World leaders were duped, investing billions over manipulated global warming data

That's actually news you can use.

 

We can't stop it, because stopping it would require limits on CO2 production that we can't accommodate.

I've never heard any scientist suggest a way in which we could possibly cause the planet to cool.

If we did, we already know at least one great way to stop cooling - CO2 production!

 

It specifically refutes your claim that it would all be for nothing.

If we slowed down climate change, there would be that much more time for the species that we depend upon to adapt.

The science I have presented here is not speculation.

 

Not in the United States. Besides it's China who is number 1 in CO2 emissions.

We're doing our part.

 

You continue to deliberately want to suggest new meanings for my comments. You suggest you are not making an opinion and presenting it to me and you seem totally at a loss of what is being said to you.

I am not sure is this the new alarmist tactic, build strawmen and berate others with them until they give up???

You can accept what science states and shows all you like, but that is NOT what you are doing is it??? You have been linking to sites and articles that support your opinion of what is occurring derived from the interpretation of the scientific research presented. IT is YOUR opinion that these sites are correctly providing the science because it supports your idea of what the science states. So to say you are not posting your opinion is complete garbage.

I love the “It means that scientists are constantly working to ensure that what they are saying is as right as it possibly can be given that we are all humans and also given that we don't provide an infinite budget of time and money.” Science to a budget. Do you suggest that if money was infinite the science would be better???

I could point out how wrong you are but frankly if all you are going to do is build more strawman I could not be bothered. I do believe, others clearly understand what I continue to point out on your posts I don’t think I need repeat myself.

By the way, the point of reading those papers was not to say anything about the science but your blind faith of making the theory of fact. Since all the papers I discussed were part of the AR1 AR2 and AR3 report, if you were unaware of them, then I wonder how you continue to claim the science is telling you anything. But hey I did not suggest the theory was wrong just your claim of the science which you seem to not understand…

 

Work on??? Clearly that does not deserve consideration when creating any policy. Just tax the world and think of them later, even in this thread. What was it. Not here, start another thread.

So you now claim to task me for relevance to the thread and you loudly tell the world you were not discussing the OP's premise in any way??? Did you even read the heading on the thread??? Don’t you think “Duping world leaders” is anything to do with policy??? Really??? You cannot be serious, to then suggest that it is ME who is being off topic. Honestly, how do you find your bed at night when you are so blind you cannot even see the hypocrisy in two sentences so close together???

Logical fallacies, what do we call this??? Unbelievable...

 

The problem with the discussion is that you seem perfectly willing to assign a causality for the warming we see today, ignoring a natural explanation, and unwilling to hazard a guess for what caused previous oscillations in temperatures. It's intellectually dishonest to preclude the assertion of natural cause when, clearly, the process has demonstrated itself historically. Also, you seem willing to overstate the amount of actual "rise" in temp data where even IPCC won't. Seems also problematic as an indication of credibility.

 

Complete hogwash!

 

You're free to provide links to information.

What I have cited has usually come from NASA and NOAA - highly respected organizations doing significant work on climatology.

I'm well aware of various IPCC products, but when I cite anything from the IPCC I just get told that the IPCC is totally corrupt - something I don't even slightly believe, but defending that means derailing any thread where this arises.

So, once again, how about YOU citing something? And, I mean actual links, not vague references such as just typing "AR1 says I'm right", or whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

You're going to have to settle down. There's no way to respond to this kind of post.

 

You're full of b.s.

 

That must be excluding Bejing.........







China is happy to take Carbon credit money now, but just watch then give 'em the bird when they actually have to pay any money.

 

provide links to your logical fallacies??? Seriously, it is clear what you are trying to do.
YOU claim source is the issue, I point out it is not the source but your interpretation of what you post. Since I am not hung up on source that point is irrelevant. I did not question source and it was not me who suggests source is indicative as to quality or even how acceptable it should be, That would be YOU.

As to what you are citing from NASA and NOAA, it is not the science, is it??? It is assumptions made from the science, isn’t it??? You link this articles and sites because it is your opinion they are correct, don’t you??? It matters very little to what you post on that matter because ALL the assumptions FOR and AGAINST is made from the very science you are pretending to understand.

Clearly you are not aware of the various IPCC products. Since you don’t seem to understand what the IPCC actually does you will always be torn apart. You see, as I have said the point of raising those particular points was not to suggest anything of the science, because the IPCC does not do any science. They make predicated predictions and global strategies based upon what OTHER SCIENTIST produce. In other words as soon as you try and pretend (as you are doing here) to be posting science from the IPCC you are really saying “I believe the IPCC is a scientific body that produces unquestionable science to support a theory I believe is true”.

Basically you are giving me your opinion that a body that produce NO scientific studies and NO scientific evidence of anything, are producing science. So by defending a fallacy of what a body does derails not only the thread but the credibility of people who claim it. The point of discussing the data I read was not to say it was right or wrong but the fact I am sick of reading corrupted crap introduces by people such as yourself trying to justify fabrications due to ignorance. Nothing more. I point out that what I stated about the IPCC reports using these justifications is as you do here, attempt to deceive.

Of course there is no way to respond, Clearly you don’t care the impact of forcing poorer people to meet your ideals of how the world should work.

But enough of that, seeing as how you refuse to tell the world how many people you are happy to have die to meet your idealistic belief of impressing your beliefs on the world. Perhaps you could just explain how you justify the personal toll to people you cannot even discuss how your policy beliefs affect others.

So stick your fingers in your ears and yell “LALALALA” all you want, make logical fallacies all you like, but until your prepared to face the impacts of what you demand of the world, your credibility is zero on this subject. Again you attempt to task me to argue you strawman argument yet refuse to face the consequences of your beliefs… again, go figure…

 

Pretty much everybody accepts that the earth is warming. Surely the issue being discussed is mostly about source and amount of that warming.

The charts I've posted from NASA and NOAA are certainly science. They are current best understanding of contributions from different sources of warming. You can not call that assumption.

I didn't post anything from the IPCC. But, yes, they absolutely do contribute to scientific progress through combining numerous sources in a way that is organized and may be analyzed.

I'd point out that you have posted nothing from science. Also, I don't understand your "poor people" direction.

I haven't proposed anything that would harm anyone as far as I know. In fact, failing to understand earth's warming and the threats it presents is what will bring serious problems.

I would challenge you to cite something to support some idea you have. It doesn't really seem like you are responding to stuff I actually say.

 

Of all the billions of people in the world, it is only conservative Christians that deny global warming. It is one of those things that gives us empirical evidence to the ignorance that so characterizes religious thought.

 

The warming we are seeing is the natural warming from us coming out of The Little Ice Age.


Somehow, lib members of the Cult ignore this fact, or are so scientifically illiterate they don't understand it.

 

Im not a Christian and I deny it. Of course you think all conservatives are ignorant. Its the meme of the left

 

Nobody is ignoring natural causes for climate change, but when all natural causes should be causing global cooling, and yet we're still warming, you have to accept that the current warming is not natural.

 

I'm pretty sure that my opinion comes from the fact that conservatives are in the habit of taking positions that don't square with reality. Like the denial of global warming and things like Hillary's so-called corruption, and the that somehow the economic quagmire the country has been driven to is the result of Democrats forcing banks to give mortgages to poor dumb minorities.

One of the dumbest is where conservatives think that cutting taxes improves the economy - ignoring the fact that our economy has been crashing ever since Reagan stared his ignorant economic ideas. The downhill slide accelerated under Bush and Republicans in congress did everything they could to prevent any improvements under Obama. And now your clown buddy is running cover with his silly crap as the Republican congress lays the groundwork to take away every program that helps average people so that when el Trumpo's economic policies kick in and blows up the budget and the economy there will be no one there to help you.

At least you'll have your dirty filthy car to make you feel like a man.

 

If you look at the post glacial ice core record over the last 10,000 years you can see that the world has been through dozens of phases like the one we see today. Indeed many of them have been far warmer. This is a natural phenomenon that is being exploited for political ends because the level and rate of change seen over the last century are in fact well within natural statistical norms. This graph shows the variation over just the last 4000 years (click to enlarge)

 

Deforestation Of The Amazon Up 29 Percent From Last Year, Study Finds

 

Of course they are. The plain fact is they really don't know nearly enough about them to be pontificating to us about our supposed culpability

.

Of course its natural and has happened often over recent millenia as I illustrated earlier

 

I've noticed this subtle change, recently, about the idea that there might actually be "naturally caused global warming". Novel. New even. Depending on who you ask from the faithful, this is heresy or survival of the faith. The notable thing here is that if belies the unfortunate truth that even in a trend that suggests cooling, warming can actually happen, and does, as we've seen from the empirical record. Notice now that the impetus shifts from a question of unique impact to one of shared impact, and still doesn't recognize the initial fallacy that is the inability to implicitly quantify the expressed contribution then of man? This line of argumentation from the AGW faithful simply slides the level of proof from absolute to indeterminate.

I would ask, though, if the trending were truly towards reglaciation, what are we then complaining about? Stopping the slide toward a world that cannot support food production is bad? Hmm. How Malthusian.

 

The only shift to blaming natural cycles comes from the denialists scientists have not shifted position

 

Yes because the grant money would dry up if they did. I think that now with Trump in charge, there will be a lot less EPA bribe/grant money funding the "science" of the faithful and the hoaxers. Scientists can maybe start doing science instead of confirming political narratives so they can put bread on the table.

 

I say its you liberals who live in the land of Oz. But calling conservatives names seems to be the like stupid seems to be the main argument of the left

How old were you when Reagan was in office ? It was a golden age in the US

I dont need a car to feel like a man But Im sure it makes you feel good to fantasize that your saving the planet