"You keep saying that.
I don't know what you are talking about."

 These claims that there are no working, useable accurate weather models
 
"BULLSHIT
Every Frikken
Model
Is wrong as crap"

 There are many weather models that are accurately used in industry today.  Like a lot of them.  

 But lets ignore those and just say "Every" one is wrong so we can perpetuate this philosophy that anyone who believes in climate change uses false information and is wrong all the time.

As I've said, and this is key, no one on here can point to a single solitary positivity confirmed consequence of the minute increase in global temperature in our own personal day to day life for our entire lifetime. None.

fine, explain to me how a tiny difference in the global average temperature killed 11,000 people?

For me the drastic changes in agriculture in my area, and the fact we can use predictive modeling, and have, to create more efficient crop structure is to me, a consequence and can be positively confirmed as records have been kept for decades.

Yea, sounds like BS. So a few decades of keeping temperatures which show an average difference of a fraction of a degree has drastically changed agricultural in your  area? The average temperature difference since 1979 for the US is .38C degree higher. That's from the NOAA satellite data since 1979.

Agriculture methods and techniques change constantly as the search to improve output marches on, not from a tiny change in average temp.

WebsterMark wrote on 08/18/19 at 16:53:12:



LOL - you ignored my post about it.  How convenient.

T And T Garage wrote on 08/19/19 at 05:43:38:



You posted "record snowfalls.....record high water....nearly wiped off the map....."   So you're saying a tiny fraction of a degree change in temp caused this in one tiny area of the country?

"Exactly, what is it?"

 That was my question.  Because if the end of man is your acceptable parameter for climate change consequence then we would already know there is no possible information in existence that would meet your definition.

 If you have no actual parameters of what you will accept as global climate change by your own definition or assessment then there's no reason to have this discussion.

 Your kayak trip appears to be anecdotal, my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people.  Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models.  

 Again we have a situation where the focus is on doomsday predictions instead of useable ones, that have been reliably used by thousands for decades now to improve industrial economic output.  Of course none of them mean anything if you do not have a clear definition of what you consider a consequence of climate change.

 If you had some parameters we would know right away if any of the information we have meets your standard.  

Your kayak trip appears to be anecdotal, my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people.  Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models.  

Absolutely my trip is anecdotal. Which was my point. Look at what Rev TT posted. People accept $hit like that and cry global warming.
So I keep hearing how the world is coming to an end so again, why don't I see it?

my agriculture reference has literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data, that are used with accuracy, for many agriculture uses by many people.  Also there is an alternate outcome consistence from organizations that do not use these weather models.  

Again I ask, are you telling me that a fraction of a degree is causing 'drastic' changes in agriculture? I don't believe that.