Congress to slash funding for Global Warming research at NASA

That is fine with me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL! I just posted that exact same article here:

Glad to see you got on the same page though. And you said:

So are you now backpedaling to it only being a contributory cause, instead of an "initiating cause"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really? You made no claim?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it "does not lag" then it must either match or lead warming. Either way, it is a claim that you should support, if you're at all intellectually honest. But we all know you won't, because you aren't.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You'll just continue to get more mealy-mouthed.

So a stable, 75 year rate of ocean warming accounts for a hiatus in atmospheric warming over only the last decade?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. It started the warming. There were other factors, of course - but it was the largest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently you don't know the difference between CO2 "initiating warming" and CO2 "boosting warming".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Logic isn't your thing, is it.

 

Or honesty.

 

And I don't know which you will decide it does. Nor do I care. It makes absolutely no difference. Even if I'm wrong and this last one did lag as well - so what? We have a CO2 boost, and it's warming the planet just like physics says it will.

Easily could, in several ways, some described above for you. Big ocean, high specific heat of water, phase change of ice, currents and such, you recall?
As noted, it's a technical issue best handled by the pros. They say the ocean took it. I see no reason to doubt them - and it doesn't change anything in the basic situation. Why do you care?

No, it doesn't matter at all to me. The current situation with the CO2 boost doesn't change regardless.
The graphs of the last few centuries of temperature and CO2 that have been published and updated every year for your entire adult life are public record, and if you aren't paying attention to them why should we bother to repeat basic instruction over and over?

The only relevant aspect of your take here is the fact that so many share it in the US - they have no source of information except guys like you. So when the Republicans cut research funding, the satellites go blank, the records are no longer kept and the phenomena no longer measured, a hole in the data will be available to be filled with your drivel. Right now we can backstop reason with graphs of measurements, and those who like you find reason an alien world have to make absurd and less persuasive denials of stubborn fact.

 

Everyone prefers video!

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/03/11/epa-head-denies-co2-causes-climate-change-mann-intv.cnn

 

Why are you anti-science?

 

Usually it's only week-ends.

 

Definitions aren't your thing, are they.

 

Why do you hate coal miners?

 

Your two questions are inconsistent with each other, and also baseless.

 

I think that's his point . . . .

 

Well at least your abdicating the claim you refuse to support. I guess that's progress.

Mindless appeal to authority. Do oceans absorb more heat the warmer they get (i.e. specific heat drops)? Do you have zero curiosity for the things you advocate? Blind acceptance is a trait of religion, not science.

Yes, we already got that you are abdicating the claim you refuse to support, although I'd be surprised if you quit making it.
I've repeatedly asked for evidence that CO2 doesn't lag temperature....crickets. If you have any, certainly you would prefer to tell me off rather than keep looking the fool.
You keep talking about graphs and measures you repeatedly refuse to cite, while dismissing questions even you admit to not knowing the answer to.
Stick to reading your pop-sci articles and leave the debates to your "pros".

 

Federal agencies plan to spend $27 billion on global warming-related programs in 2017

That's 540,000 teachers.
or 5400 miles of new highways
or rebuilding 20% of the nation's defective bridges every year.

So, spending 540,000 teachers on an unproven scientific claim makes sense to you?

 

And what would that have to do with me then?

 

You are being dishonest. Climate change is the scientific consensus. Almost no scientists disagree.

 

The science is quite well proven, and has been for some time.

I'd much rather spend 540,000 teachers on proven science than 1,300,000 teachers on a wall we don't need - or 12,000,000 teachers on war.

 

1. Some of that money is allocated to teaching kids about science.
2. Ha ha, you read World Net Daily.