Press: The party of climate change denial

Scientific assocs are not independent organizations. They are federally funded and their boards are all political appointees.

 

ok. So there is a global scientific conspiracy to force every one of us to ride pushbikes.

I get it.

thanks for clearing that up.

 

You mean the Naomi Oreskes artricle from 2007? The CAGW alarmist favored by people like you all over the world. Just how crazy are the world’s leading global warming alarmists? Check it out.

We’re Doomed … Kittens and Puppies Too

 

Well a lot of East Coastal Cities are building everything from larger SeaWalls to massive Pumping Stations like the close to $1 Billion Pumping System in Miami.

But this will not do much during Storm Surges.

The areas of the world that will have the most difficult time are those Island Nations of the Pacific....and Indian Ocean Coastal Nations.

AboveAlpha

 

My God. I get tired of this stupid logic.

Yes, AGW is real. I disagree with how much of the warming is AGW.

No, I choose to look at all the data including the data. I don't cherry pick and throw out the data I don't like, olike your alarmist friends do.

 

I suggest you review the cited studies the AR4 points to. They range to over 0.3%, and the IPCC cherrypicked among the lowest among them.

Do your own homework. If you aren't aware of such facts, why am I wasting my time with you?

 

Soooo.....are you satisfied now that he replied?

Or are you wishing you had just kept the conversation between us? LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

No global conspiracy needed to know where your bread is buttered. Words need not be said.

 

I'm not asking you to do my homework. I'm asking you to do your own homework. If you can't cite the data you're relying on, then you have no data. If you have no data, then you are absolutely right not to waste my time. Nor anyone else's.

Next time you claim something is true, please have the courtesy to back it up.

 

I can find it. I'm just not going to take the time. The several references are listed in the past assessment report.

You should already know this if you are to debate such things, especially since it is old news. If you don't care to educate yourself on the topic, why are you debating it?

Maybe I'll look it up later, I just have better things to do.

 

Why do you assume I'm not educated on the topic? Is it just because I ask you for citations? Because I assure you, that's not the only reason I ask for citations, and not even the primary reason.

In this particular case, I asked you for citations because I wanted to know if you know what you are talking about. I want to know if any of the studies you cite might be, for example, Lean 1992, Lean 1995, Lean 2000, or Hoyt & Schatten 1993, all of which are based on the results of a single study of sun-like stars (Baliunas & Jastrow 1990) whose results have not been replicated in several attempts (Hall & Lockwood 2004, Wright 2004). So if that's what you're hanging your hopes on, you need to re-think your position.

 

I'll tell you what though. I think I did misstate one thing. The values of 0.06 to 0.30 + might be direct forcing, not percentages. I will look again when I have time.

 

No, I wasn't.

Didn't look at yr link. Oreskes main claim to fame isn't spreading alarmism, but catching denialists out when they tell fibs.

the stuff I was referring to was scientists talking about the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Please tell me where you think my bread is buttered.

 

with rising sea levels.. but there are also many other major issues.

 

I am not keen on alarmism, and I don't have any alarmist friends.

scientists are probably less likely to cherrypick than many others, due to their training. But you seem to think 97% of the world scientists are alarmist cherrypickers.

I disagree on your position. Your conclusions could only be reached by an inordinate amount of cherrypicking.

and the thing is, in the real world a lot of others have grasped that this in an issue, and that human activity is a major contributor.

 

Hoosier is good for a laugh. Denialists are primarily entertainment value alone these days

 

LOL, Oreskes has jumped the shark on AGW.

Facts? Like no warming for almost two decades? Observational science is deviating from the predicted temperature by a great amount? The more that is learned the more questions are raised? The inability to model much of what actually happens? Fewer tornadoes and hurricanes?

 

And yet 2014 looks like it will be a record high

 

Well the immediate issues we currently have to deal with as a result of Global Warming is Sea Level Rise and Flooding as well as Eradic and Strong Weather Changes and Patterns.

Global Warming results in massive changes to weather patterns as areas that usually have little to no rainfall are being washed out and areas that are normally high in rainfall are in drought.

The fact that the United States has not had any strong Hurricanes stiking the East Coast is a worry as this is due to a change in the Gulf Stream in which very powerful Tropical Storms are generated upon the Equatorial line off the coast of East Africa and they travel West to eventually become very strong Tropical Storms and Hurricanes that effect the East Coast of Mexico and the coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico as well as the East Coast of the U.S.

The change in the Gulf Stream is causing such generated storms coming from the East Coast of Equatorial African Waters which them move west to be carried out into the Mid-Atlantic by a lower dipping Gulf Stream.

Now this might seem a GOOD THING but the problem is such a low dipping Gulf Stream during the WINTER can generate massive ARCTIC VORTEXES which we felt last winter in Massachusetts as for a MONTH constant well below 20 degree F. Temps. and in some cases with wind chill we had temps. at -50 Below....and this caused all sorts of havoc.

AboveAlpha

 

Because of the hot spot in the Pacific and the reason California is finally getting some rain.