CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

here is a nice list of real scientists who oppose man made climate change..and note none are political scientists but real ones

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][unreliable source?][21]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[43][44][45]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[46][47]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[48][49]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[50]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[51][52][53][54]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[55]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[56][57]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[58][59]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[60][61]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[62][63]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[64][65]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[66]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

 

Well, if they know more than I know, why can't you explain to any of us, despite all the caterwauling, despite the laws, despite the thousands of changes, the trend is still up and not level nor down.

They don't know what they are doing.

But you keep approving what they do to you, to me and the rest of our citizens.

Hint to you true believers.

Study China and India.

 

Still waiting for one university, some institute of higher learning.....anywhere you might have been a janitor Mr. Good Will Hunting. We know you're debating for ignorance.

 

But you failed to explain the "damage" done by China and India. You stressed their "good points."

Why has the USA not done a thing that works?

 

OMG, clearly you have not looked at the long list of scientists who do not buy what Democrats sell to us.

How many of the Dr. Lindzen papers have you actually read carefully?

Why do you dispute his findings?

 

This was a good day for you. You learned to use the copy/paste function. Now hold your breath waiting for someone to read it.

 

Got a school...anyhwere now. A web site for a university , govt. anywhere that agrees with you guys.
How about a junior Highschool or an elementary school which would be a institution of higher learning for some of you.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

So, garbage in, garbage out.

You will get no help from Democrats as to how to deal with the rest of the world.

You know, there was a very good reason why auto's in the USA were getting larger. The public wanted comfort and good solid power.

Today, sold here in America means tiny cars.

They are death traps when hit by larger vehicles.

 

What does the IPCC recommend?

Actually I agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen who was head of climate studies at MIT.

 

Actually I see no evidence that you understand this topic.

I see your politics is lined up with the Democrats.

 

MIT supports AGW theory. Sorry. Lol. I think it hilarious that you think we should have fixed this problem already. Lol

 

The director of the Russian academy of science signed a statement in support of AGW theory. Now you are just outright lying

 

more insults from you..you must be losing the debate...

 

But, you miss the point looking at a few individuals. Institutional stances on issues have concensus of the faculty and all those who fund their studies. They are more important then individual opinions because they put all their studies in context. Most importantly, an educational institution has their reputation at stake, often worth more then any individual's opinion. it is the institution that awards scientists the degrees and conducts studies in these important areas. Man's contribution to Climate change was decided 30 years ago and the debate then was, conservatives wanted to go cap and trade to deal with it. Then, to gain political support form the fossil fuel industries, they decided to "forget" their stance and play dumb ever since. Universities and institutions of higher learning have too much at stake. Dr, Rhich Lindzen ? ..look at the official stance of MIT and it's present head.

 

Now that Lindzen left, maybe they do. So, you don't think the USA should have made any progress?

That would alarm the true believer.

http://news.mit.edu/2015/new-climate-change-strategy-1021

The little brats expected MIT to sell it's fossil fuel stocks.

- - - Updated - - -

There is huge money to be made by acting like believers.

 

And there is no money to be made promoting the fossil fuel industry. Hilarious

 

Who says that?

Actually the reason why we use fossil fuels is called bang for the buck.

Your auto for instance stores far more energy in your gas tank than the Tesla has in it's batteries.

You get more efficient power using coal than burning trash.

Coal is ultra compact energy.

 

God almighty! Will any of you people answer my question? You've all got no problem trying to ridicule what you call "Deniers", hell, you've got ALL KINDS of energy to be snarky. But I ask a legitimate question about what to effectively do about it, and it's crickets........ Have any of you Alarmists out there got the balls to answer my damn question? Do it already, or consider yourselves irrelevant. Complaining and sneering don't solve anything, no matter how "good" it make you feel to laugh at others.

So, here goes for the last time,

 

You supporters of the GOP, Faux and the Koch inspired anti climate change group are hanging on to this inane idea which the GOP believed 30 years ago. You are in the the vast minority but only a few of you are needed in key swing states. You make up the typical right wing nuts who are the least informed but you"ll still take your SS and Medicare while getting kicked in the butt by the GOP...who by the way, have given you 9 of the last 10 recessions.

 

There are hundreds of things that need to be done. Carbon banks, increase cafe standards, invest in green tech, improve energy conservation, and on and on and on

 

The idea behind climate change was settled 30 years ago.

As far as "what to do about it." Just think renewables like solar, wind tidal and etc, and get off fossil fuels. It's not rocket science. It's so elementary to people who accept the science.......and you can just google legit sources to help.

 

Cheap energy that destroys the planet is not good energy

 

Have you ever burned coal at home ? If you did, you would know how dirty it is. You can save money now on your fuel bill and then make your co pay for cancer treatment later. Nice exchange.

 

I admit to never burning coal to heat a home or cook with. Burned a lot of wood though.

I am 77 so if cancer plans to strike, best get with it then.

- - - Updated - - -

Destroys what?

 

Why not read this awesome book that explains all of that to you?