to the nadir of the so-called Little Ice Age) spanned less than 1C! From the high point to the nadir it took thousands of years to cool less than 1C! Now it’s warmed 1C in a blink of a geologic eye!

    Do you have an explanation of this unusual rapid warming??

    Scientists (and I’m betting every one of them is smarter and better trained than you – or Watts) say it’s 95% certain that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. That’s not good enough for you?

    What further evidence do you require?

    Warming: check. CO2 increasing: check. CO2 from humans: check. CO2 absorbs radiation: check. Less radiation of the wavelength absorbed by CO2 released into space: check. Retained radiation causes the atmosphere to warm: check.

    Would you like to discuss the evidence or are you satisfied repeating your talking points?

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need for further investigation.

  10. Jeffery says:

    with no need for further investigation.

    Scientists are working around the clock trying to understand the warming. What is known is that it’s almost certain it’s caused by CO2 that we’ve added to atmosphere.

    Do you have a plausible alternative explanation?

    Deniosaur talking point:

    No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    What is known is that it’s almost certain it’s caused by CO2…

    Almost certain?

    Then there’s no need for further investigation if it’s ‘almost certain’ because it can ‘almost be proven’…?

  12. Jeffery says:

    I knew you would type that, lol. Theories are never “proven”. Evidence is generated that either supports or falsifies a theory. Investigations and observations regarding global warming overwhelming support the theory that human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. If you require 100% assurances you are not interested in scientific arguments.

    The only reason Deniers deny is that they disagree with potential actions to remediate global warming with a religious fervor.

    Why don’t you argue that point rather than denying the obvious evidence? Deniers have a legitimate argument to make regarding the policies, but not regarding the science.

  13. drowningpuppies says:

    …denying the obvious evidence?

    Like 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded?

    Uh,… almost… with a 38% probability (NASA) or a 48% probability (NOAA)…

    Like that kind of almost certain “obvious evidence”?

  14. jl says:

    “Do u have a plausible explanation of the rapid warming…” Do you have a plausible explanation of “rapid”? No, you don’t, nor have you ever. Sorry, J, no direct proof CO2 causing warming (that’s not there). “What’s known is almost certain”. Good one. Not by a long shot. Years and years of model projections all exceeded observations: check. Even if all warming was due to CO2 (which it is not), it would still point to a very low sensitivity: check

  15. Jeffery says:

    So no, you don’t have an explanation. Rapid means quick · fast · swift · speedy etc. Sort of like the Earth warming 1C in a century. Now it’s your turn! Do you have a plausible explanation to explain the current period of rapid warming?

    Your claim that computer models predictions exceed observations is based on Dr. Roy Spencer’s misleading graphs.

    Let’s see, a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 caused a rapid 1C increase in the mean global surface temperature.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9649 access attempts in the last 7 days.