[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

But we could have prevented the tornado if we had gone out and bought all new energy efficient appliances.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Wondering

I think it's called Climate Change. Global warming will cause changes in the yearly climate. Do some legitimate fact checking and research and stop believing the propaganda noise networks!

That's because calling it "Global Warming" wasn't convincing enough...

[BlueStarAirlines]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You don't seem to be paying attention. Perhaps I used too many words.

Ad Hominem
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

After all, 50,000 years ago we were Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

Some still are...

[sounding]

Originally Posted by donfey

We used to call that WEATHER.
The hottest temperature EVER recorded in Florida was 109 on June 29, 1931 in Monticello. Must have been plenty of cow flatulence back then.

Correct. All data shows it was hotter during the Dust Bowl years - the 1930s. A primary driver was and is the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) - which shows it was hottest in the 30s and coolest in the 70s (when it snowed in Miami in '77). This year is warm due to the AMO, Tonga volcano, peaking sunspots, and increasing El Nino -- and yet we are still in a 9-year cooling trend.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

That's because calling it "Global Warming" wasn't convincing enough...

IMO no, you can argue about global warming, but climate change you can’t cause the climate always changing. and always will.

[Warcats]

Originally Posted by blueash

This graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

Those that deny are uneducated in the sciences or even worse religious aieeee

[Driller703]

Originally Posted by blueash

This graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

Terrible! I’m so amazed that they can tell all this, and they can’t predict the weather next week! It would be so easy to fix this if we just paid more taxes!! I feel bad for the people who live where the power grid will be so over loaded because of all the electric cars that they won’t be able to run their A/C in the 120 degree heat!! And then, the thermal shock of the following freezing winter! Lucky we weren’t around 15,000 years ago when this happened before.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Warcats

Those that deny are uneducated in the sciences or even worse religious aieeee

Interesting. I'm not particularly religious and I have a doctorate in a science. You????

[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

This graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

"... selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline ...? When does a "tipping point" begin? Is this not what Al Gore was warning us about?

[cjrjck]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I would welcome a discussion with a skeptic. I enjoyed pondering why sea levels rose so quickly in the past compared to today. It was interesting to research sea level change in the Med and to think about how it could appear that the levels were 20ft higher on one side of the island in Roman times while also being 13ft *lower* on the other side. Asking questions about the data and sincerely looking for answers is interesting.

What is more common on this topic are deniers. Some are simply say "there ain't no climate change." Others point to gross estimations of the climate millions of years ago to ignore instrumented measurements from the last 100 years. And others attempt to mislead by posting data from denier websites or cherry-picking data until a graph looks the way they want or discussing the wardrobe choices of coral.

Good points but I am still confused why it matters that some people don't believe in climate change. How is it important what someone else thinks or believes?

[Escape Artist]

Originally Posted by blueash

this graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

lol

[sounding]

Originally Posted by cjrjck

Good points but I am still confused why it matters that some people don't believe in climate change. How is it important what someone else thinks or believes?

Believing in climate change is not the issue. It's whether man-made CO2 harms the climate - which it doesn't - and in fact it makes our climate better. Just look outside - and see all the folks escaping the cold to come to Florida. Listen to your eyes - not the narrative.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by The Chipster

I have learned NOT to use reason with climate deniers. No matter what reliable, scientific, reasonable data you share with them, they are in a cult and will not believe anything except for their conspiracy-laden anti-government/media beliefs. Better to just nod your head and smile.

Note to OP: this is not political.

There is certainly a cult involved, but it's not the "deniers". Pot, meet kettle.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

When a team has had its ups and downs over many seasons then you expect that team to win a few and lose a few this season as well. If you start to notice that the team is now winning a lot more than it is losing and that this started when Tom Brady was added then it would be foolish not to take notice of that. Maybe it isn't Brady, maybe it is Gronkoski, but something out of the ordinary is happening.

You disproved your own point. The Patriots stink once again as the cycle reverts.