trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

PostmodernProphet said:
a change over a tiny portion of time such as 120 years cannot be extrapolated into climate change over 20,000 years.......
Click to expand...
Which is why........your posted graph is........irrelevant and stupid, as well as ending in 1995. Nor..........does it show warming at a...........greater rate than current trends, which.......you asserted. I'm not going to.........find your post again, I get it that you..........will deny anything you've said............even when your nose is rubbed in it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
compare all four cycles on the graph.....I doubt you'll need an answer after looking at them.......
Click to expand...

So you cannot define "drastic" in a quantitatively meaningful manner.

Well, I didn't think you could, but I thought I'd ask anyway.


Natural warming and cooling cycles, such as those induced by the Milankovitch cycles, are generally very slow. Global average temperature changes are on the order of a fraction of a degree Centigrade per century.

In contrast, humans have warmed the planet by more than one degree centigrade over the last 40 to 50 years. And the rate of warming is accelerating.

That is not to say that natural warming and cooling cannot be very rapid. Indeed, with the increased interest in changes in climate over the last few decades, one of the big surprises for scientists has been the realization that climate can change very rapidly indeed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Abrupt_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

The point here is that the planetary climate system is very fragile and very changeable. It can change pretty completely (by 10 deg C in less than a decade), pretty much throwing our civilization into complete havoc.

As Wally Broecker likes to say, "the climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks".

This will not end well.
 
RickyTavy said:
‘Holy sh*t, Rick Perry is insane’: The Internet gobsmacked by energy secretary’s press conference.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/hol...macked-by-energy-secretarys-press-conference/

You need to adjust your general settings to allow enhanced interface.
Click to expand...

If this were some tiny banana republic in Africa or SE Asia, it would be great entertainment.

Burundi, or Palau, or someplace.

Alas, this is the U.S., where all this stuff has global implications. Not to mention that it is unpleasant for us Americans to have to admit that our gov't has been taken over by dishonest morons.

But there it is.
 
So we watched The Walk this evening:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3488710/reference

Pretty good, overall, although Gordon-Levitt hams it up a bit.

But then, that's his character, pretty much--a guy who lives for the limelight--so you can't fault him for it.

You could argue that the walk on the wire between the twin towers was silly and pointless. And I guess it was, if you stop at the act itself.

But I have no doubt that it did inspire people. "You got guts, kid", the cop says to the guy, as he cuffs him.

Public demonstrations of stupendous courage cannot be dismissed as silly and pointless. I guess that was the takeaway for me.
 
kflaux said:
If this were some tiny banana republic in Africa or SE Asia, it would be great entertainment.

Burundi, or Palau, or someplace.

Alas, this is the U.S., where all this stuff has global implications. Not to mention that it is unpleasant for us Americans to have to admit that our gov't has been taken over by dishonest morons.

But there it is.
Click to expand...

Again, I am less distressed by the buffoonery of our current leaders than I am by the ease with which they suckered and continue to sucker so many proudly ignorant saps. trump fluffers have a natural goose-stepping rhythm.
 
RickyTavy said:
Again, I am less distressed by the buffoonery of our current leaders than I am by the ease with which they suckered and continue to sucker so many proudly ignorant saps. trump fluffers have a natural goose-stepping rhythm.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And Olde, err, Owl'd, reminds me of this repeatedly.

And some of us noted that Romney did win 47% of the vote, and wondered why that happened.

We have a large-scale, chronic problem here. Many, many of our fellow citizens are too gullible, too easily manipulated.
 
X.O. said:
Seriously? You actually think that collection of discombobulated, hair-brained thoughts and equivocations actually mean something? FFS! Sure, it agrees with your claim of who he is, but thinking it proves anything else is foolish. His bona fides from MIT are questionable say colleagues.

[FONT=&quot]"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
No I actually thought you were fair minded but you have now disabused me of that belief.

Lindzen is a true colossus in atmospheric physics, has written several hundred papers, was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change and wrote a standard textbook entitled Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
X.O. said:
Then why don't you come up with a better example than another one that makes you look stupid? She, apparently, needs no help.
Click to expand...
It was the most recent example, can't be bothered to produce anymore. You'll find out soon enough for yourself.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
X.O. said:
Seriously? You actually think that collection of discombobulated, hair-brained thoughts and equivocations actually mean something? FFS! Sure, it agrees with your claim of who he is, but thinking it proves anything else is foolish. His bona fides from MIT are questionable say colleagues.

[FONT=&quot]"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
It was a speech that he delivered to a non-technical audience. It is not meant to be a treatise on global warming so again wind your neck in. I had hoped there was one among you that could discuss climate science in a honest manner but alas not to be.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
christiefan915 said:
If you knew it why did you post such BS?
Click to expand...
To my mind it was a ransom and therefore illegal. It stretches credulity too far as $400 million was sent to Tehran on the same day as five hostages were released. That money was part of a deal for military equipment negotiated with the Shah's government. To my mind that become null and void when a hostile government took over in 1979.



Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top