But to your point, a forest fire is real, the cause could be both.

The flaw is, mmgw is never caused by one person like a forest fire could be.

gw changes - cools/warms etc. And a forest fire has zero global economic power politics wealth redistribution

politics to it....

mmgw IS global economic power politics wealth redistribution.

@calfoxwc said:

and what point of yours do you believe this is helping you prove?

Talk about nonsense. They complain that he says the scientists can't have it both ways, then he reinvents that into

a point whoever it is ...can refute.

that's kinda funny, in a stupid kind of way.

Heres a good takedown of eric worral

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

@calfoxwc said:

I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one

roller. lol.

That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody

******************************************************

Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,

and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.

Ok that makes more sense.

Also, i saw one of those videos is from lindzen.....correct me if im wrong but didnt we go over him in the past? Hasnt he been on exxons payroll since the 60's or something?

roller. lol.

That seems incredibly inefficient. Woody

******************************************************

Actually, no. Our giant deck is 23 years old, and we filled the cracks with wood filler,

and it needs sanded with an orbital sander. so, I was sanding while she painted.

many times in the past, and you just knee jerk and try to diss it for what's in the title of the link,

etc, etc etc.

I have posted from CNN, you ignore it. I have posted Fox and Blaze and Constitution, you bash it for

what sources talk about the LINK that goes to the TECHNICAL SOURCE.

So, I repost the actual technical source, and you bitch about something else, and go back to the false

"97 %" nonsense. It's a complex issue with evidence that doesn't prove mmgw, because there is

evidence that CONTRADICTS it. If you care so much, use the little solid ">" thing - it plays.

Then, use the ">>" thingie to fast forward throught the non-required watching part, and

check out what he says about it on a technical level.

I started posting several links because you ignored, mocked somehow, one link here and there that was

very legit, written by an expert PHD in climate, and you peck at it like it's a bug under the bark.

take you time - you molt at the site of any one link - it's easy to dismiss without even reading it.

You just can't handle the truth, woody. It isn't on your side. The videos will be there a long time.

I've posted graphs, and you ignore them, reiterate your gibberish on the subject, and/or, you bitch

about what site posted the graph, even when the graph came from a scientific site. You conveniently

ignore the latter part.

The next time I post a simple link to an excellent, simple explanation on why mmglobalwarming is not fact,

all eyes are on how you respond. Hopefully, it won't be a smart ass knee jerk dismiss of it because it isn't msnbc,

or from a climate scientist you LIKE.

@calfoxwc said:

I still very much doubt you watched all of those videos Cal...

Again, post the main point or two being made. Provide a legitimate source for it. I will look that over and get back to you. But I have no intention of watching 6+ hours of video.

If you really did watch those videos, it should be easy to do. Complaining about me and hypothetical situations does not mean you "win". If anything it shows you really do have nothing to present, and are just mindlessly regurgitating anti climate change articles from your incredibly biased right wing sources.

@pumpkin-eater said:

The ignore the right and ignore the left. Just look at where the vast majority of the scientific community stands.

@westside-steve said:

It is a very big deal. There is still a fight to even convince a good number of people that it is even happening. If a large portion of the people yell "mmgw is fake!" because their political party told them too, it is going to be hard to get anything meaningful done, because anything meaningful will have to go through congress. Subsidies, regulations, taxes. That can't happen without votes, and there won't be votes if a good portion of the public is still misinformed.

"A loss for words?" What are you talking about? Are you saying nothing has been suggested? Or are you saying there hasn't been a "do this and climate change will disappear" solution brought forth?

Once more we should ask how much how dangerous and what can we reasonably do. Then the scientific community is that a loss for words.

WSS

Click on the video just out of curiosity and you find that it's at least an hour long infomercial. I don't think anybody on either side has the time or patience to sit through an hour at a time of almost anything.

I guess if somebody was telling me I should watch this I would just ask to point out the 5 things from the video.

WSS

I will take Woody at his word until proven otherwise. If you throw out a few points and he shits on them without offering much explanation then you proved your point.

for the qualifications of the persons doing the video, etc.

If woody doesn't have time to watch them, fine. Let him STFU until he does. Same old, he bitches.

If I post only one, he bitches where it came from, what link, something, to try to minimalize it.

So, I didn't post links because he bitches about the sources so much, I tried to post videos instead.

And the videos are by experts in the field.

So, he can't watch just one - WTF? I post 4 or 5 videos, and he can't just watch the first one?

So, if I took the time to do a cliff's notes of the first video, everybody knows he'll just bitch that I'm biased,

and I probably misquoted, misassumed, misinterpreted,,,,,

if it was a two minute video, he'd bitch that it ignored any details. If I posted a ten minute video, he's just bitch

that it didn't elaborate. If I post a half hr, to an hr video, he bitches he doesn't have time/it's too long, etc etc.

If it was any conservative site that had an article with a link to the video, he'd just bitch about the conservative site

being biased.

Well, the liberal sites sure as heck won't have negative articles on mmgw, liberals don't work that way.

I had some time, Wife was busy taking her turn staining the deck, and then I took my turn. Only have one

roller. lol.

It's tough to consider the 2nd Amendment analogy - it's a fact. mmgw is a flawed theory, as these experts in the field say.

@calfoxwc said:

yes, I watched them. you don't want to, and if you do, you won't admit it.

anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.

"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many

links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw

is a farce to my last peck on wood."

To be fair Cal, if someone was arguing with you about wanting more gun control, would you sit and watch six hours of footage called "The 2nd Amendment: The Murderous Amendment"?

Or refute every point on the 20 links from doctors and health professionals on sites like thinkofthekids.org or bradycampaign.com?

No adult person has 10-15 hours a day to sift through information that is very likely biased to the gills to argue with someone on the internet.

anything to excuse yourself from being wrong and admitting it.

"too short, too long, not a phd, not a climate scientist, I don't have time, too many

links, I son't read the Blaze, I won't read the Constitution, I won't admit mmgw

is a farce to my last peck on wood."