Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

I doubt he knows IPCC authors and contributors are nominated by governments. Few climate nutters know anything about the IPCC.

 

Or the IPCC corruption in the mid 1990’sbresulting in the subsequently proven false claim that a human caused climate change mechanism had been discovered by Ben Santer.

 

You know, this is why I seldom engage with the denialistas. They are much like trying to have a conversation with fundamentalist Christians about Bible inconsistencies. Ideology has overwhelmed reason, so it is a waste of my time.

 

You ARE a denialist.

 

If there is such a thing as a climate alarmist then they are closer to right than the deniers.

If you are in a car driving toward a cliff at 50 mph but you are 50 miles from the cliff is it an emergency? At what point does it become an emergency? What if it is foggy and you don't know exactly where the cliff is?

It is only really an emergency when there is just air under the front wheels.

 

The problem with your analogy is that there is no cliff.

 

You are not interested in a discussion about climate. You have your narrative and are sticking to it. The fundamental problem with the climate change issue is that there is not and never has been a quantitative understanding of climate variability. If the natural variability is not known (and it can't be known because the governing Navier Stokes Equations are non linear partial differential equations which cannot be solved) then any measured change cannot be wholly attributed to any one cause. The best policy is to maximize adaptability to any localized situations by maximizing economic growth with energy produced by the widespread use of inexpensive fuels.

If you want a conversation start with climate variability. How does the IPCC account for that?

 

And, believe me, we appreciate it.

 

Said the ideologue and the rest of the world will move on without y'all.

 

Yes, as the planet warms, human mortality related to suboptimal temperatures will continue to decrease no matter how much science denial ideologues like yourself want it to increase. Science advances with or without you.

 

Speaking about the rest of the world look at the Chinese Communist Party. They account for ~ 40% of CO2 emissions yet continue to build coal fired power plants. They manufacture solar and wind turbines and sell most of that to the western democracies. Their goal is to dominate the globe without firing a shot. And they are on the way to doing that because the western democracies are weakening their economies by increasing wind and solar increasing the price of electricity and decreasing the reliability of their energy grids. It’s a two-fer for Red China.

The Chinese Communist Party is very intelligent. They wouldn’t be following policies which would destroy the world. They know that the climate catastrophe meme is bogus. But they will use that false meme to their advantage with the help of climate alarmists in the western democracies.

 

It is not my image, I am not the one making the claim. Therefore it is not my responsibility to allow others to prove it is a valid claim or not.

You should know that I have a rather high amount of contempt for people that make tons of claims, and never use any references to allow any of it to be verified. It is lazy, and in essence is nothing more than "Accept what I say without argument".

Try doing that in an academic setting, and see how far that gets you.

 

I question your image and want a reference, so I am a "denialist"?

Please tell me exactly how I am a denialist. Tell me exactly what I am denying, please.

This is what I love about so many people in here. They scream names at others, and do not actually know what they believe in. The names they throw around names like that at me, and do not even know what I believe, they are just butt-hurt that I did something like question their sources or prove their claim is wrong.

That is probably why depending on who you ask in here, I am either just to the left of Stalin, or just to the right of Hitler. I honestly find it fascinating that one person will call me a Fascist, and a few responses lower yet another will call me a Communist. And one will call me a Tree Hugging Left-Wing Democrat, then another scream I am a Bible-Thumping Right-Wing Republican.

The only thing I have learned by such accusations is that it is far more telling and accurate to use those as a way to determine the beliefs of those who spout such things. You do not know me, and I can promise you have absolutely no concept on what my beliefs on the climate are.

Yet I dared to question you, and your response is to attack me. That still does not do anything to describe my beliefs, but it really does help confirm your own beliefs by saying that. Kinda like a medieval religious person screaming "witch!".

And I find that particularly fascinating that you are the one that injected that it is like talking to somebody that is religious. I agree, other than so many on the Alarmist side are the ones that seem to be following a religion.

Do not question, do not speculate other causes. Attack, insult, dismiss, and destroy any who are not also fellow believers.

Just the fact I asked for a reference shows you are very much that sort. Do not dare question anything you say, accept it because you accept it. Period.

 

He does it all the time.

 

Well, write if you get work.

 

That statement is the best example of irony that I've seen in a very long time. The climate catastrophe meme is full of inconsistencies yet the true believers in this "end of the world" scenario refuse to acknowledge those inconsistencies.

 

No, you simply made that up, as is your wont. It is just another bald falsehood from you. I have never said anything remotely similar to "LIAR! LIAR!" and you are well aware of that fact. Identifying the fact that someone has made false statements and then admitted they were false is not the same as calling them a liar, let alone shouting it.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. I will continue to identify your consistent bald falsehoods.

Because climatology is not a settled science. If we knew what the correct measure is, there would be no debate.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. All progress in empirical science is based on starting with the hypothesis that an unknown causal factor is responsible for every observed but unexplained regularity in observations. The geologists who compiled empirical observations indicating that the continents had changed positions did not know how that had occurred, but they were not invoking unknown magic. Likewise, when Semmelweis observed that new mothers were dying at much higher rates when attended by male physicians with dirty hands than by midwives with clean ones, he had no idea which infectious organisms were responsible for the difference, but that did not mean he was invoking unknown magic. Such examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and each of the thousands of examples, individually, constitutes conclusive proof that you are objectively wrong. So your claim has been proved objectively incorrect thousands of times by actual empirical science.

Don't you ever get tired of always being proved flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective fact thousands of times?

That is of course just another bald falsehood from you.

Do you detect a pattern, here...?

It saddens me to realize you cannot think of anything better to do than disgrace yourself.

It's your crazy theory that pollution could somehow have suddenly reversed the strong warming trend observed up to the early1940s for 30 years, then suddenly disappear again ~1970, allowing for resumption of the pre-1940 warming trend.

But the data prove that is what they are claiming: the upward trend in temperature 1910-1940 suddenly reversed in the early 1940s, trended down for ~30 years, then suddenly reversed again and has trended back up since the early 1970s. If the downtrend was caused by aerosol pollution countering the effect of rising CO2, that pollution must have begun suddenly around 1940 -- which it indisputably did not -- and ended suddenly around 1970, which it also indisputably did not. Therefore, your aerosol theory has been conclusively debunked.

No, that can't be right, as aerosol pollution did not decline significantly, and the reversal in temperature trend was sudden, not gradual. Your theory has therefore been conclusively debunked.

That is a classic post hoc fallacy refuted by the actual temperature record.

Interesting, how that concept was too complicated for you to grasp.

It means those who claim the surface instrument data represent global surface temperature have made that assumption.

Those who claim such readings represent global surface temperature assume the readings and causes are the same elsewhere.

Which are almost always just as contaminated by local human activities.

The issue was what changes local instrument temperature readings.

They only make the warming look smaller than the unadjusted, fully contaminated data! They make the warming look larger -- a lot larger -- than the data from pristine rural sites, radiosondes, or satellite temperature readings of the whole lower troposphere.

I didn't get any facts wrong.

Just another bald falsehood....

That paper genuflects to the CO2 narrative, but provides no credible empirical evidence whatever -- none -- than the tiny observed increase in water vapor could have had any significant effect on global surface temperature. Indeed, we know it could not possibly have had any such effect, because if it had, it would imply positive feedbacks so powerful that they would make the climate system wildly unstable. Which it isn't.

I have never said either of those things, or anything resembling them, and you know it. So your claim is just another bald falsehood, and you are just makin' $#!+ up again. As usual.

 

Read the IPCC.

Besides the change itself, it indicates how these changes will be experienced, and what we can do to prepare for those impacts.

 

What IPCC document documents and/or summarizes all this? It’s quite clear that the CO2 emissions targets have zero chance of being met due to the ongoing and ever increasing emissions fron Red China. So what is the IPCC plan?

 

Ummm. I have read the IPCC reports. That’s why I know what’s in them….and you don’t!

 

The fact that China has work to do is NOT an excuse for the USA.

Every bit of reduction is important in slowing the direction of warming, allowing time for mitigation.

 

The Chinese Communist Party certainly has work to do - at the expense of the leaders of the western democracies. Red China is using inexpensive coal to produce energy on demand 24/7 to strengthen and grow their economy as well as becoming the leading global producer of wind turbines and solar panels which they sell to the western democracies which results in higher electricity prices and more expensive and less reliable electrical distribution grids. It's a Red two-fer.

China is using the false climate catastrophe claim as a means to weaken the western democracies, strengthen their own economy, and achieve global domination.

Why has there been no warming in the last 8 years with increasing atmospheric CO2?

Why is the price of electricity in Germany ~ 3X that in the US.

 

Holy moly, you're tedious. That's why nobody reads your rants. You try to bore your opponents into submission.

So you claim that even though you repeat that over and over, you're _not_ screaming "LIAR!". That's another reason why nobody pays attention to you. You don't act like a serious person, or an intellectually honest person.

Well, no. Climate theory didn't have to do that.

Continental Drift was rejected as theory until a mechanism that could move continents was proposed.

Semmelweis proposed some contagion spread on the hands, not vague unknown magic.

You're just wrong here. Theories that propose magic are shot down.

But let's just give the unknown magic part a pass. You're still failing at the second two parts.

What's the specific prediction you make based on your magic unknown causal factor? How will temperature move, direction and amount?

What data would conclusively disprove your theory?

What's that? You won't make a prediction? Nothing can disprove your "theory"? Imagine that.

I never said "suddenly". That's entirely your invention. You constantly make up stories about what your opponents believe, and that's another reason why you're not taken seriously.

Your ongong problem tends to be that you can't read a graph correctly. While the normal people see a slow change from moderate warming to very slight cooling, you claim it was "sudden".

Anyways, since there was no "sudden" change, your argument faceplants, as they always do.

You are really bad at this, due to a combination of not knowing the facts, not having a good feel for math, and failing so badly at basic logic. For some reason, you're convinced that "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" will override actual data and the scientific method, provided you just screech it often enough. Sadly for you and your cult, that is not the case.

 

Come on. Only the most deluded or dishonest try to pass off that crazy fib.

Due to a BigLie like that, and due to your reliance on lunatic political rants, you can't be taken seriously.

 

Heck, I am still waiting on some kind of reference that claims their claim that the planet has been cooling for over 8,000 years, when even the IPCC says nothing like that. In fact it very much says the opposite. I even busted that with a graph from his own reference, and he ignored that and simply accused me of lying.

And that no verification that the previous warm periods including the Late Bronze Age Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period never happened and are only falsifications and fabrications of the fossil fuel industry.

It really is like trying to have a conversation with a born again religious zealot. Facts do not matter, they can be changed to fit the narrative at will. And any evidence that is contrary is obviously false and created by heretics to sow doubt among the true believers by the unbelievers.

And notice, even though I have been asking for ages, not a single one can even say what exactly makes me a "denier". That is what I find the most funny of all, to be honest. It is almost like they are Catholics, and I am a Protestant. Yet simply because I am not Catholic I must be purged with the rest of those that refuse to accept their unquestioned beliefs.

I am honestly starting to believe the entire "Global Warming" debate amongst people like that would be more appropriate in the religion threads than the science one. Because they actually present very little science, only beliefs. And one dare not question that belief in any way or be exposed as a heretic.