Welcome to American Weather

Jack Frost

Members
  • Content count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jack Frost

  1. Prepare your bomb shelters! Life on earth is about to end. Oh, maybe not. Or maybe so. Of course, the science is settled. If you believe that, place your bets accordingly....
  2. Notwithstanding this quote, I have every confidence based upon some of your other posts that you are (can be) open minded.
  3. Very bad grammar to end a sentence with a preposition. Let's try "There is no substance to which to respond". Grammatically correct, but still substantively wrong. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
  4. By the way, this has a little something for everybody.
  5. Interesting read from the creator of Dilbert. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science I am a non-discriminatory poster that cites PhDs in Atmospheric Science and cartoonists. Candidly, the cartoonist is not as intellectually engaging but quite entertaining.
  6. Interesting, the paper initially cited states that it was prepared in connection with a May 2012 conference. The RealClimate article addressing the cited paper was authored in 2006. Maybe the 2006 paper is still relevant and addresses the points in the 2012 article. But if you are going to cite a 2006 paper to refute a 2012 paper it is incumbent upon you to do the legwork and demonstrate its continued relevance. On an ironic note, it is more than interesting, in hindsight, that Dr. Grey was belittled in 2006 for daring to disagree with A Convenient Lie's citing to Hurricane Katrina as evidence that, due to AGW, Atlantic hurricanes would continually increase in number and intensity. Be afraid, be very afraid!!! Wrong and wrong. Dr. Grey for the win on that one!
  7. Talk about an open invitation to the Law of Unexpected Consequences....
  8. WidreMann, Thank you for your thoughtful response that doesn't resort to mindless name calling. I appreciate your questions and have an answer. Whether you agree or disagree, maybe we both can benefit from the discussion. While some reading this forum are too far gone to get it, my posts do have a purpose. "1000 PPM" is a good example. The point of that post is to remind folks that C02 is part of the "cycle of life". How many people have no idea that we exhale CO2, plants use it for photosynthesis and then provide food and oxygen to sustain life? Not having conducted a credible poll, I don't know exactly but my suspicion is a great many. Your analogy to water in that thread is a good one and I agree that too much of anything, even a good thing, can cause problems. I grew up being taught that moderation in everything is key. And the water analogy highlights the point of that thread. CO2 should not be classified by the US EPA as a pollutant no more tham water should be classified as a pollutant. That is utterly ridiculous but plays perfectly into the propaganda and lies seen in a great many articles about AGW that feature ugly black or white gasses belching from smokestacks - an obvious deceit to make the public think C02 is a dangerous pollutant when we both know that it is a colorless odorless gas that we exhale with every breath and that is essential to the cycle of life. So, having digressed, what is my point in highlighting the numerous inaccurate predictions made about the consequences of additional CO2 in the atmosphere - which all assume that the ecosystem has no mechanisms to constantly strive toward whatever balance is required to maintain itself? Very simple. Just as CO2 is not a "pollutant", climate science is not "settled". I am not saying climate science is "wrong", although you can see that I am very suspect. And perhaps part of my suspicion is based upon the strident assertion that it is settled, move along, nothing to see here folks. Combine that with the obvious lies, data manipulation and propaganda and I find it truly amazing that anyone could be "all in" and not have questions. But the fact that some in this forum have called a PhD in Atmospheric Science derogatory names without ever having addressed the assertions made in a well-reasoned paper only increases my suspicion that there are more than valid reasons to conclude that the science is no where close to settled. And I say that with the full realization that the college professor from Texas may be horrified and request the I be banned from this forum - LOLOLOLOLOL. Sorry, could't resist.
  9. The article you linked to is entitled: "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" Rather dated, but putting that aside, presume it's premise is true. "Sea levels are rising faster than anticipated by the authors". Doesn't that make the authors' anticipations suspect and less credible? Let me answer - YES, if you have an open mind! NO, if you are an AGW Religious Zealot. Skierinvermont and others participating in the GROUPTHINK, please report this post. SAFESPACES must be protected. The scientific method be damned....
  10. Quite interesting. Does AWXF support diversity of thought? Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the skimiester has revealed himself. LOLOLOLOLOLOL Still waiting for the well reasoned scientific response to Dr. Berry's paper. Oh yeah, I forgot. The PhD in Atmospheric Science is a troll as well. In fact, everyone who doesn't ski in Vermont is a troll. I've reported skierinvermont. Others should do the same. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
  11. More name calling. Boring.... Let me try to groupspeak so you will not be offended. The air that we exhale is a pollutant that will destroy the planet by 2016. Wait, that's Al Gore's line. Sorry, guess I'm just not meant to be part of the "in" crowd. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  12. Safespace?
  13. The analogy to water is quite interesting. May we presume that you advocate that water be classified as a pollutant by the EPA just as the breath you exhale (CO2) was so classified?
  14. FloridaJohn, Re-watch the movie. With 11 years of hindsight, it is a hoot. Beyond comedy!
  15. No AGW religious zealots willing to support the casual link between CO2 and diabetes? Embarrassing, isn't it?