Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

No matter how you twist it its a perfect example of resorting to a straw man argument. When you can prove there is AGW and that they are covering it up and that it will spell disaster get back to me

 

No, the people you quote are paid to make it look like agw is really happening.

The oil companies would profit from the chicken little story.

 

oh please, you've demonstrated that you don't even understand what a scientific theory is

 

The TPs denying science because it does not serve their ideological dogma gets funnier all the time.

Meanwhile, normal folks are coming to grips with reality.

No matter how fervently you believe it, no, industrialists cannot poop into the heavens with infinite impunity.


Sorry about that.

 

No. How did you come up with this unsubstantiated notion?

Yes. Many idiotic proposals. This proposal you just put up isn't due to humans.

Yes, industry benefits from bilking the unwary by favoring the fairy tale of agw and other political
hot topics.

Which is how we know that agw is a hoax.

By the finding of emails and documents that show that the numbers are skewed to favor their
political agenda. Certainly you've heard of East Anglia. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...nglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

This statement is incorrect. Science doesn't make a consensus. It's not their job to do so.

This is another mistaken statement. Scientists are as corrupt as any group of people. To say they
are by far the most knowledgeable is wishful thinking at best.

 

American Republicans are the last significant political party on the planet to still bitterly cling to the failed conspiracy theory of global warming denial. Other conservative parties may be fossil-fuel friendly, but they at least agree in principle that global warming theory is correct.

More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=3EE08A5302B22EF4BC7B3E9D5B03AA01.f02t01
---
Cross-national comparisons of proposed policies of individual parties are an underdeveloped part of the literature on environmental politics in general and climate politics in particular. Although conservative parties are portrayed as skeptical toward adopting climate measures or even supposed to ignore climate change, this study of nine conservative electoral manifestoes nevertheless finds that most of them support climate measures, even in the form of state interventions in the market economy. Market measures are not as dominating as could be expected, but a clear finding is that available fossil reserves seem to have an influence on conservative climate politics. The U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change. Conservative parties as such are not in opposition to climate policies, but the pro-business position is evident in that conservative parties do not challenge coal or petroleum in countries with large reserves of these resources.
---

Republicans, isn't it time to finally abandon the SS Denier? The other rats have all fled that sinking ship. Are you planning to ride it to the bottom?

 

Well I for one am not a Republican and i still say its bunk.

 

You have yet to come up with any proof that big oil is funding any scientist that is lying. There are a bunch of skeptical scientists that would sure like to see that paycheck you keep talking about.

 

Hate to break it to you, but your entire post is a sidetrack in stupid. Firstly, atmospheric CO2 was at something like 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, about 500 million years ago, before there was complex multicellular life of any kind on the land and long before there were any dinosaurs.

CO2 levels in the past are primarily determined through ice core data. Most of these reconstructions go back about 400,000 years, the oldest ice core we have is 800,000 years old. Prior to that, we have to use a variety of proxy measurements to estimate CO2 levels. These estimates have much, much higher levels uncertainty. During the 800,000 period of the ice core records CO2 has been between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. Current levels are above 400 ppm, which is the highest level in 800,000 years and very likely the highest in 20 million years.

Now you need to get it through your head that life on Earth and human civilization are not the same thing. Humans could go extinct tomorrow and the rest of the biosphere will carry on quite happily without us. In fact, the extinction of humans is probably about the best thing that could happen for most life on this planet. Now, we may be speaking from a rather parochial point of view, but given that most people are in fact human, we tend to look at the extinction of our species as being a bad thing. If you reject that assessment, your analysis is completely correct.

Most of us also think that not only would it be nice if humans survive, it would also be nice if civilization survives. An event that would cause the complete collapse of human civilization is a much less severe event than an extinction level event. Something that would merely set back civilization - something along the lines of the medieval Dark Ages - is even less severe than a civilization ending event. So the standard that your using - that we won't cause a runaway greenhouse that wipes out all life on the planet such as on Venus - is many orders of magnitude more badness than any of the rest of us would find at all remotely acceptable.

So, for example, consider a scenario where the entire American Midwest turns into a desert and the climate appropriate for growing food moves to what's now the Canadian tundra. You can't just thaw out permafrost and plant wheat. It takes time for the soil conditions to evolve into ones appropriate for the industrial scale farming that our civilization depends on. And even if we could magically turn the soil into the most fertile on the planet, we'd still have to almost completely replace the farming infrastructure we have now. You have to be able to get people, equipment and supplies in and harvested crops out. That would be insanely expensive and take years. If a change like that happened suddenly without warning, a large portion of the population would starve before we could adjust. This would be a bad thing, in case you need that clarified.

That's funny, I don't recall there being a huge selection of toilets that use different amounts of water per flush thirty years ago. And unless I've gone completely senile, back then your choices in lightbulbs were incandescent, incandescent, or incandescent. You're complaining about regulations you never would have even noticed if it weren't for people like Limbaugh throwing temper tantrums about them.

As for "unprecedented regulatory power," give me a break. The option that was put forward in '09 was a cap and trade system - which is the exact same regulatory authority that the George H W Bush administration put in place for acid rain emissions a quarter century ago. Now people are mostly talking about a carbon tax, which is the exact same regulatory power the George Washington administration exercised over whiskey. The regulations on power plant emissions of mercury that have been in place for decades are far more stringent than anything being considered for CO2.

So what happened to "follow the money," hmmmm? You were all for it when you were babbling nonsense about a climate change fraud being carried out to get research grants. but as soon as I point out that the entire climate research budget is peanuts compared to the amount of money at stake in the fossil fuel industry then suddenly it's no, no, no, it's not that money, it's some other money. No idea where that money is or who it's going to, but obviously money from extracting and exploiting fossil fuels couldn't possibly have anything to do with the climate change debate.

Seriously? You're going to sit there are try to tell me that you're just plain stupid? I don't believe that for a minute.

 

i've presented an abundance of evidence

and the exxon thing shows that they held back their research

 

Follow the money is a pretty simple concept that you seem not to understand. What is spent on climate change? You seem not to know but then posit that revenue is somehow involved with no explanation how except for ending with a non sequitur.

Then of course you end the tirade with an implied insult.

 

The Exxon thing? Man, you really have some facts there don't you? LOL

 

The Federal Regulations on Toilet Gallons

Maybe you didnt notice you had to now flush twice or maybe you havent bought a new toilet since the 90s

Bush is another progressive so whats your point?

Because those are poisons. That you cant see the federal government has become a monster is shocking
[video=youtube;Sk3sURDS4IA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3sURDS4IA[/video]

 

you've seen plenty of facts and evidence, you deny them

it's obvious that you're dishonest, like big oil and their lobbyists

 

The Exxon Thing. Must be some horror movie or something. BTW, lobbyists don't do scientific research and you obviously think the only lobbying going on is to thwart your beliefs.

 

that's your typical denial of reality

i didn't say they did, you twist everything

you obviously don't know what i think

very few people are as dishonest in their arguments as you

 

Then how do you explain the fact that for nearly two decades the data says the global temp was static? The climate screamers even admit that.

 

The Cambrian Explosion is when every major phyla arose. Where you get the idea that it was devoid of multicellular life is beyond me. No phyla has arisen since the end the Cambrian Explosion.

Yes - during an ice-age. Carbon Dioxide is always abnormally low during an ice-age. During the Eocene, when there was no ice-age, Carbon Dioxide levels were 700 to 900 ppm, perfectly natural, double today's levels and life thrived.

That is where the nut-burgers are always headed. They are still pissed that learned agriculture and animal husbandry and managed to thrive on Earth. Human's thriving is a "problem" to the nut-burgers that needs to be "fixed".

 

Well, I'm actually not sure who you think the "nut-burgers" are or what you think they are thinking.

I would like to emphasize that relatively small changes today will have cataclysmic consequences for humans, since there are now 6 billion who depend on earth being pretty much like it is today.

We see what happens when a relatively tiny contingent of humans living in Syria determine that they can't stay there. The issue would become major significant if India or some section of the ME or north Africa experienced enough impact to their agriculture that people decided they needed to leave.

Also, if water becomes scarce somewhere, it's going to result in major national security issues that will be very difficult to resolve.

 

You are correct, sir. Anthropogenic Global warming doesn't exist. The best evidence that exists is if
it were to be defunded by the government. AGW would cease to exist because it doesn't' exist in
the first place.

Yes, they should be required to wear the Scarlet A(gw) on their clothing. These people are
charlatans that prey upon the fears of the gullible.

 

the data doesn't say that


Global warming 'pause' didn't happen, study finds


Global warming has not undergone a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’, according to US government research that undermines one of the key arguments used by sceptics to question climate science.

The new study reassessed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (Noaa) temperature record to account for changing methods of measuring the global surface temperature over the past century.

The adjustments to the data were slight, but removed a flattening of the graph this century that has led climate sceptics to claim the rise in global temperatures had stopped.

“There is no slowdown in warming, there is no hiatus,” said lead author Dr Tom Karl, who is the director of Noaa’s National Climatic Data Centre.

Dr Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said: “The fact that such small changes to the analysis make the difference between a hiatus or not merely underlines how fragile a concept it was in the first place.”

The results, published on Thursday in the journal Science, showed the rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.116C per decade) was almost exactly the same, in fact slightly higher, as the past five decades (0.113C per decade).

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

 

AGW doesn't exist. Get over it. By the way RW means Really Wise, i.e. people who are
smart enough to know a hoax from real life.

- - - Updated - - -

Are those crickets I hear?

 

climate scientists say it does

you've been shown it many times

your dishonest game of denial is obvious

 

This is the best evidence ever to debunk the notion that agw exists. Thanks for pointing out that
only the so-called scientists who are paid to say that agw exists say that agw exists.

Now if only the poorly educated can realize that agw doesn't exist and that only the so-called
scientists who are paid to espouse this nonsense are claiming his hoax.

AGW definitely doesn't exist. That's a given.

Thanks for making that point so clear.

 

Although I don't believe we are in for much warming, were the ice-age to finally end, it would not be cataclysmic, rather the earth's ability to support life would expand exponentially. More warmth, more water, more CO2 = more life. It is just silly to fear it.

Why would they leave? The Sahara wasn't always a desert, it was once a life rich Savannah. This is not conjecture, this is a firmly fixed fact of the fossil record.

Water is not scarce during warm earth conditions, it is abundant. 70% of the world's freshwater is locked up as ice, and so unavailable for life's processes, that is why we have deserts during ice age conditions and they turn into savannas and forests during warm earth conditions. But the earth cannot do that without additional Carbon Dioxide since that is the form of carbon that nature turns into life. For that to occur, Carbon Dioxide levels must rise, and they do as the earth warms.

Were it to warm further in the presence of additional carbon dioxide we would see sharply rising crop yields, and since that does not appear to be happening, I doubt much of this occurring, but if it were, I certainly would not fear it, I would embrace it.