Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has. I've shown you this is the case several times. As has Sanspeur. Even one of your fellow denialists has posted a citation in this very thread stating temperatures have continued to increase. Perhaps you've just forgotten that I've proven your claim false several times.
Nope. All your scientists says it has "paused".....................meaning stopped.
Nope. All your scientists says it has "paused".....................meaning stopped.
But nice try.
I have seen one dishonest group combine satellite temperature data and ground level weather station data, and come up with a bastardized opinion that climate temps actually have risen slightly over the past couple years.
You are correct, both NOOA and NASA say the climate warming has "paused" since 1999, and even declined in North America. No global warming has occurred, much less the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), but don't let that fact stop the science deniers from claiming otherwise.
Nope. All your scientists says it has "paused".....................meaning stopped.
But nice try.
Incorrect. Temperatures have continued to increase. I've proven this to be the case several times, as has Sanspeur. Even another denialist posted a reference saying such. You must not be paying attention or something.
Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? - Climate.gov
The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero.
Great so Democrats and Republicans both agree Republicans are unfit to lead the country. That's why Hillary will win easily.
Many conservatives see that our current leaders on both sides of the aisle are failing us. They won't vote for the status quo. The same can't be said for most liberals. They vote from an emotional "my team" view and not on principle.
It's why the TEA Party has been very successful at getting rid of Republicans who play the inside the beltway games while the liberals who were upset over the Iraq war will run to the polls to elect a woman who voted for the war and "lied" to us about WMDs.
Do liberals who supposedly care about AGW ever say anything about President Obama taking two 747's, three to four heavy lift military transports and several large support/logistics aircraft to Hawaii each year so he can sit on that particular beach? NO. As long as he has that D, they'll vote for him. It doesn't matter if he increases the wiretapping or drops bombs on people in a country where we have no business. You'd throw a fit if a Republican were to do it, but you'll line up to vote for a Democrat doing it.
That is why Hillary will most likely win. Her constituents are "team" players. They would vote for Hitler if he sported a D. That's just tough to beat.
Well, of course it is, because what I wrote is true and you have no way to address it.
Isn't it enough that over two years from the election even Republicans acknowledge they have virtually no chance of winning? If for arguments sake we accept your arguments as true. Ask yourself how bad is your political party?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.