Miami Meteorologists rebukes DeSantis for scrubbing climate change from state law

[rambot]

With all due respect you don’t know what you are talking about.

Oh. I definitwlynknoenwhar I'm talking about. Perhaps you don't know what I'm talking about.

You are like all the rest , hand wringing and pearl clutching but you do nothing about it.

I am presenting data and making predictions. You literally have absolutely NO idea what my lifestyle is but just assume.

Lastly you confuse "lack of action" with "indicative of the truth of the data". That's not reasonable.

If I change light bulbs it's not as though the Mississippis water levels will gobback to normal.

If I get a hybrid, it's not going to stop an ice shield from sliding in the ocean.

It requires legislation and industry led change for it to be scaleable to to be impactful.


But none of that is evidence that nothing is which seems to be the extent of your argument wsince I don't see you address any actual evidence.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Oh. I definitwlynknoenwhar I'm talking about. Perhaps you don't know what I'm talking about.

Self exhalation gets you nowhere.

I am presenting data and making predictions.

Just like the litter of fails predictions by left by people far more qualified than you.

Like them, your predictions do nothing to prove that humans can control what is occurring nor can we predict how changes in the biosphere will affect the climate.

It makes you feel superior to make these silly predictions which will join the heap of failed predictions by the priests and preachers of the new climate religion.

You literally have absolutely NO idea what my lifestyle is but just assume.

I have a good idea. You come from the same climate cult and are cut from the same cloth as the rest of these climate apocalypse preachers are.

Lastly you confuse "lack of action" with "indicative of the truth of the data". That's not reasonable.

The truth of data only tells us one thing. And true science does not make conclusions on one thing only.

Science has been run over by politics on this issue so we end up with science being turned over to condense rather than method.

If I change light bulbs it's not as though the Mississippis water levels will gobback to normal.

How would know that if everyone did it it would go back? Spend your time coming up with ways to adapt rather than making another of high priest Gore’s count down clock.

Yes, the data was true and acorn did fall from the tree. And it did strike Henny-Penny on the head, but the sky was not falling.

If I get a hybrid, it's not going to stop an ice shield from sliding in the ocean.

That’s how everyone else feels too, do you support the Government taking away the right for us to choose the kind of cars we drive?

It requires legislation and industry led change for it to be scaleable to to be impactful.

Right, take away freedoms. Can you our tge government guarantee that this action will work?

What about the past predictions that said if we didn’t do this with in ten years it would be to late. These predictions by your vaunted experts have expired so is it too late or were they also wrong?

But none of that is evidence that nothing is which seems to be the extent of your argument wsince I don't see you address any actual evidence.

You think I am arguing against your data but that is a mistake. I am saying we do not understand what this data indicates is the cause for the change.

I am arguing that the powers that be have jumped to conclusions without any real science and are confusing hypotheses with conclusions to promote their agenda for more power.

I will also make a prediction. Since respect for government is already in the crapper. If the government tried to push this inane power grab there would be a splintering of our nation.

We are in greater danger from our politicians than we are suv’s.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Which freedoms have you lost?
Have you looked under the couch cushions?

Let’s start with gun laws. Then we can move on to freedom of speech. Private property rights and the whole slew of regulations imposed on us by agencies rather than congress.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Just like the litter of fails predictions by left by people far more qualified than you.

This sentence makes no sense.

Like them, your predictions do nothing to prove that humans can control what is occurring nor can we predict how changes in the biosphere will affect the climate.

It makes you feel superior to make these silly predictions which will join the heap of failed predictions by the priests and preachers of the new climate religion.

Climatology is not a religion. It is a science based on data.

 

[rambot]

You think I am arguing against your data but that is a mistake. I am saying we do not understand what this data indicates is the cause for the change.

Ok. So which of these points do you argue:

1) Humans are releasing trapped carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) and we are releasing a lot of it. This is carbon that was trapped hundreds of millions of years ago and has not been a part of the carbon cycle in all that time.
2) CO2 molecules trap heat
3) The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (such as methane) is increasing.

 

[Pommer]

Let’s start with gun laws. Then we can move on to freedom of speech. Private property rights and the whole slew of regulations imposed on us by agencies rather than congress.

So…”none”.
Okay, great, thanks.

 

[Mercy Shown]

So…”none”.
Okay, great, thanks.

This is the best laugh of the day. Thxs

 

[Mercy Shown]

Ok. So which of these points do you argue:

1) Humans are releasing trapped carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) and we are releasing a lot of it. This is carbon that was trapped hundreds of millions of years ago and has not been a part of the carbon cycle in all that time.

Humans have been doing this for a long time, as have animals and volcanoes (albeit also blocking out much of the sun's energy). At one time, the planet was warm enough that Antarctica was covered with forests. You give humans way too much credit. Climate change is agenda-driven rather than scientifically driven. And the alarmists have been wrong time and time again.

We can't even be sure how the climate will affect the planet; it is a guessing game, and those who want power always guess in favor of the apocalypse to the point of driving the weak-minded mad enough to glue themselves to highways. They buy the crap "science" of consensus and start behaving irrationally because folks like you have convinced them that the sky, indeed, is falling.

2) CO2 molecules trap heat

It's important to consider that CO2 molecules promote biospheric growth, and nature always tends towards balance. What exactly constitutes the Earth's natural climate? Is it reflective of the 1st century AD, the Cambrian period, or even the Ice Age? Let's have a realistic discussion and avoid promoting the agenda of the "elites."

​

3) The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (such as methane) is increasing.

This is an example of how the alarmists use facts to spread panic. An incomplete statement such as this seems to support the anti-capitalist agenda and the regulation of technological advancement. But the truth is. Science has uncovered direct evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the upper atmosphere have increased unprecedentedly for at least the last 800,000 years. So we have quite a job ahead of walking that back. Hint: It ain't going to happen even though modern Marxists salivate at the idea of a totalitarian one-world Government, and climate fear is the perfect tool to attempt to achieve such a goal.

Climate change has been inevitable since our planet emerged with an atmosphere of hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. This climate hysteria is silly, bordering on idiotic, and those banging the drum for changes that will have little to no effect on it range from the "truly useful idiots" to the devious power brokers.

 

[Mercy Shown]

?This sentence makes no sense.

Climatology is not a religion. It is a science based on data.

You are confusing climatology with the agenda-driven misuse of it. Meteorology is also considered a science, and what is the accuracy of its predictions from day to day?

Are you convinced that the sky is falling?

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

You might as well throw your predictions on this heap.

 

[wing2000]

Are you convinced that the sky is falling?

I have not seen anyone make that argument here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are confusing climatology with the agenda-driven misuse of it. Meteorology is also considered a science, and what is the accuracy of its predictions from day to day?

Are you convinced that the sky is falling?

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

You might as well throw your predictions on this heap.

Most of those have nothing to do with climate. Are you going to make a serious argument or not?

 

[Mercy Shown]

Most of those have nothing to do with climate. Are you going to make a serious argument or not?

This is a typical response of one who can't answer a post. You are all loaded for bear when it comes to proving climate change with your data, but suddenly, you are faced with the reality of climate change and the futility of pursuing big government solutions. You are speechless. Suddenly, the reality of 800,000 years of increased CO2 levels throws a monkey wrench into your pie-in-the-sky agenda of the world, joining hand in hand, singing khum-ba-yah while they drive those tiny little cars that go beep, beep, beep.

You can only prove that CO2 has been on the rise for 800,000 years, which makes the Paris Climate Agreement the most significant attempt in recent years to grab power through virtue signaling and fear-mongering—shaping the truth to deceive. This is the best form of propaganda.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I have not seen anyone make that argument here.

Then you do not understand the metaphor.

 

[wing2000]

Then you do not understand the metaphor.

My point is, you are the one alleging the sky is falling.

For example:

Yeah, Smith Island on the Chesapeake Bay was supposed to be gone 5 years ago, but it is still there as usual.

Who made that claim?

 

[Mercy Shown]

My point is, you are the one alleging the sky is falling.

For example:



Who made that claim?

This is not alleging that the sky is falling. We must stick with reality. What is your point in your posting if it is not to avoid a climate crisis? You are not fooling anyone. You tacitly claim that worldwide disasters await us if the government doesn't force change.

If you are just pointing out data, why not point out all the data rather than just the bits that suit your agenda?

 

[wing2000]

This is not alleging that the sky is falling. We must stick with reality. What is your point in your posting if it is not to avoid a climate crisis? You are not fooling anyone. You tacitly claim that worldwide disasters await us if the government doesn't force change.

If you are just pointing out data, why not point out all the data rather than just the bits that suit your agenda?

Mercy Shown said:
Yeah, Smith Island on the Chesapeake Bay was supposed to be gone 5 years ago, but it is still there as usual.

Who made that claim?
Or did you just make it up?

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is a typical response of one who can't answer a post.

I'm not going to respond to a Gish Gallop of claims many of which are completely irrelevant and some which I can't even identify what the list maker you copied it from was talking about.

For example this group of three "predictions"

1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

don't have a single thing to do with greenhouse gas induced climate change. Not one bit. Climatologists don't even make these measurements or predictions. The last is clearly (along with other "oil is running out" predictions) from petroleum geologists.

You are all loaded for bear when it comes to proving climate change with your data, but suddenly, you are faced with the reality of climate change and the futility of pursuing big government solutions.

These weren't "reality". It was an unreferenced list of claims.

You are speechless.

What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Suddenly, the reality of 800,000 years of increased CO2 levels throws a monkey wrench into your pie-in-the-sky agenda of the world, joining hand in hand, singing khum-ba-yah while they drive those tiny little cars that go beep, beep, beep.

You have no idea what my "agenda" is. (I hate joining hands to sing.)

You can only prove that CO2 has been on the rise for 800,000 years, which makes the Paris Climate Agreement the most significant attempt in recent years to grab power through virtue signaling and fear-mongering—shaping the truth to deceive. This is the best form of propaganda.

There has been propaganda and it has been the "facts" you have read and regurgitated here.

 

[BCP1928]

This is not alleging that the sky is falling. We must stick with reality. What is your point in your posting if it is not to avoid a climate crisis? You are not fooling anyone. You tacitly claim that worldwide disasters await us if the government doesn't force change.

Why does it require force?

 

[Mercy Shown]

Why does it require force?

Because the average Joe isn’t willing to give up their gas SUV’s, cellphones air conditioning, beef burgers on the grill etc.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I'm not going to respond to a Gish Gallop of claims many of which are completely irrelevant and some which I can't even identify what the list maker you copied it from was talking about.

I wouldn’t expect you would or could.

For example this group of three "predictions"

1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide

Of course, you must be young because you probably never read “The Population Bomb”

1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources

You have never heard of earth overshoot day? The problem is that often the panicked are young and inexperienced. A few are old and ignorant.

1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years

Predicting the timing of peak oil - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

don't have a single thing to do with greenhouse gas induced climate change. Not one bit. Climatologists don't even make these measurements or predictions. The last is clearly (along with other "oil is running out" predictions) from petroleum geologists.


These weren't "reality". It was an unreferenced list of claims.

What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


You have no idea what my "agenda" is. (I hate joining hands to sing.)

There has been propaganda and it has been the "facts" you have read and regurgitated here.

Wrong again. You think throwing a label at something makes it so.