Press: The party of climate change denial

AHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I clicked on the link to this article thinking it was about the democrats being in denial about the changing climate of the electorate. I'm glad however, that the democrats just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper into the fraud of global warming. To be clear, there is no consensus, and those perpetuating this nonsense have a financial interest in continuing with the fraud. From phony Climatologists, to politicians, they are getting the gullible to following their bogus science to line their pockets, or give themselves more power at the expense of the middle class and the poor. If any of you believe that we can change the climate by instituting taxes on the poor and the middle class then you are the biggest suckers on the planet.

The real science deniers are the ones who ignore the sciences of math, statistics, computer sciences, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now. Earth climate cycles are driven by changes in the Milankovitch cycles. [/story]

 

The Milankovitch cycles had the earth slowly cooling until very recently, when the earth suddenly started warming sharply. Hence, you've just sort of proved global warming is human-caused.

Also, thanks for demonstrating how every single denier is a political cultist. Denialism is not the cult itself, but it is one of the mandated beliefs of the extremist right-wing-fringe political cult. Outside of the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, denialism basically doesn't exist.

In contrast, AGW science is supported by all political types all across the world. It's independent of politics, because it's science.

Anyways, feel free to get back to your nutty conspiracy theory about how the VastGlobalSocialistMenace is faking all the data. That's another way you make it plain you're babbling cult pseudoscience. Real scientists can point to the data, so they don't need to make up conspiracy theories.

 

the reason no politicians ran on climate change is because no one that does not have a financial interest in "green energy" in that race gives a damn.

Twenty-eight U.S. senators held an all-night "talkathon" Monday to call attention to climate change, an issue that only 24% of Americans say they worry about a great deal. This puts climate change, along with the quality of the environment, near the bottom of a list of 15 issues Americans rated in Gallup's March 6-9 survey. The economy, federal spending, and healthcare dominate Americans' worries.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx


wheels are off the wagon on this one just like every other liberal progressive scheme

 

The earth heats and cools periodically.

To presume that man causes it is the height of arrogance.

 

Yes, but we are an arrogant breed of animal on this planet.

 

Perhaps you weren't aware of the warming period which melted the glaciers covering the Northern Hemisphere some 11,000 years ago. I don't know what you mean by the Earth slowly cooling, but it's been a bit warmer the last 11,000 years.

We are in an Ice Age that is 2.6 million years old.

The Earth goes through regular cycles called "glaciations". These glaciations or glacial periods can last from 80 to 100 thousand years.

We are currently in an interglacial period. This is a period of time between glaciations which lasts about 12,000 years.

This is what is known as "science". Anyone who denies that we are in an interglacial period that will likely end within the next thousand years or so is what is known as a "science denier".

The warming the Earth is experiencing in not outside normal variations in temperatures. In fact, it is cooler now than during the Medieval Warming Period. The global temperatures have not risen in the last 18 years in spite of all the predictions of all the anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theorists.

 

Liberals are always criticizing scientific arguments on the basis that the articles which dispute their kooky global warming conspiracy theories are not peer-reviewed scientific articles. So, as I have time, I will present to you the science, peer-reviewed science which proves the science deniers who advance the Chicken Little sky is falling hoax of "climate change".

 

But since it's not a presumption, your conditional does not apply.

 

When you fail this hard at the basic science, you shouldn't be embarrassing yourself in front of the grownups.

Ice ages end with a fast warmup, then there's a slow cooldown into the next ice age. That fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. The earth has been slowly cooling ever since.

That has no bearing on the fact that we, by emitting CO2, are heating the world quickly right now.

And those cycles had us _cooling_ for the past 8000 years, and would have had us cooling for many thousands of years more. Until we changed things.

That has no bearing on the fact that we, by emitting CO2, are heating the world quickly right now.

It's what's known as "you failing hard at the science."

I've corrected your failure. You could be excused before due to ignorance, but now you no longer have that excuse. If you still deny human-caused global warming, you have richly earned the title of "denier".

The MWP was not global, and current temps are warmer than the MWP. You need to start checking sources aside from kook denier blogs, because they're feeding you big lies.

 

So, here you are, a science denier claiming that somehow I am a failure at basic science? Laughable. And stop talking down to me in an idiotic manner, when you talk like that you are the one who appears childish.

Ice ages end or glacial periods end? If you want to not embarrass yourself, I suggest you get the scientific terminology correct. I don't remember the speed with which glaciations end or begin being something I had ever discussed or mentioned, so I really don't see why you think I need correction on this point. And if the Earth has been slowly cooling ever since, why all the AGW conspiracy? Besides, if we could keep the globe warmer, that would be a good thing, as opposed to being covered in a 300 foot layer of ice. BTW, that is a nice graph which does nothing to support you assertions.

Well, that is the ongoing debate that is allegedly settled science and irrefutable according to hack global warming nutcases.

Yeah, put as much CO2 in the atmosphere, and see if that'll put a stop to the oncoming ice. It won't.

Except for the past 18 years.

I would say that the science is pretty settled on the Milakovitch Cycles, the geology, the science of glaciations, astronomy, heliology, astrophysics, ect. ect. which you apparently fail.

Whoa, back off Chicken Little. I think people can judge for themselves who is ignorant and who is the denier. I would say that you no longer have any excuses now that I've pointed out your ignorant failures and science denying.

All part of the debate as well. I'd ask that you stay away from you kook global warming conspiracy nutcases, or are they now called climate change nutcases, or are they now called climate disruption nutcases?

 

I suggest you try to deflect from your science failure in a less transparent manner. No matter what you want to call it, the world is still warming quickly due to human CO2 emissions.

You said the warming was due to a natural cycle. I pointed out how the natural cycle was currently a slow cooling, right up until humans turned up the thermostat. Your claim that warming is part of a natural cycle is incorrect. That would be the point. You were totally wrong and required correction.

You'll need to answer that. Why do you say AGW is a conspiracy, given how the slow cooling suddenly turned into fast warming when humans started dumping CO2 in mass quantities?

You're saying we need to heat the earth now to prevent an ice age in 20,000 years or more. That's like saying I should run my furnace full blast all summer to get ready for winter.

Sadly, such logic failures are standard for deniers. Rational people don't get sucked into the denier cult. The logic-deficient have no mental defenses against denier cult manipulations, so they're easy pickings. That's the crime here, denier leaders taking advantage of the helpless.

I said there was slow cooling for the last 8000 years. The graph showed slow cooling over the past 8000 years. Is it that you can't read a simple graph? Or is it that your political cult commands you to deny any facts that contradict cult dogma?

Some parts of the science are settled, just as some parts of the theory of gravity are settled, and some parts are not. Please don't dishonestly claim that anyone ever said every bit of the science was settled. Enough of the science is settled to understand the necessary course of action, just as enough of the theory of gravity is settled to allow us to launch rockets.

It most likely already has. Humans have cancelled the next ice age, unless we bring CO2 back down. Doable, given we have thousands of years, but the bigger issue is not to roast ourselves in the next century.

Which have seen significant warming. I hope you're not telling me you fell for your cult's conspiracy fable about no warming.

And all of those combine to say we should be in a slow cooling. Yet we have fast warming. The observed data contradicts your claims, therefore your science is totally wrong.

Why not just admit you were whupped, and are trying to cover it up with bluster? It's not like you're fooling anyone. Your science and logic simply fail ... hence you fit in perfectly with the denier cult.

Is there even one denier cult talking point that you won't proudly parrot, or do you plan to run through all of them? Understand that no matter what deflections you try, I'll keep taking the conversation back to how the real world contradicts your cult mantras.

 

All you did was average a bunch of reconstructions together. You have to show that averaging them together is a valid practice representative of anything.

Seems to me it's just a trick to make what are very variable reconstructions look flat.

 

What science failure? You have not refuted the Milankovitch Cycles or did I miss that part? You have far from proven that CO2 levels could possibly do anything to stop the next glaciation which you mistakenly keep calling an Ice Age. There seems to be some dispute about the "world is still warming quickly due to human CO2 emissions" as well.

No, I said it was due to the Milankovitch Cycles. I also said it is not outside of normal variations. The Earth gets warmer, it gets colder, it's called climate change. Whether or not humans have turned up the thermostat is also in dispute. So, unless you want to deny the science behind Milankovitch Cycles, or the geological record which shows 5 glaciations over the last half million years, I hardly see where you have corrected me, or where correction is needed.

Because it is bogus science perpetrated by a bunch of leftist commies who's fooled idiot low information voters into believing that taxing energy companies, investing in failed green energy programs and driving up the costs of energy which will only hurt poor people will somehow fix a problem that doesn't exist. CO2 makes up only 400 parts per million in the atmosphere and is one of the least prevalent of the greenhouse gases. It is a gas (not a pollutant) naturally found in the atmosphere without which life could not exists on the Earth.

No, what I am saying is that these dire predictions and forecasts of doom and gloom are all a bunch of bunk.

Let's have a look at the dire predictions that the global warming conspiracy theorists have been wrong about over the 40 years or so, and then see who is being sucked into a denier cult, who is being manipulated, and who is the hapless fools falling for a scam.

Yeah, kinda makes you want to pull a purple blanket over your head, put on some sneakers and drink the Kool-Aid for a ride on the comet Hale-Bopp.

Nope, just don't see how your graph supports your argument. We are in fact 11,600 years into the current interglacial as a matter of fact, but, don't see the dramatic warming you claim.

And the science I pointed to is likewise pretty much undeniable. Unless you are denying the Milankovitch Cycles and the geological evidence? Which I guess would make you a science denier. By the way, do any of these climate models take the Milankovitch Cycles into account in their computations? Since you seem to be an expert on that, I thought I would ask. How is taxing poor people going to stop the Earth's climate from changing? There is virtually nothing we can do to warm or cool the planet. We don't have that kind of ability at our disposal.

Oh thank God. I was worried that a few thousand years from now New York city would be under a 300 foot layer of ice. Eh, but, any who, I'll be long dead by then so who cares? You'll be dead too, so, try not to worry so much. Hey even if your dire prediction were to come true, don't you think that man given our technological advancements will find a way to survive?

You mean the IPCC findings?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

And the aforementioned IPCC findings contradicts yours.

Here's a quote from that article:

Oh yeah, sure I give. Where do I pay the taxes that will solve the global warming dilemma?

I dunno. Didn't realize that thousands of chemists, geologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, meteorologists, were a cult.

 

Love conspiracy theorists

 

Here is the reality.

The Earth is warming due to CO2 emmisions which in turn is causing Gel Form CH4 to bubble up as CH4 Gas as the bottoms of the worlds oceans....the bottoms of Arctic Lakes....the Worlds Permafrost....is absolutely LOADED with Gel Form CH4.

CH4 in our atmosphere holds in heat as a rate of up to 72 TIMES that of CO2.

The heating is also causing a massive increase in evaporation of water and thus Water Vapor is also holding in heat.

As far as the Milankovitch Cycles which are caused in a wobble in Earth's Solar Orbit...we are NOT in a Milankovitch Warming Cycle....yet the Earth warms.

The absolute BEST data a person can get comes from the CDIAC....Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which is part of the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Office of Science Division.

This is the SAME DATA THE U.S. MILITARY USES as this data is inputted into Networked DoD IBM Supercomputers which develop Global Warming Military Contingency Plans.

The U.S. Military is well aware current Global Warming is MAN MADE....why others do not agree with such overwhelming evidence...I have no idea.

The CDIAC uses 100,000 Year Old Ice Core Samples and in 100,000 years CO2 and CH4 Levels have NEVER been this high and they are rising at a rate NEVER BEFORE SEEN OR CALCULATED.

Thing is....I think we are already past a TIPPING POINT....and I don't think there is anything we can do to prevent at first runaway Global Warming which then ALWAYS results in an Ice Age due to too much fresh water melting into the worlds oceans thus stalling the oceans heat transference currents.

AboveAlpha

 

You need to stop operating with binary. Most computers now use 64 bits.

It never ceases to amaze me that people think there is only one of two answers to situation.

- - - Updated - - -

So if CH4 were to double in concentration, how much warming do you expect?

 

You and I have already had this conversation.

CH4 currently exists as a much smaller percentage of the Earths atmosphere and yes there is far more mass specific to CO2 in comparison to CH4....but there is a LOT of CH4 at the oceans bottoms.

Earth's climate system is...or actually was a very delicate and balanced system. Even the smallest change can have enormous effects within a closed system.

I honestly think we have gone beyond the tipping point and no major reductions in CO2 emmisions are capable of avoiding the inevitable.

AboveAlpha

 

I did ask a different question. I don't expect a different answer from you for the same previous questions.

Again, what do you think the forcing change would be if CH4 were to double. Most people agree CO2 is approximately 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2.

If I am wrong, I don't recall the answer you gave, and I'm sorry.

 

You have an alternative explanation????

Mind you I think this also applies





As does this one

 

Here is some NASA info.....

Methane and Carbon Dioxide - CH4 and CO2

105 times. Level of heat trapping potency that methane is greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame according to NASA research. “But [Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University] and company took things even further, incorporating data from Drew T. Shindell at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who published a study in 2009 in the journal Science that suggested that the interaction of methane with certain atmospheric aerosols might well amplify the global warming potential of methane, rendering it up to 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the 20-year time frame. Although the 100-year time horizon is more commonly used by climate scientists, Mr. Howarth relies on the shorter time-horizon, which would greatly intensify the impact of leaking methane on climate. Combining that with the novel methane leakage estimates at various points along the production and transmission life cycles, he and his co-authors were able to push the climate impact, per unit of energy, of unconventional natural gas industry well beyond that of the perennial environmental and climate demon, coal." (Tom Zeller Jr., “Methane Losses Stir Debate on Natural Gas,” The New York Times, April 12, 2011

Here is link to a chart to specific gases and their Heat Trapping Potential.

LINK....http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/methane-carbon-dioxide.php

AboveAlpha

 

That doesn't explain what doubling atmospheric CH4 will do.

 

You would need to provide more details such as over how long a period....as CH4 has a 12 year lifespan in our atmosphere....what the levels of CO2 and Water Vapor were...and if your asking me what would be the effect if say CH4 doubled overnight....well I might not be a Climatologist but even those who are would have nearly an impossible task calculating what the effect would be.

If you read what is in that LINK....Computer Models are based upon usually 100 year periods...and as short as 20 year periods....overnight....no idea.

AboveAlpha

 

I'd like to bring another view to the ongoing anthropogenic global warming conspiracy theory. I find the tone of the above op-ed condescending and insulting. They speak as though 1 in 3 Americans are really stupid people because they don't agree with their "consensus". The two solutions offered by the "Santa Rosa Chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby" are tax increases and tax increases. A higher tax on energy producers won't hurt big energy producers because they will only pass the costs onto the consumers which will not hurt the rich but the poor and the middle class. Likewise, higher tariffs won't hurt the Chinese because this will only mean higher costs of goods from overseas which once again will hurt the poor and the middle class most. Does anyone truly believe that higher taxes will reduce CO2 emissions? The only thing it will do is grow more government. They seem to think that another government program is progressive and will help the poor by giving them a $50 coupon off of your energy bill that just went up $100 (sounds like Obamacare, weird).

But what about the scientific consensus you say? The consensus of climatologists they frequently cited as evidence that the science is "undeniable"is from a survey sent to over 10,000 scientists from which they received over 3,000 responses and narrowed it down to 77 climatologists who had written peer reviewed articles of whom 75 agreed that man has contributed to global warming. This is how they arrived at a consensus of 97%. This, as any statistician will tell you, is known as an unscientific survey. If you were to survey Christian theologians, I'm guessing that at least 97% of them will tell you that Jesus was the son of God. These are people who have college degrees in theology and if you don't believe them you are just another Jesus denier. I would love to see an actual scientific survey of actual scientists (excluding the climatologists).

As for the 25,182 published and peer-reviewed scientific articles that show a 99% agreement, you could also say the same for Christian periodicals (though I think it would be closer to 100%). Good luck having your "God doesn't exist" essay published in Catholic Digest. Theologians study religion because they believe in God. Likewise, climatologists study climatology because they believe in man made global warming. If they don't, they'll soon find themselves out of a job just as the minister who would tell you there is no God. Without a global warming crisis, the climatologist is nothing more than a meteorologist with great math skills. There would be no government grants to fund his research, no foundation or college to employ him. I would not go so far as to say that climatology is their religion as some have, but it is an undeniable scientific fact that it is their bread and butter. They have a vested interest in there being a climate crisis for without one what would we need them for?

Speaking of undeniable scientific facts, they to call those who disagree with them "science deniers". But who are the real deniers? Let me present 5 irrefutable scientific facts that should refute the claims of the anthropogenic global warming fanatics:

1) We are currently in an Ice Age which began 2.6 million years ago (This came after the time Lucy stood up to walk).
2) Glaciations or glacial periods last from 40,000 to 100,000 years (The first Homo sapiens are believed to have lived 200,000 years ago).
3) Glacial periods are followed by shorter interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period which began 11,600 years ago (Before the invention of the SUV).
4) Glacial periods are caused by solar* cycles, variations in the Earth's orbit and the changing tilt of the Earth's axis (And really, really cold weather).
5) In the next tens of thousands of years, the Earth will gradually cool, the ice will return and the city of New York will once again be covered in an ice sheet 300 feet thick (And there is nothing we can do to stop it).

So be not troubled by the local chapter of the Chicken Little Appreciation Society or the Concerned Citizens Against Balmy Weather or even the Sky is Falling Activist Club. There will be no 1980's made for TV style disaster movie event in which the world will turn to a dusty desert in our lifetimes. Nor will there be a box office blockbuster style Noah's great flood event in which the seas overtake the coastal cities even in the lifetime of your grandchildren.

You have more to fear from super volcanoes and big rocks floating through space than a sunburn caused by the extra CO2 we've collectively added to the atmosphere. I have the solution for climate change just in case these climate wackjobs are right. We can build thousands of desalinization plants and pump trillions of gallons of ocean water into the Gobi and Sahara deserts, plant new rain forests which will absorb all the extra CO2 and convert it to human safe oxygen. My guess is that they would complain that we are destroying the desert habitat.

*The Sun is really, really hot.

"PatriotNews" is a member of the Citizens Against Poppycock Local 127.

 

So your argument is that your conspiracy theory makes mores sense.

Here is the difference between me and you. I don't believe the first part but you actually believe the second. It's quite sad really.

 

Hey!! Sorry but I am not the one from the country with THIS reputation



***s(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)****

YAWN

It was a CARTOON making a very good point