Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

This is not true, of course. Variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. If you believe they haven't been, then it is up to you to show on what you are basing your conclusion.

If your point is that it was more than five years ago, please cite the 1990 claim that it was only variability instead of warming. If you want to argue ten rather than five, I will concede the extra five years. I will say I first heard of variability instead of warming when variability was prefaced by ALWAYS SAID. Been there, done that, sorry but is is a recent T-shirt.

My point is that variability in regional climates have always been considered in climate models. Is this not clear?

<snip>


Which experts would they be? And which politicized statements are you referring to?

I am referring to ALL the people who are cited by the political melter types. If you wish to quote any of them please feel free to use the people with the highest reputation you can find. I will respond. This really only means I never bothered to memorize their names and organizations.

If Mitch McConnell cites Newton's laws a gravity when a landslide occurs, is he making a political statement?

I've yet to see you show that they were wrong about anything. I've seen you make various claims, but you've presented no scientific refutation to support those claims, nor have you cited scientific references in support of your claims.

That does not make sense. They, they as in ALL the experts who started this hysteria were saying around 1990 that in ten years it would be to late to do anything about global warming. It is now more than ten years. It is too late. Why have they not shut up?

Really? Every single one? See, this is the problem. You make these blanket claims with nothing to support them, and then act surprised when someone questions them. Why is that?

Yet another one of your unfounded claims. Climate scientists have said all along that the rate of change is as significant as the level of GHG build up in the atmosphere (and in fact, they go hand in hand), and that both have potentially disastrous consequences..

If you do in fact assert they always said rate of change, and we agree on the fact they always said change, then I invite you to cite the ALWAYS from the late 1980s to early 1990s.

I understand that conservatives and other deniers have an issue with using Wikipedia as a source, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to dig up peer reviewed papers from the 1980s to make my point. I've been a certified professional geologist since 1988, and have kept up with most aspects of my field for a very long time. So I believe I am in a better position than you to know what has been said and even more importantly, what has not be said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...ge_science

The difference between potentially disastrous and disastrous is a great as night and day. If you do not understand the difference in rate of change in context you do not know enough about the subject to have an opinion.

Of course that is a ridiculous claim. It will not potentially become night after the day. We know that it will.

Please explain why all temperature measurements have to be from absolute zero and the difference between heat and temperature.

I would if I understood what the hell you were referring to with regard to absolute zero.

First of all the second graph plots global average temperatures over time, and so has no zero line of deviation to plot. Secondly, even if one choose a different zero line in the first graph, the slope of the plot does not change. In both graphs, warming is apparent.

Fine with me. You have no idea how to read the graphs you are presenting. Pardon but I have other posts to read and respond to without wasting any more time on you.

That would come as a shock to those who have paid me a lot of money over the decades to plot graphs just like the ones in question. This is it? This is all you have? Really?