# Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.  




​

_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]

​Knowledge respects reality.  Ignorance must have reality forced upon it. When ignorance is sustained by ideological dogma, it's a bitch to overcome, particularly in especially resistant cases.

The predictions are being validated. The theoretical is becoming blatant. The forecasts are being realized. Denial is becoming an increasingly costly ideological self-indulgence - agricultural failures, wildfires, flooding, soaring energy costs, droughts, mass starvation, relentless human migrations, etc., etc., etc.

By midcentury, if greenhouse gas emissions are not significantly curtailed, the coldest and warmest daily temperatures are expected to increase by at least 5 degrees F in most areas by mid-century rising to 10 degrees F by late century. The National Climate Assessment estimates 20-30 more days over 90 degrees F in most areas by mid-century. A recent study projects that the annual number of days with a heat index above 100 degrees F will double, and days with a heat index above 105 degrees F will triple, nationwide, when compared to the end of the 20th century.​​Extreme heat can increase the risk of other types of disasters. Heat can exacerbate drought, and hot dry conditions can in turn create wildfire conditions. In cities, buildings roads and infrastructure can be heated to 50 to 90 degrees hotter than the air while natural surfaces remain closer to air temperatures. The heat island effect is most intense during the day, but the slow release of heat from the infrastructure overnight (or an atmospheric heat island) can keep cities much hotter than surrounding areas. Rising temperatures across the country poses a threat to people, ecosystems and the economy...​[Heat Waves and Climate Change | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions]​​An early summer heatwave across the western United States broke all-time records in multiple states, with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end in some places. This event marked yet another climate extreme for residents of a region already suffering through a devastating drought and with memories of last year’s horrific wildfire season likely still fresh on people’s minds.​​[Local, state leaders warn of climate change threat amid record heat wave]​​Truth not only endures. It has an irresistible way of imposing itself upon even the most willfully obtuse:



​Expect Americans to demand their elected representatives confront reality. 

Some may be a bit slow, but eventually, _everybody_ will get it, _one way or another._




*"If there is one thing that really burns my ass, it's
CLIMATE CHANGE!"*

​


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
The planet is one tough son of a bitch piece of rock

We can reduce our chances of surviving on this planet though


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...





A Nazi talking about SCIENCE

Hey stupid, how many genders are there?

Hey stupid, tell us how masks stop Covid-19

Hey stupid, tell us about hydroxychloroquine.


Fucking Nazi moron.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> The planet is one tough son of a bitch piece of rock
> 
> We can reduce our chances of surviving on this planet though


We should listen to you Nazis - you know SCIENCE..


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> ...


Nice diversion

You are quite talented with it


----------



## two_iron (Jul 10, 2021)

We need to follow the science.... ya know, like this fucking thing:


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


Well you know it was predicted that we were going to run out of food by the year 2000. I don't know about you, but I'm still eating. Oh and, all of Gore's predictions have been crap also. You be a good little pawn though.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> ...


More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


----------



## two_iron (Jul 10, 2021)

algore walks into an empty room....

and somehow the room becomes emptier....


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> A Nazi talking about SCIENCE


Von Braun.


----------



## kaz (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...



Democrats are the anti-science party, Chief.

There are two things we could do today that would have a dramatic impact on global warming.   Nuclear Power and fracking for natural gas.  Democrats oppose them both for your political ideology.

Your calling believing your political ideology over actual science being pro-science is what a racist moron you are


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


You mean your predictions that are 100% wrong every time? There is climate change it got into the 70's last night and will get in the mid eighties today.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Nice diversion
> 
> You are quite talented with it



You Nazis are such clowns.

A cold wet winter and you morons shriek "weather a not CLIMUT" a few hot days and "SEEEE GAIA IS PUNISHING US FOR CARBON SINS, WE AWL GUNNA DYE"

Fucking anti-science morons that you are.

 “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program.”


“Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by 2040,” the Telegraph reported. “As the world fails to act on climate change, researchers predict that global trade will collapse as oil prices break through $400 a barrel and electrical appliances will get automatically turned off when households exceed energy quotas.” -2008


“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” Viner said. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time.”

So, in almost 20 years time — Feb. 27, 2018 to be exact — here was the first paragraph of a story from the U.K. Express: “London has been hit by a wall of snow in a huge blizzard as the UK is rocked by bone-chilling temperatures, ice and wintry weather from the ‘Beast from the East’. The snow fell lightly at first but quickly picked up speed as forecasters warned the freezing Siberian winds gripping Britain could be the coldest the UK has faced in 27 years.” And, in fact, the U.K. has faced plenty of snow over the past few years.

During the negotiations for the Copenhagen agreement in 2009, former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that if they didn’t solve the “impasse” they found themselves in within 50 days, the world was pretty much doomed.

Fucking anti-science morons.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...



*>An early summer heatwave across the western United States broke all-time records in multiple states, with temperatures above 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end in some places.*

Death Valley hit 130F on Friday.









						Death Valley comes just 4 degrees away from highest temp EVER
					

Death Valley has come within four degrees of the highest outdoor temperature ever recorded on Earth, as the West Coast braces for yet another record-setting heatwave this weekend.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




It was four degrees warmer in 1913.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > A Nazi talking about SCIENCE
> ...


Mengele-Fauci


----------



## whitehall (Jul 10, 2021)

There is no scientific value in the word "expected". Using the word "expected" is a political trick to encourage acceptance of an international extortion scheme aimed at the U.S. If you worry about emissions and co2. go to China and fix the problem and then let us know how you made out when you get out of prison.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change



One constant to the climate of earth over 4.7 billion years is change.

There is ZERO evidence supporting the myth and religion that;


The planet is Sentient - Gaia theory that AGW is based upon
Humans have any effect on the climate of the planet
You Nazi vermin are anti-science, religious zealots. But even your religion is just a ruse, a farce in your never ending lust for totalitarian power.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.

Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.

Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


----------



## EMH (Jul 10, 2021)

Parroting is not science
Fraud is not science
Fudging data is not science

Global warming is hence not science.

Co2 has nothing to do with earth climate change, and only sub human science invalids with beaked birdbrains fall for it....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change
> ...



SEIG HEIL
SEIG HEIL
SEIG HEIL

Fucking anti-science Nazi morons....

You retards will lead the world into a new dark ages.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I believe if something bad happens, many people will suffer and die. The movements of Prog success will be reversed. The alternative is that Christians will be die.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> The planet is one tough son of a bitch piece of rock
> 
> We can reduce our chances of surviving on this planet though


The planet accommodates life, but is indifferent when life is self-destructive.


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Sorry, I forgot for a minute that you were a moron.  Please pretend I didn't respond.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change
> ...


No matter what the United States and the West does, the nations making most of the products are not doing what we are currently. China does not even put scrubbers on their smokestacks.


----------



## gipper (Jul 10, 2021)

Yet another flaming troll thread by the OP. This guy is getting a reputation.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)




----------



## EMH (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change
> ...



That is not what the raw data said.  The highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed NO WARMIng in the atmosphere despite rising co2.  Your side did not like that truth so it fudged both with uncorrellated "corrections."


Search for

2005 nbc global warming evaporates


----------



## White 6 (Jul 10, 2021)

two_iron said:


> algore walks into an empty room....
> 
> and somehow the room becomes emptier....


Al who?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Conservatives don't say there is no climate change.  Why are you lying?


----------



## MarathonMike (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


Conservatives say the exact opposite: Climate ALWAYS changes. What you and Schmucklap are saying is that HUMAN CAUSED Climate Change is "settled science".  Just because Liberal climate scientists love to create bogus temperature studies, that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

Few people know this...

Most of so-called "Climate Science" is based upon justifying adjustments to the raw data.  

Billions of dollars are being spent by folks receiving government grants to publish papers which manipulate the data to propell a narrative that it was actually colder than measured long ago, for various reasons.  They also adjust current temps upward, justifying their manipulation based upon station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities.

*The amount of "observed" increase in global temperatures is the same magnitude as the "adjustments" made to the data.

That's not Science; it's politics.  And it is fraud.*


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

whitehall said:


> go to China and fix the problem and then let us know how you made out when you get out of prison.





Refusing to take responsibility by blaming others is craven.
 Leading a coordinated, international response to the shared, self-inflicted crisis is commendable.​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Sorry, I forgot for a minute that you were a moron.  Please pretend I didn't respond.



Creepy Chang, there are more IQ points on the TP when I wipe my ass after shitting than you will ever have.


----------



## Crepitus (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I forgot for a minute that you were a moron.  Please pretend I didn't respond.
> ...


That's nice honey.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > go to China and fix the problem and then let us know how you made out when you get out of prison.
> ...


The issue is that you are not going there.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

_Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?_​
The hidebound, aging champions of planetary flatulence may not yet be accepting science over ideology in what is a scientific matter, but folks who are not scheduled for imminent departure from the planet have a self-interest in confronting reality:

'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans Push GOP On Climate Change​A recent Pew Research Center survey shows Republicans 18 to 39 years old are more concerned about the climate than their elders. By a nearly two-to-one margin they are more likely to agree that "human activity contributes a great deal to climate change," and "the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change."​​Some of these young conservatives are starting environmental groups and becoming climate activists. And now they're pushing their party to do more....​​​


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 10, 2021)

"Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?"​
Since I am most emphatically NOT anti-science, I accept it every bit as strongly as I accept that a guy with a dick (or one hacked off) is a woman.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



There is no doubt that climate change is having an impact. Liberal predictions may not be happening as soon as predicted but they are still happening.

How are Conservative claims that THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE working out?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


But THEY do it too is not an excuse


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Who of any importance is claiming "there is no climate change"?

Name the names, or crash in flames.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Just fine I'm still eating 21 years after I was suppose to starve to death. Oh and there is still an east coast, that was supposed to be gone years ago.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Let’s go back to when Al Gore was making his climate change predictions

Conservatives were in complete denial reminding us of Dinosaurs and the ice age.

Now, they admit there is climate change but that man has nothing to do with it.

Next up….
Conservatives will admit that man did cause climate change but it is too late to do anything about it.










						The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States
					

The ideological underpinning of climate change denial in the United States merits closer scrutiny than it has received to date. American opponents and critics of the scientific consensus over ...




					journals.openedition.org


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


There is climate change, it is summer now. Then the climate changes to fall, then winter, and then spring. See how that works?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Why?   

No names I see.  The fire burns ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...











						Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress
					

There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.




					www.americanprogress.org


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Let’s go back to when Al Gore was making his climate change predictions
> 
> Conservatives were in complete denial reminding us of Dinosaurs and the ice age.
> 
> ...


Al Gore told us in 2006 that we only have a decade to save the planet before it will become uninhabitable. They continue the same story today, and you fall for it?

In 10,000 BC, there was about 300 million tonnes (MT) of terrestrial biomass. In 1900, there was about 450 MT. In 2000, it was about 1400 MT. The number of species on Earth continues to increase year after year, and the discovery rate is accelerating.

Most land masses on Earth are far from the equator, so warming will actually result in more habitable climate for arable crops, other vegetation, and all kinds of animals.

Many people will die because of climate change, but it won't be due to the temperature increase, it will be due to the fact that poor people cannot afford heat, air conditioning, refrigeration, and energy for all kinds of kinds of things that have a direct effect on human safety and health.

Do you realize that we were in an ice age 10000 years ago? Of course the oceans have heated up. But if you would prefer to travel back to 50 million years ago, you will find that the deep ocean temperature was actually 12C warmer than present. Long ago, CO2 levels were also much higher than currently (about 400 ppm). 150 million years ago (MYA), they were about 2000 ppm, and 550 MYA, they were about 7000 ppm.

Hydrocarbons have been responsible for dramatically increasing the standard of living for humankind.  Of course, Leftists don't like that, since humans are a parasite on the planet and need to be controlled.

Once the globalists control carbon, they will control virtually everything – agriculture, energy, the economy, even life itself.

That's really what it is about.  Power and *control*.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


 
Conservatives understand the climate changes. We also understand there is not a single shred of evidence it is caused by mankind. With the understanding of these facts we recognize we should be the best stewards of Earth as possible and have taken rational steps over the past 40 years to accomplish it. At the same time we have defended the nation against the radical climate kooks who pick only the science that suits their agenda.
You’re welcome!


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Because lying is what he does.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> Conservatives understand the climate changes. We also understand there is not a single shred of evidence it is caused by mankind.



The oil companies make you say that


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No they’re not.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives understand the climate changes. We also understand there is not a single shred of evidence it is caused by mankind.
> ...


I kinda wish Trump would've admitted there is climate change. Get you loons to oppose it. The world would be a better place.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Conservatives said everything Algore predicted was bullshit.
Conservatives as usual were right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The planet accommodates life, but is indifferent when life is self-destructive.



Will your goddess Gaia forgive you because you're Woke while she punishes Trump supporters for their carbon sins?

Difference between Global Warming and the Spanish Inquisition... The Inquisition had a more solid scientific foundation.....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

White 6 said:


> two_iron said:
> 
> 
> > algore walks into an empty room....
> ...



Pope of the AGW religion.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> 'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans Push GOP On Climate Change​A recent Pew Research Center survey shows Republicans 18 to 39 years old are more concerned about the climate than their elders. By a nearly two-to-one margin they are more likely to agree that "human activity contributes a great deal to climate change," and "the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change."​​Some of these young conservatives are starting environmental groups and becoming climate activists. And now they're pushing their party to do more....​​​


It is not only younger, better-educated Republicans who are willing to confront the scientific reality.

Fiscal conservatives increasingly recognize the devastating cost of clinging to ignorance:

Deferred maintenance of our climate car shows its effects — the climate-associated costs and inconveniences of running our society are greater every year, as insuring and repairing homes, businesses and infrastructure damaged by forest fires and other natural calamities add up in price. ​​The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is tracking the largest of these disasters. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained close to 300 major weather-related events with a total cost close to $2 trillion. In 2020, 22 such events occurred, and the cost of dealing with them was $95 billion. ​​What would be the cost of prevention? A 2020 report by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projected that a global investment of $110 trillion in decarbonization by 2050 would set the world on a sustainable growth path (and allow the recouping of many of these initial costs). The U.S. share of this total would probably come out to about $30 trillion. A daunting but no longer incomprehensibly large figure: 1 trillion dollars annually. If current trends hold, it will not be long before the annual costs of Californian wildfires and Gulf Coast floods start approaching this number. At that point, the Republican and Democratic arguments will become the same: future costs will become present costs.​​Unfortunately, as negligent car owners know, once deferred maintenance can no longer be deferred, its expenses greatly exceed those of prevention. Similarly, our choice between climate change avoidance and adaptation is disappearing, and we will soon have to invest in both. If we don’t, our climate car may very well become — driverless.​​[Democrats and Republicans will agree on climate change]​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The planet accommodates life, but is indifferent when life is self-destructive.
> ...


Your goddesses are your concern. Your ideological dogma is a pathetic substitute for science.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> ...


Trump and SCIENCE?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Your goddesses are your concern. Your ideological dogma is a pathetic substitute for science.



The insane cult you follow is a greater danger than the Manson cult ever was. You seek a totalitarian collectivist dictatorship and your primitive stone age anti-science religion is just another vehicle for your evil lust for power.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


No, actually while Gores timeframe may have been wrong, he was still correct

Conservative Climate Change deniers said it was a HOAX


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming​


[Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming]

The residue of anti-scientific ideologues cite Trump's rectal thermometer.​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming​View attachment 511064
> [Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming]
> 
> The residue of anti-scientific ideologues cite Trump's rectal thermometer.​



Oh My GAIA, it's gone up a degree in only 140 years...


Fucking anti-science Nazi loon....


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Feeeeeellllliiinnnnggggssssss whoa whoa whoa feeeeeellllliiiiinnngssss


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming​View attachment 511064
> [Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming]
> 
> The residue of anti-scientific ideologues cite Trump's rectal thermometer.​


Did you notice that your plot is of temperature changes which are "Version 4" and "Version 5?"

Why do they keep adjusting the "measured" temperatures?  That's rhetorical; they adjust them to change the answer, as I have already explained to you in this thread.










They don't deny adjusting the data.  They happily admit cooking the climate books.

Here is what Berkeley Earth (included in your plot) says:









						Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data - Berkeley Earth
					

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and...




					berkeleyearth.org


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If he said climate change is for real, you would start denying it. Yes Trump used science more than you loons do.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Lol, nothing was right in his prediction. Nothing, yet you still believe him. You're a tool for your party.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


*"Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?"*
Aren't the "anti-science zealots" those who defy rudimentary biology and believe a woman can have a penis?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> ...


Other than the temperature has continued to rise

Conservatives at the time called it a HOAX. How right were they?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So, you continue to lie.

They called YOUR SCIENCE a  hoax since we fully acknowledge that climate has been changing for 5 billion years.  You know, the actual science AND truth.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


They called Climate change a HOAX
Just like they called COVID a HOAX
Just like they called the election a HOAX

It is how Conservatives respond to anything they don’t like


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 10, 2021)

two_iron said:


> We need to follow the science.... ya know, like this fucking thing:


Did schmidlap give you his o.k. to post that?

When a selfie is sent to you in a p.m
, it is considered private information here.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


We have no idea what the average temperature is. How do you know it's rising?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


NASA


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


The poster is right:  Global Warming is a scam..


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Obama turned NASA into just another propaganda organ.  James Hansen's prediction all failed.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> ...


You epitomize one of the dumbest, least thoughtful biddable fool posted in the time I've posted on the USMB.  Or else you are a damn liar; yet I can't fathom what you get from your foolish comments.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change
> ...


C02 is not a pollutant, moron.   Plants need it to live.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Nope.  He's a rocket scientist compared to you


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Progs love drama. Like saying there are 8 planets or adding an ocean. The real crime is that the government most likely spent tens of billion of dollars for these useless science.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Statement:  "C02 is not a pollutant, moron. Plants need it to live."

Response:  Retention of CO2 is deadly in Human Beings.  



			https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Module-2-Handout-How-Inhaled-CO2-Affects-the-Body-%E2%80%93-Fact-Sheet.pdf
		


Or is this also fake news and lying scientists, in your opinion?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


That's a claim with no visible means of support.



Rye Catcher said:


> https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Module-2-Handout-How-Inhaled-CO2-Affects-the-Body-%E2%80%93-Fact-Sheet.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Or is this also fake news and lying scientists, in your opinion?


Yes. 0.04 % is not dangerous in any way, moron.  Much higher levels are beneficial to plants.  That's why they add CO2 in greenhouses.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

bripat9643 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


LOL, you really are a kook.  If you had read the link you would understand that smoking creates COPD.   But you never read anything which might upset your beliefs.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


We are talking about CO2, not smoke.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Your link says that CO2 levels would have to be 100 times higher than normal in order to be life threatening.

That's like saying water is deadly, as if you consume 100 times the normal amount, you will most certainly die.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 10, 2021)

How people can be so patently STUPID is a question for Darwin.

All these imbeciles screeching about climate change and soaring temperatures are clueless that there is currently a global increase in VOLCANIC activity that is spewing very high levels of Sulfur Dioxide, CO2 and many other pollutants into the air.  Billions of tons of it every day.

IT IS NATURAL for God's sake people !





Get a life.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming​View attachment 511064
> ...



Sure only 1 degree in 40 years does not seem like much, but consider the mass of the earth, oceans, and atmosphere.
That is huge, so that is a massive amount of retained energy, and it is not only already having deadly effects, such as desertification, floods, storms, heat waves, etc., but is a rapidly accelerating curve that is an indicator of far more harmful problems in the future.  For example, they estimate that an increase of 9 degrees more would end all life on the planet


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 10, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> How people can be so patently STUPID is a question for Darwin.
> 
> All these imbeciles screeching about climate change and soaring temperatures are clueless that there is currently a global increase in VOLCANIC activity that is spewing very high levels of Sulfur Dioxide, CO2 and many other pollutants into the air.  Billions of tons of it every day.
> 
> ...



Wrong.
While volcanoes do spew CO2, they also spew even more of aerosols, and particulates, that result in more cooling than warming.
Volcanoes always cool a planet.
After Krakatoa eruption, there was no summer that year, and it stayed winter for several years straight.

{...
The explosion of *Krakatoa* (Krakatau) may have contributed to volcanic *winter*-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the *winter* of 1887–1888 included powerful blizzards. Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
...}




__





						Volcanic winter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Say that's true....Where is any physically testable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence, that the activities of industrialized humans have anything at all to do with it.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Why do they keep adjusting the "measured" temperatures?


Because "they", the consensus of climatologists and international climatological authorities, out of pure cussedness, in conspiring to pretend that spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has a predictable impact on the atmosphere, keep refining their data.

Of course, Trump has told us that it is all a Chinese hoax.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


That's all bullshit.  Deserts are not expanding.  They are contracting.  Storms are decreasing.  The same for floods, storms, heat waves, etc.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > Why do they keep adjusting the "measured" temperatures?
> ...


"Consensus" is not science.  It's politics.  The so-called "scientists" are doing it out of self interest.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > Why do they keep adjusting the "measured" temperatures?
> ...


"Consensus" isn't science, sock puppet bot blockhead.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> ...



when the man made global warming high priests stop buying multi million dollar mansions on ocean beachfront property we will begin to take their snake oil scam seriously.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



what predictions?  There havent been any predictions coming true especially when you watch the snow come down at their global warming summits


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

Oddball said:


> So what's the evidence?



Your ideological dogma appears to be impervious to science, but if you are really trying to grasp reality, I'll provide it with little hope that you are capable of accepting it.

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

*Simple chemistry* – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
*Basic accounting* of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
*Measuring CO2* and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
*Chemical analysis* of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s).
*Basic physics* that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
*Monitoring climate conditions* to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
*Ruling out natural factors* that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
*Employing computer models* to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
*Consensus among scientists* who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).









						9 ways we know humans triggered climate change
					

Tens of thousands of scientists have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion.




					www.edf.org
				



​​If you prefer a failed casino operator's evidence-free claim that it is all a Chinese hoax, there is nothing that could convince you of the truth, of course.

You can vehemently reject all the scientific authorities that differ with your failed casino operator. Here are a few of the Trump apostates as compiled by NASA:

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES​Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations​"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."







*American Association for the Advancement of Science*
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening."





*American Chemical Society*
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities."





*American Geophysical Union*
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence."





*American Medical Association*
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6





*American Meteorological Society*
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7





*American Physical Society*
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8





*The Geological Society of America*
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES​International Academies: Joint Statement​"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10







*U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11*
*U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES*​
*




 U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12*
*INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES*​
*



*
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
*“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14*
*OTHER RESOURCES*​*List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations*​*The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research*

*U.S. Agencies*​*The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/up...daptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf*









						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > So what's the evidence?
> ...


So I'll score that a big "NO"....You have no physically testable, repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence.

In fact, none of the predictions of the warmer scaremongers has ever proven to be correct...As in _*NONE.*_

BTW, volume of appeal-to-authority political gobbledygook ≠ substance.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > So what's the evidence?
> ...


That's just one great big appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


*>Sure only 1 degree in 40 years does not seem like much*

It's not much.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Jul 10, 2021)




----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> *>Sure only 1 degree in 40 years does not seem like much*
> 
> It's not much.


Most folks, hardcore ideologues excepted, seem to get it.

Exclusive poll: America catches up with climate science​


​*By the numbers: *​The poll found that 84% of Democrats and 77% of independents were aware that climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is caused by human activities, and that the world is off track to meet the Paris targets.​​Republicans had the lowest share of correct answers, but a slight majority — 52% — were aware of both the scientific consensus and the reality that the world hasn't made enough progress toward the Paris targets.​
*The poll also found significant differences* by education, with 80% of people with college degrees or higher answering the question correctly, compared to 73% of people with some college and 65% of those with a high school degree or less.​​







						America catches up with climate science, poll says
					

A new Ipsos poll found that seven out of 10 Americans are aware of the scientific consensus.




					www.axios.com
				


​


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > *>Sure only 1 degree in 40 years does not seem like much*
> ...


Polls aren't science either, dullard.

But since you brought them up, guess which issue lands dead last, or very near it, in the list of things and issues  that most people believe that gubmint should be tending to?...That's right, Goebbels warming.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > *>Sure only 1 degree in 40 years does not seem like much*
> ...


Facts aren't proven by polls, moron.

You're just one vast geyser of logical fallacies.


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


No one said the climate doesn't change, stop lying.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Lol, they all were and are. Funny coming from someone who believed anything bad on Trump. Even if it was alleged.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


The climate is always changing. We are currently in an interglacial period. 









						Glacial and interglacial periods - Energy Education
					






					energyeducation.ca


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Obama turned it into a joke. Nasa has no idea either. Fact is nothing that has been predicted has come true. Don't know how you loons still have any credibility left.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Actually more co2 more the plant flourishes, get rid of C02 the plants die and so do we. Real science.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Jim H - VA USA said:
> ...


Those scientists are paid by the politicians that want the climate change policies in place. If they report the real findings they won't receive the millions in funding. Independent scientists say no global warming.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

2aguy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


They obviously aren't worried about C02 because they all fly their private jets around. All the while saying we are the problem.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They RIGHTLY called "Man-Made" climate change a hoax.

I'm about to put you on ignore for the fucking liar that you are.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I don't know what percentage causes COPD and Pulmonary diseases though they may be caused by infection, smoking tobacco, or by breathing in secondhand tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos, or other forms of air pollution.  Many of these can cause death.

I'm not suggesting CO2 will become a major gas in our atmosphere, I simply stated it is deadly when inhaled.  So can Nitrogen when used by SCUBA Divers.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Darkwind said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


Ignore is for pussies
So I guess ya gotta do what ya gotta do


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Dumb comment.  Why not add to your post all MLB, NBA, etc players and coaches, and Donald Trump who flew dozens of times to Mar a Loga?  Oh yeah, Trump doesn't care about our planet or the people, animals and plants; he only cares about himself.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


True, but only sophistry.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


He isn't the one's making money off global warming. Gore's energy bill for one month in one of his house could pay for mine for a year. If he is that worried about the climate, you would think he would cut back and that is from one of his homes. The one's that cry the most are the biggest polluters.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Facts tripping you up tonight?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Who is making money off of climate change denial?
BIG OIL

They appreciate your help


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Considering there is nothing that can replace oil efficiency. I'll go with oil.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...



Oils days are numbered


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


How do you know his energy bill?  For the record, we pay less than $5.00 each month, we have panels on our roof and we own two electric cars:  Tesla and Chevy Bolt, so we don't need to buy gas.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


LOL.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


You need to look up the word sophistry.

And read post above, #114


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


CO2 doesn't cause COPD and Pulmonary diseases, moron.  Smoke and CO2 are two different things.  CO2 is not deadly, any more than salt or water are deadly.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You're gloating over having a much lower standard of living, moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


How about in January?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Those scientists are paid by the politicians that want the climate change policies in place.


Trump's cult cannot accept the consensus of scientific expertise because it conflicts with their Master's proclamation that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax.

All the world's most respected climatologists and scientific institutions must be complicit in yet another of his evidence-free vast conspiracies, their enormous wealth of data that confirm the dramatic rise in global temperature concurrent with the industrial revolution and upsurge in CO2 emissions all fake, all the scientists and scientific institutions corrupt.



​
Of course, the God Emperor know more about _everything_, as he insists:

*TRUMP KNOWS EVERYTHING:*

*The big picture: *President Trump says he's an expert on a lot of things, including ISIS, taxes, technology, nuclear arms and even Sen. Cory Booker.​
* Campaign finance: *"I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor." (_1999.__)_​​*TV ratings: *"I know more about people who get ratings than anyone." (_October 2012.__)_​
*ISIS: *"I know more about ISIS than the generals do." (_November 2015.__)_​
*Social media: *"I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?" (_November 2015.__)_
*Courts: "*I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (_November 2015.__)_
*Lawsuits: *"[W]ho knows more about lawsuits than I do? I'm the king." (_January 2016.__)_
*Politicians*: "I understand politicians better than anybody."
*The visa system: *"[N]obody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. ... Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me." (_March 2016.__)_
*Trade: *"Nobody knows more about trade than me." (_March 2016.__)_
*The U.S. government system*: "[N]obody knows the system better than I do." (_April 2016.__)_
*Renewable energy: *"I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." _(__April 2016.__)_
*Taxes: *"I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." (_May 2016.__)_
*Debt: *"I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me." (_June 2016.__)_
*Money: *"I understand money better than anybody." (_June 2016.__)_
*Infrastructure: *"[L]ook, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump." (_July 2016.__)_
*Sen. Cory Booker*: "I know more about Cory than he knows about himself." (_July 2016.__)_
*Borders: *Trump said in 2016 that Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was endorsing him for president because "you know more about this stuff than anybody."
*Democrats: *"I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody." (_November 2016.__)_
*Construction: *"[N]obody knows more about construction than I do." (_May 2018.__)_
*The economy: *"I think I know about it better than [the Federal Reserve]." (_October 2018.__)_
*Technology: *"Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me." (_December 2018.__)_
*Drones: *"I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have." (_January 2019.__)_
*Drone technology: *"Having a drone fly overhead — and I think nobody knows much more about technology, this type of technology certainly, than I do." _(__January 2019.__)_
_








						Everything Trump says he knows "more about than anybody"
					

From ISIS to taxes, lawsuits and social media, Trump claims he's an expert on quite an array of topics.




					www.axios.com
				



_​​*“I deal with architects all the time. They have zero talent. I can draw better than they can. And you know, drawing is an important part of being an architect, in my opinion.”*​​What is he talking about? He doesn’t really know himself—*when* Birnbach *asks him why the corners of Mar-a-Lago’s pool and tennis courts are cut off, Trump says these are chaffered corners, going as far as spelling the word for her.* T*rump was wrong about this—it’s actually chamfered, Birnbach clarifies.* But the real point is to laugh and fantasize with this silly guy who is pouring ungodly amounts of money into making his club (memberships started at $25,000 but by November 1996 had jumped to $75,000) as “gorgeous” and “perfect” as possible. “There’s never been anything like it. There never will. You could never do it again,” he explains.​​E. Jean Carroll’s Stunning Accusation Forced Me to Remember Who Trump Used to Be​
... and, of course, he is a crackerjack meteorologist, as well:


*TRUMP'S BRILLIANT CORRECTION OF THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 
MAP OF HURRICANE DORIAN'S PATH IN BLACK SHARPIE
(BETTER THAN PICASO COULD EVER DO!)


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''*



* Trump displayed an altered graphic purporting to show Hurricane Dorian potentially hitting Alabama
after he had incorrectly stated that it would hit Alabama.*
[]Did Trump Display an Altered Hurricane Dorian Map Showing Alabama in Its Path?]​


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> How do you know his energy bill?  For the record, we pay less than $5.00 each month, we have panels on our roof and we own two electric cars:  Tesla and Chevy Bolt, so we don't need to buy gas.


*>How do you know his energy bill?*









						Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth: A $2,439 per month energy bill
					

A new report by a conservative group says the Oscar-winning global warming activist’s energy consumption is 20 times the national average.




					www.dnaindia.com
				




*>For the record, we pay less than $5.00 each month, we have panels on our roof and we own two electric cars:  Tesla and Chevy Bolt, so we don't need to buy gas.*

Excuse me, but I am skeptical about that ($5.00).  How much did the panels cost?


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Those scientists are paid by the politicians that want the climate change policies in place.
> ...


Once again, consensus isn't science, it's politics.  You also committed the logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority.

You chart is from the Hadley CRU, which has been shown to be bogus.

I could spend all day ripping your claims to pieces, but I really don't enjoy picking on the developmentally disabled.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Hopefully when a reliable source replaces it. Biden's 10 year plan is insane. Let the free market work it out. Always does and we the tax payer won't pay for it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Money spent on solar power is a waste.  They should concentrate all their spending on Fusion.  For that matter, there's nothing wrong with fission power.  All it takes to resolve the disposal issue is simply to do it.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Rye Catcher said:
> ...


Good for you, if it works for nothing wrong with it. I can't do panels considering my land is old woods. But that being said I can build my tiny home with a basement dug out on one of the hills leading down to the creek. Then heat and cool my house on top for free. I'm not against getting off the grid, but everyone cannot do it. Why take away the 100% energy to them and replace it what happened in Texas last winter. They tried solar and windmills and it failed.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Those scientists are paid by the politicians that want the climate change policies in place.
> ...


All I can say one of your best, fuck up Fauci, says you aren't following science if you don't believe him. That's all I need to know about your paid off scientists. Lol, Fauci is bought and paid for by China.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Other than the temperature has continued to rise
> 
> Conservatives at the time called it a HOAX. How right were they?


Nope, it sure hasn't you anti-science lunatic.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> No one said the climate doesn't change, stop lying.



If Shitflinger stops lying, he stops posting...

Which wouldn't be a bad thing....


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Considering there is nothing that can replace oil efficiency. I'll go with oil.
> ...


Perhaps, but you still can't beat hydrocarbons for energy density.  20 gallons of gas will get you about 500 miles and weighs about 120 pounds.

A Tesla Model S 70 kWh battery weighs about 1300 pounds, and will get you about 230 miles if you don't use the heat.









						Tesla Model S Weight Distribution
					

Breaking down the 4600+ pound Tesla Model S weight distribution. From the lightweight aluminum frame to the electric motor and inverter weight.




					www.teslarati.com
				











						Tesla Model S 70 specs, price, photos, offers and incentives
					

Tesla Model S 70 specs (2015 - 2016) 🚗 • Acceleration 5.5s ⚡ Battery 75 kWh • Price from $37990 • Range 230 mi • Compare, choose, see best deals. Incentives and charging calculator




					evcompare.io


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> I don't know what percentage causes COPD and Pulmonary diseases though they may be caused by infection, smoking tobacco, or by breathing in secondhand tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos, or other forms of air pollution.  Many of these can cause death.
> 
> I'm not suggesting CO2 will become a major gas in our atmosphere, I simply stated it is deadly when inhaled.  So can Nitrogen when used by SCUBA Divers.



CO2 is DEADLY WHEN INHALED?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fucking retard anti-science loon....


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Who is making money off of climate change denial?
> BIG OIL
> 
> They appreciate your help


Ha! Ha!  You're such a fucking sucker troll.   The only ones making money on climate change are the bureaucrats in D.C. who administer all the environmental agencies with YOUR tax dollars!!!  So far they spent BILLIONS and have not yet been successful at changing the global climate.   But you just keep supporting this expensive lie.  In the meantime, keep digging deep in your pockets to pay for inflated energy prices, food, goods and services.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> A Tesla Model S 70 kWh battery weighs about 1300 pounds, and will get you about 230 miles if you don't use the heat.


But what does a car engine weigh compared to an electric motor?


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> CO2 is DEADLY WHEN INHALED?
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Fucking retard anti-science loon....


According to the loon, he should be room temperature!!  CO2 is inhaled with every breath.....


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> But what does a car engine weigh compared to an electric motor?


Car engines weigh from approx. 240lbs up to a 1931, Caddy V-16 cylinder which is 1,300lbs.   Most are in the 300lb to 600lb range.  The electric motors are useless without those heavy batteries.


----------



## OKTexas (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...




Climate has always been changing dumb ass, man didn't make it happen and man won't stop it.

.


----------



## OKTexas (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> _Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?_​
> The hidebound, aging champions of planetary flatulence may not yet be accepting science over ideology in what is a scientific matter, but folks who are not scheduled for imminent departure from the planet have a self-interest in confronting reality:
> 
> 'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans Push GOP On Climate Change​A recent Pew Research Center survey shows Republicans 18 to 39 years old are more concerned about the climate than their elders. By a nearly two-to-one margin they are more likely to agree that "human activity contributes a great deal to climate change," and "the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change."​​Some of these young conservatives are starting environmental groups and becoming climate activists. And now they're pushing their party to do more....​​​








__





						Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...
					

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...  Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 10, 2021)

whitehall said:


> There is no scientific value in the word "expected". Using the word "expected" is a political trick


You have to be kidding me; I expect to get wet if I jump into a swimming pool full of water.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?


_*Anthropogenic*_
*(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity. *(which is not correct, humans do not pollute as much as you think*.*)

The above is a bit overdone, not even close. If you could add up all the poop dumped on the Serengeti National Park in a day, it would add up to twenty times more animal pooped in a poopy day in the _Serengeti National Park _Than all the humans on the face of this planet poop in a day.

We are not the only poopers, polluting our planet in a day.

anthropogenic - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
*"anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide",

Sulfur dioxide*_ (*SO2*), a colorless, bad-smelling, toxic gas, is part of a larger group of chemicals referred to as *sulfur* oxides (SOx). These gases, especially *SO2*, are emitted by the burning of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and diesel — or other materials that contain *sulfur*._

*Biofuels do not have the above deadly side effects. *

The most pollution free energy source is combining hydrogen and two atoms of oxygen together. This instant release of heat energy is pollution free and could power our energy needs for all time to come.

Most of the power coming out of a jets tail pipe is water vapor; O2 getting with H; H2O

Jet fuel does not emit SO2. When you see a jet fly overhead you may see a white trail behind the jet. That is freezing water vaper.

*Anthropogenic is a false term with a bogus intent.*

-


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 10, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > A Tesla Model S 70 kWh battery weighs about 1300 pounds, and will get you about 230 miles if you don't use the heat.
> ...


A motor can be recycled, a car battery can't. So tell me again, which is more environmental?


----------



## themirrorthief (Jul 10, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


the sky is falling


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jim H - VA USA said:
> ...


Yes, car batteries can.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what percentage causes COPD and Pulmonary diseases though they may be caused by infection, smoking tobacco, or by breathing in secondhand tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos, or other forms of air pollution.  Many of these can cause death.
> ...


Try sitting in a closed air tight coffin.


----------



## Rye Catcher (Jul 10, 2021)

jknowgood said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jknowgood said:
> ...


Huh, I don't know how it happened n Texas last winter, I do know the people suffered for months.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 11, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


 

Are you identifying as a plant today?


----------



## WTH_Progs? (Jul 11, 2021)

Hottest June temps in 120 years.  Wholly fuck Banker, WTF were we doing 120 years ago?


----------



## EMH (Jul 11, 2021)

The actual raw (unfudged) data still reads as follows....

No warming in the atmosphere
No warming in the oceans
No net ice melt ongoing
No breakout in canes
No sea level rise

The only series that shows warming in the raw data is from the surface of growing urban areas due to urban heat sink effect....

Co2 has either nothing to do with earth climate change, or its contribution is statistically insignificant.


Notice too that the dumbest amongst us are the believers.

They parrot
They believe parroting = proof
They spazz at you for not parroting


Same as with the sub human morons who still believe Reefer Madness....


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

It is futile to attempt to bring the residue of hardcore science deniers to a grasp of anthropogenic climate change based upon empirical data and the overwhelming consensus of the most knowledgable. Their ideological dogma prevents it.

Among the plethora of crackpot conspiracies that fester in their noggins is this one by the global scientific community that has concluded that spewing industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has an impact that has resulted in the dramatic rise in average global temperature that persists.





When science and ideology differ in this scientific matter, they lash out irrationally at science.​
The pattern is not unique. When the fifty states, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, verify their election results, in some cases after multiple recounts, independent audits, and dozens of court challenges, and the Congress of the United States, with the Vice President presiding, officially certifies the result of a safe and secure democratic election, they rave inanely about a fanciful vast caper to "steal" the election, but cannot contrive any credible evidence, any rational explanations as to how it was masterminded, coordinated, or how the multitude of malefactors collaborated. The crackpots have yet to cite a single suspect in their monumental heist.

The fake, self-serving fantasies trigger febrile conniption fits that assail the expressed will of the People of the United States:



​Given their embrace of emotion and rejection of reason, their inability to come to grips with the existential crisis that rational folks around the world are confronting is hardly surprising. Grievance-driven and impervious to dispassionate assessments of reality that do not comport with their ideological dogma, they are not amenable to rational conclusions.

Their assbackward, foreordained belief is their starting point that goes nowhere, but simply produces whatever fallacies are necessary to sustain it.




When confronted with the overwhelming, credible evidence from reliable sources, they lash out hysterically, only adding, symbolically, to the rising temperatures they deny. Meanwhile, responsible folks are facing up to the crisis and trying to deal with it.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

EMH said:


> No warming in the atmosphere
> No warming in the oceans
> No net ice melt ongoing
> No breakout in canes
> No sea level rise





_*"I objectively assess a broad range of sources that run the gamut from my*_
*God Emperor's divine decrees to the revelations of the blessed fossil fuels cartel!"*​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2021)

OKTexas said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > _Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?_​
> ...




BTW, the quote in your sig is from Richard Grenier. The author is known.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2021)

Rye Catcher said:


> Try sitting in a closed air tight coffin.




Retard digs the hole further.

No retard, CO2 doesn't kill you in a sealed coffin, lack of oxygen does.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 11, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > A Tesla Model S 70 kWh battery weighs about 1300 pounds, and will get you about 230 miles if you don't use the heat.
> ...


I don't know, but you can choose two or three motors in a Tesla.  Gross weight is 4,323–4,960 lb.

A large sedan, for comparison, Hyundai Sonata, weighs 2,899–3,278 lb.

(source: Wiki)

Then there is the price...


----------



## petro (Jul 11, 2021)

Apparently idiots like the OP believe the Earth is at the pinnacle of a perfect climate and cannot be allowed to deviate because humans stupidly built mega cities in flood prone areas. 

What's next? Preventing tectonic plate shifting before the west coast gets swallowed up by the sea as California slowly heads towards Alaska?
Sorry, but in time that area is doomed. Volcanoes spew more pollution than humans, so we should spare no expense stopping them also.

The notion that anyone denies climate change is stupid and false. In fact, in my cold ass part of the world, I welcome it.

No feature on Earth is permanent whether man made or natural.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...




"... an article by award-winning climate activist Michael Shellenberger, in which he apologizes "for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years."


_Authored by Michael Shellenberger via Environmental Progress _(emphasis ours)

*On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare*


On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, *I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years*. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. *I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.*
But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly *we environmentalists have misled the public*.
Here are some facts few people know:



*Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”*
The Amazon is _not_ “the lungs of the world”
Climate change is _not_ making natural disasters worse
Fires have _declined _25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has_ declined_ _by an area nearly as large as Alaska_
*The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California*
*Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations* and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
*We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise* as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
*Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels*
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of *climate alarmism"*

​
Forbes Censors Award-Winning Environmentalist's Apology Over Three-Decade 'Climate Scare' - So Here It Is

*"We environmentalists have misled the public."

www.zerohedge.com*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jim H - VA USA said:
> ...


The price paid by the consumer is less than half the cost of a Tesla, Taxpayers subsidize every pure EV sold at 53% of the total cost.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is futile to attempt to bring the residue of hardcore science deniers to a grasp of anthropogenic climate change based upon empirical data and the overwhelming consensus of the most knowledgable. Their ideological dogma prevents it.
> 
> Among the plethora of crackpot conspiracies that fester in their noggins is this one by the global scientific community that has concluded that spewing industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has an impact that has resulted in the dramatic rise in average global temperature that persists.
> 
> ...


*When confronted with the overwhelming, credible evidence from reliable sources....*

Except that none -as in NONE- of the information from the warmer alarmists is overwhelming, credible, nor reliable.


----------



## petro (Jul 11, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They also avoid the dirty little secret of open pit lithium mines...




__





						Redirect Notice
					





					www.google.com
				



Now China holds a controlling interest in Australia's largest mine and is buying up interests across the globe.
More from link..
The lithium extraction process uses a lot of water—approximately 500,000 gallons per metric ton of lithium
there is the potential for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply including hydrochloric acid, which is used in the processing of lithium, and waste products that are filtered out of the brine. In Australia and North America, lithium is mined from rock using chemicals to extract it into a useful form. In Nevada, researchers found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation.

Lithium extraction harms the soil and causes air contamination. In Argentina’s Salar de Hombre Muerto, residents believe that lithium operations contaminated streams used by humans and livestock and for crop irrigation. In Chile, the landscape is marred by mountains of discarded salt and canals filled with contaminated water with an unnatural blue hue. According to Guillermo Gonzalez, a lithium battery expert from the University of Chile, “This isn’t a green solution – it’s not a solution at all.”

Recycling? Ya right....
In Australia, only two percent of the country’s 3,300 metric tons of lithium-ion waste is recycled. Unwanted MP3 players and laptops often end up in landfills, where metals from the electrodes and ionic fluids from the electrolyte can leak into the environment.

The vehicles also still use the same heavy metals, harmful plastics and toxic chemicals that any gas powered vehicle is used to produce.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is futile to attempt to bring the residue of hardcore science deniers to a grasp of anthropogenic climate change based upon empirical data and the overwhelming consensus of the most knowledgable. Their ideological dogma prevents it.
> 
> Among the plethora of crackpot conspiracies that fester in their noggins is this one by the global scientific community that has concluded that spewing industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has an impact that has resulted in the dramatic rise in average global temperature that persists.
> 
> ...



“overwhelming consensus “?
Please post the list of the “96% of scientists agree” so we can laugh at it again.

Can you explain why Michael Mann’s team at Penn State manipulated the temperature data to show a massive spike in their infamous hockey stick graph?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> “overwhelming consensus “?
> Please post the list of the “96% of scientists agree” so we can laugh at it again.
> 
> Can you explain why Michael Mann’s team at Penn State manipulated the temperature data to show a massive spike in their infamous hockey stick graph?


I have previously provided an extensive list of respected climatologists and scientific institutions in the U.S. and abroad that all affirm the scientific reality .

Why does no one ever post such a comprehensive enumeration of the denialists and their credentials? 

Apparently, faith-based dogma is not amenable to such a substantive exposition.


----------



## EMH (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> EMH said:
> 
> 
> > No warming in the atmosphere
> ...




Parrot responds with a BAWK!!!!


Let us take sea level rise.....

The warmers have three, and only, island chains sinking, and they are actually sinking...  The Marshall Islands are one....

Search for

CNN you making islands disappear

But nothing else is sinking.  Plymouth Rock is still right on the edge of the ocean... Nothing...

The warmers went to Hawaii and tried to bribe, with our taxdollars, the tribal elders, who demonstrated that they really have nothing in common with democrats by saying

Fuck off


Now, why are the Marshall Islands,the Solomon Islands, and one other chain by New Guinea, why are they sinking?

Rising oceans scream the parroting moron science invalids....

But, duh, that would sink everything, and that is not happening....


Search for

Pacific ring of fire


Those island changs are mounted on the pacific ocean floor.   As they approach the pacific ring of fire, the floor starts going down hundreds of miles out.

In 3 million years, the Marshall Islands will not just be under the ocean, they will be


UNDER THE EARTH's CRUST


----------



## OKTexas (Jul 11, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...




Have you got a credible link, I did a search on it and it was attributed to several people so I just decided to leave it as unknown.

.


----------



## EMH (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> 
> 
> > “overwhelming consensus “?
> ...



You are the one practicing "faith" here, birdbrain....

You parrot easily discredited left wing liars, and are way too stupid to debate these issues beyond opening BEAK and PARAROTING?

You are no different than the sub humans who still insist "reefer madness" is a factual movie...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?



It always needs to be pointed out, whenever anyone on the left *wrong* makes any attempt to lay any claim to _“science”_, that theirs is the _“science”_ that asserts that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:
> 
> 
> > “overwhelming consensus “?
> ...



Fallacies is all you offer here and your science illiteracy is legendary.

Climate modeling is their "science", that is why they are wrong so often.....


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is futile to attempt to bring the residue of hardcore science deniers to a grasp of anthropogenic climate change based upon empirical data and the overwhelming consensus of the most knowledgable. Their ideological dogma prevents it.
> 
> Among the plethora of crackpot conspiracies that fester in their noggins is this one by the global scientific community that has concluded that spewing industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has an impact that has resulted in the dramatic rise in average global temperature that persists.
> 
> ...



Your well known science illiteracy prevents you from realizing that AGW conjecture are build on unverifiable modeling scenarios far into the future, bypassing the NULL hypothesis and the Scientific Method.

What is being denied?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I have previously provided an extensive list of respected climatologists and scientific institutions in the U.S. and abroad that all affirm the scientific reality .
> 
> Why does no one ever post such a comprehensive enumeration of the denialists and their credentials?
> 
> Apparently, faith-based dogma is not amenable to such a substantive exposition.



Oh, RESPECTED astrologers... 

Wait, astrologers are FAR more scientific and fact driven than "climatologists."

My apologies to soothsays and tarot card readers for lumping them in with the flat out frauds and hucksters which are climatologists.

Climatology, a "science" less grounded that Phrenology...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > I have previously provided an extensive list of respected climatologists and scientific institutions in the U.S. and abroad that all affirm the scientific reality .
> ...


The science deniers are an alienated faction of ideologues who are compelled to impose their dogma on reality.

That necessitates them lashing out at empirical reality and those who are able to accept it, i.e., most folks. 

The confirmatory data continues to accrue, and that gets them into even more of a tizzy. In the face of the overwhelming evidence, they are forced to increasingly cite their crackpots, and that does nothing to promote their dogma.

January 31, 2019​Americans are rapidly coming to accept the reality of climate change. According to two studies released late last year, some 73 percent of the public now agrees climate change is happening, an increase of 10 percentage points since a similar survey in 2015. The number of Americans who say global warming matters to them personally jumped even higher — up 9 percentage points since March 2018 — to a new record high of 72 percent overall.​









						Growing acceptance of climate change. Now what?
					

More than seven out of 10 Americans now say climate change matters to them personally. But those same people aren't willing to do anything to stop it. Why is there the disconnect? And what would it take to get people to act?




					www.mprnews.org


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> January 31, 2019​Americans are rapidly coming to accept the reality of climate change. According to two studies released late last year, some 73 percent of the public now agrees climate change is happening, an increase of 10 percentage points since a similar survey in 2015. The number of Americans who say global warming matters to them personally jumped even higher — up 9 percentage points since March 2018 — to a new record high of 72 percent overall.​



I'm not even sure what that means, but some of them are apparently not being completely truthful...














						Who is willing to pay more for renewable energy?
					

About half of Americans are willing to pay more on their electricity bill for renewable energy; some more than others.




					climatecommunication.yale.edu


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Your poll is a SINGLE ISSUE set up, a misleading way to go.

Who is actually disputing that Climate changes over time?


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


 

Still no answer for the fake hockey stick graph?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The science deniers are an alienated faction of ideologues who are compelled to impose their dogma on reality.



  You are perfectly describing your own side, the side that you are vainly trying to defend.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your poll is a SINGLE ISSUE set up, a misleading way to go.
> 
> Who is actually disputing that Climate changes over time?


The evidence accrued by the world's climatologists confirms the unprecedented spike in temperature rise that reflects the impact of the upsurge in CO2 emissions.
​

A cursory perusal of the ilk that still refuses to accept the science exposes them as ideologues, not climatologists.​


----------



## themirrorthief (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> ...


to bad not one scientist has ever proved climate change is man made tho millions have tried


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The science deniers are an alienated faction of ideologues who are compelled to impose their dogma on reality.
> ...


My "side" simply respects the science and does not attempt to substitute ideology for it.

Of all the nations on earth, where have the ideologues succeeded in displacing the climatologists?


----------



## themirrorthief (Jul 11, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


when i was a kid in tennessee  there would b weeks of temps over 100  that never happens now


----------



## themirrorthief (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


so go to china and shut down the factories then


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

themirrorthief said:


> when i was a kid in tennessee  there would b weeks of temps over 100  that never happens now


Where have the ideologues succeeded in imposing their denialism?

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations​*The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:*

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences






						List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research
					






					opr.ca.gov
				




Are dogmatic beliefs immune to the vast compilation of empirical data? Clearly.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> > when i was a kid in tennessee  there would b weeks of temps over 100  that never happens now
> ...


_*>*_*American Academy of Pediatrics*

LOL.  As if a bunch of pediatricians would know anything about climate.

You know how this works.  The climate scientists get gratns, write papers, and then claim the science is settled but needs more study and get more grants.  Then everyone says "the climate scientists say it's true.

See, here is what the AAP says, like all the others...
_"There is wide consensus among scientific organizations and climatologists that these broad effects, known as “climate change,” are the result of contemporary human activity."_





__





						Global Climate Change and Children’s Health
					

Rising global temperatures are causing major physical, chemical, and ecological changes in the planet. There is wide consensus among scientific organizations and climatologists that these broad effects, known as “climate change,” are the result of contemporary human activity. Climate change...




					pediatrics.aappublications.org
				




These organizations are not making their own judgements; they are simply parroting others.  The position statements are basically meaningless circular references.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



The "science" deniers are you moron Nazis. 

As I said, climatology is a dozens steps below astrology in scientific legitimacy.

Oh, and science isn't based on propaganda. Convincing the ignorant that the sun orbits the earth doesn't alter scientific fact, Herr Goebbels.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Algore doesn’t give a shit about global warming dipshit, it was his campaign strategy. 
Wake up.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> LOL.  As if a bunch of pediatricians would know anything about climate.


If you place your blind faith in a failed casino operator, you'd do far better by heeding medical doctors.





Hell, if your ideological dogma compels you to be contemptuous of scientists, you'd come far closer to to the truth by parroting used car salesmen.

Please list your scientific institutions that are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your poll is a SINGLE ISSUE set up, a misleading way to go.
> ...



What a dumb reply, you avoided my question and ignored my criticism of your one topic poll.

It is clear you have nothing to offer but tired worn out crap since I haven't disputed the warming since the 1800's and haven't disputed the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You claim that it is unprecedented isn't even supported by the unsourced first chart you posted and your second one doesn't make sense and also unlinked. as well.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Your side are heavily invested in unverifiable modeling constructs, that is what you fell for is the CO2 driving the climate mantra, it is pseudoscience nonsense.

Who are these climatologists I wonder since there is no such field of research existing?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> What a dumb reply, you avoided my question and ignored my criticism of your one topic poll.
> 
> It is clear you have nothing to offer but tired worn out crap since I haven't disputed the warming since the 1800's and haven't disputed the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> 
> You claim that it is unprecedented isn't even supported by the unsourced first chart you posted and your second one doesn't make sense and also unlinked. as well.


Rather than ask if you accept the scientific consensus regarding the unprecedented rise in global temperature since the industrial revolution, concurrent with the rise in CO2 emissions, I'll just request that you provide your list of scientific institutions currently in denial of anthropogenic climate change, and I can then seriously study all their data.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> > when i was a kid in tennessee  there would b weeks of temps over 100  that never happens now
> ...



  

This dumbfuck bring out the stoooopid consensus fallacy, it doesn't prove shit.

There are many examples of consensus failures scattered in the past that are embarrassing to review, but science illiterates like you it is all you have drool over, being brainwashed is easy for you which is why you are comically ignorant.

You don't even know what the AGW conjecture is in the first place.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > What a dumb reply, you avoided my question and ignored my criticism of your one topic poll.
> ...



Ha ha ha, you have no idea what they think, you are reading the MEDIAS bullshit like a parrot that is all you are doing here. They are lying to you, but you have no idea since you are too fucking ignorant about it to know.

It has been *COOLING* for 5 1/2 years now:





LINK

=====

No increase in Major Tornadoes or Tropical storms index









Climate related deaths down over 90% since 1920,





CO2/temperature relationship not viable,








LINK

Not even over 500 million years time,




I have a lot more showing that CO2 isn't a climate driver, heck I KNOW you have no idea what warmist scientists are claiming in the first place, you are a well trained media brainwashed child.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > themirrorthief said:
> ...


Please list your scientific institutions anywhere on earth that are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.

Thank you.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Your reply shows you are mentally ill since you again ignored my comment, it is clear you have NOTHING but fallacies to offer.

What is the Null Hypothesis?

What is the Scientific Method?

What is the AGW conjecture?

Now watch this moron ignore the questions, it will prove he has no idea how to answer them.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 11, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your reply shows you are mentally ill since you again ignored my comment, it is clear you have NOTHING but fallacies to offer.
> 
> What is the Null Hypothesis?
> 
> ...


You clearly bring a great deal of emotion to the topic, but I am still interested in the dispassionate scientific consensus.

Of all the legitimate scientific institutions, societies, academies, and organizations anywhere on earth, please link to your sources that are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## Jim H - VA USA (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  As if a bunch of pediatricians would know anything about climate.
> ...


*>If you place your blind faith in a failed casino operator, you'd do far better by heeding medical doctors...  your ideological dogma...*

LOL.  I don't place faith in anyone.  I look at the data myself.  That should be apparent from the data and commentary I've posted in this thread.  

It has nothing to do with dogma.  I am an engineer.  I know data.  It's my living.

Do you not realize the significance of these charts?





__





						Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?
					

More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change  The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.  Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.  Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




You are being played like a fiddle by the Left.  They want to carbon tax you and control how much meat you eat, with a scary false narrative that uses "adjusted" temperature data to tell you that living with a high standard of living is bad.  And you dutifully suck it up, and even help them propel the narrative.  Your main points in this thread? - Consensus, not data.  Not even proof that climate change is bad or out of the ordinary.

Are you also buying the Left's narrative that you are privileged because of your skin color?  It's quite analogous.

PS:  This is an informative page with pros and cons of anthropogenic global warming arguments...








						Is Human Activity Responsible for Climate Change? 13 Pros and Cons
					

The pro side argues the rising levels of greenhouse gases is from burning fossil fuels, the con side argues the planet is capable of absorbing those increases.




					climatechange.procon.org


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Jim H - VA USA said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.  As if a bunch of pediatricians would know anything about climate.
> ...


The only thing I need to know, is you support Fauci's science. That is dangerous, already cost thousands of lives.


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your reply shows you are mentally ill since you again ignored my comment, it is clear you have NOTHING but fallacies to offer.
> ...


Give a scientific institution that isn't government funded, and that actually disagrees with the government.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Jim H - VA USA said:
> ...



From the Pro-Con link:



> 5. A peer-reviewed study of the earth's climate 460-445 million years ago found that an intense period of glaciation, not warming, occurred when CO2 levels were 5 times higher than they are today. [4]



This is never accepted by warmist/alarmists because that can't be explained away.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your reply shows you are mentally ill since you again ignored my comment, it is clear you have NOTHING but fallacies to offer.
> ...



You clearly avoid debating over and over, the questions apparently intimidate you which is why you deflect to fallacies over and over, a clear sign that you are a programmed moron.

What is the Null Hypothesis?

What is the Scientific Method?

What is the AGW conjecture?

Waiting
waiting,
waiting........


----------



## themirrorthief (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> > when i was a kid in tennessee  there would b weeks of temps over 100  that never happens now
> ...


to bad no one has proved climate change  is man made  but if they prove it isnt man made all of them would lose their high paying jobs    gotta keep the scam going to get paid   duh


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 12, 2021)

Nope 

Now shut up and completely disconnect from the electric grid and stay away from gas stations


----------



## westwall (Jul 12, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...






Not one prediction has come to pass.  Well known charlatans like Sulvia Brown were able to at least guess right 75% of the time.

But your heroes?  Zilch, nada, null, zero, none.

Not one prediction has come to pass.

It takes a special kind of stupid to belive anything they would say.

Kind of like how anti science religious nuts follow their scriptures and high priests.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 12, 2021)

Jim H - VA USA said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Jim H - VA USA said:
> ...


The reason that I make this reasonable request of science deniers -

_*Of all the legitimate scientific institutions, societies, academies, and organizations anywhere on earth, *_
*please link to your sources that are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.*​
- is that I regard the study of anthropogenic climate change as a _*scientific*_ matter.

I accept that there are ideologues in denial. I still request _*scientific*_ justification for their ideological dogma, legitimated by *scientific* acceptance of their data, if any.

The conspiracy kooks who accept a failed casino operator's evidence-free declaration are free to do so. I prefer a more competent analytical approach to the matter.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



*Please list your scientific institutions anywhere on earth that are in denial of anthropogenic climate change.*

Just a quick nitpick ... all those 198 institutions you listed of government institutions, political bodies ... there are many scientific institutions that only say man-kind has a roll in climate change ... NOAA's National Hurricane Center is one of these ... their claim is there's not enough data, and from their point-of-view (weather satellites), this is very true ... the 50 years of data they have in hand is contaminated by the dynamics of the system ...

Just curious ... why are you calling folks "anti-science zealots" when all we're doing is pointing out violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics? ... do you even know there are certain laws that govern energy ... and these are set in stone, cannot be violated, or you're wrong ... all your claims of catastrophe (save only sea level rise) can be shown to be physically impossible by the application of the above mentioned Laws of Physics ... 

You rely completely on consensus? ... this is belief on faith alone, the hallmark of religious ideology ... you've yet to show any understanding of the sciences involved ... it's pretty obvious you can't add vectors, let alone solve the triple integrals you're bantering about here ... this is all lower division material, something teen-aged children are expected to learn ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Yabbit CNN told him that the heatwave PROVES global warming. Temperatures in Chicago have risen 80 degrees in just 6 months.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 12, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


I respect the consensus of experts. I do not deem it remotely unreasonable to request that the ideologues who passionately demur from the scientific, data-driven consensus cite reputable, credible scientific academies, institutions, and organizations concerning a matter of science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...



Hate to burst your bubble dude but nobody is caring about this. Its a symbolic billboard that the climate nutters take a bow in front of but have nothing to show for it!

d0y........if people cared, we'd have had marked changes in western nations energy policies over the last 20 years........we've seen virtually *none*. Solar/Wind still providing well under 10% of our electricity........fossil fuels still dominating and will for many decades. Sh*t.......China continues to build 2-3 new coal plants every month and will for the next 9 years  


Skeptics embrace the whole "anti-science" tag........because we can. We do all the winning outside the little "97% Club". All of the alarmist "science" propaganda of the past 20 years hasnt added up to di*k in the real world. Funnier still........these bozos still go with the same narrative...........for two decades. Two decades of lOsiNg. Because voters dont give a sh*t! They dont get hysterical when they see brushfires, floods, drought because d0y...........they know these things have been happening in various degrees for millions of years.

When might they care?

If we see a 3 week spell of 75 degrees in central Canada in late January with vids of hot bikini-clad babes on jet skis, tanning on some Canadian lake. But not a moment sooner. Good luck with that!


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 12, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> Hate to burst your bubble dude but nobody is caring about this...


Funny. There seems to be no shortage of ideologues vehemently denying the scientific consensus that you, apparently, care enough to address. That refutes your pretense that nobody cares.

It is evocative of Yogi Berra's summary rejection of a possible restaurant venue: "_Nobody_ goes there anymore. It's too _crowded!"_


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Ah ... so you _do_ admit complete ignorance of what these experts are actually saying ... 

*I do not deem it remotely unreasonable to request that the ideologues who passionately demur from the scientific, data-driven consensus cite reputable, credible scientific academies, institutions, and organizations concerning a matter of science.*

Here you go, easy peasy, I just don't honestly think you'll understand a word of this:

Nerem _et al_; "Climate-Change-Driven Accelerated Sea-Level Rise Detected in the Altimeter Era"; _PNAS_ ; Jan 9th, 2018

This paper gives a sea-level rise of 22 inches by year 2100 using emperical data ... anything in there you don't understand, go ahead and ask, I'd be happy to explain it to you ... 

So ... we'll need to add three feet to our sea-walls over the next 79 years according to this paper (BTW, here's NASA's endorsement of Nerem _et al_ 's findings) ... for this you started a thread on a subject you know almost nothing about, burning coal like you don't actually believe the consensus either ... yeah, three lousy feet, just terrifying ... nevermind just about every mile of hardtop road in the United States has been excavated down three feet and back-filled with the proper roadbed materials ... duh ... a million miles in just the past 79 years ...


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 12, 2021)

The Scamdemic Was So Last Year . . . Here's What's Coming Next​








						The Scamdemic Was So Last Year . . . Here's What's Coming Next
					

by James Corbettcorbettreport.comJuly 10, 2021It’s invisible but deadly. It infects the air we breathe. We are all part of the problem.SARS-...




					www.minds.com
				









. . . even those on the left, and the moderation & admin of the forum don't believe. . . but it will come if folks don't bow down to the new technocratic police state.

Most folks believe it is a conspiracy against the public.  This COVID mess hasn't convinced them. . . . sorry fools.   





__





						Climate Change Lockdowns?
					

Climate lockdowns? Poor paranoid little Trumpettes! :lol:  Just like the oligarchs did with COVID?  The same folks that prepared for the pandemic have already run the drills and the simulations. . . .  SO?  Don't be surprised when it is rolled out.   :dunno:  WATER WARS: Manufactured Drought to...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



He is so invested in the Consensus paradigm, that he can't articulate anything beyond a press release or a consensus argument.

He has ducked these questions several times now and completely ignored post 190 showing that "climate emergency" isn't showing up.

What is the Null Hypothesis?

What is the Scientific Method?

What is the AGW conjecture?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Hate to burst your bubble dude but nobody is caring about this...
> ...



Liberals invariably hang their hats on symbolic stuff......all the time. In the end, it only matters who is winning and who........ummmm........isnt. The "97% of climate scientists agree........" narrative not mattering ( nor has it ever ) outside of college campuses, idiots reading the Sunday NY Times and internet message boards.

Progressives can take bows from now until the cows come home on the science rhetoric.......only matters to me what transcends from the rhetoric. For the climate k00ks, its nothing. But dont take my word for it.......check Bidens EIA Projection Report out to 2040! Fossil.........fuel.......domination!  Still.

Which means for the folks who make decisions on energy, they are not caring.

https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/AEO2021_Release_Presentation.pdf


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The reason that I make this reasonable request of *science deniers*…



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 12, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


Irrelevant to anthropogenic climate change.

An acceptance of the science is indicated by the Paris Agreement that deals with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance. The Agreement aims to respond to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

These are the nations that have signed and ratified the agreement:
















[UNTC]​​These are the nations that have signed but not yet ratified the agreement:
Turkey​Iran​Iraq​Libya​Eritrea​Yemen​South Sudan​​As should be rather obvious, the ideologues have not been very successful in their crusade against science.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 12, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> Liberals invariably hang their hats on symbolic stuff......all the time. In the end, it only matters who is winning and who........ummmm........isnt. The "97% of climate scientists agree........" narrative not mattering ( nor has it ever ) outside of college campuses, idiots reading the Sunday NY Times and internet message boards.
> 
> Progressives can take bows from now until the cows come home on the science rhetoric.......only matters to me what transcends from the rhetoric. For the climate k00ks, its nothing. But dont take my word for it
> Progressives can take bows from now until the cows come home on the science rhetoric.......only matters to me what transcends from the rhetoric. For the climate k00ks, its nothing. But dont take my word for it.......check Bidens EIA Projection Report out to 2040! Fossil.........fuel.......domination!


If, in your hyper-partisan dogma, you need to fantasize that your _"liberals"_ have forced science upon all nations on earth except for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan, your demons must have powerful juju, indeed.

The ideologues can still cheer on those hold-outs, I suppose.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?
> ...



  It's directly relevant to your your futile attempt to lay claim to _“science”_ to support your opinions.

  Is Bruce Jenner a man, or is he a woman?

  I don't have to guess why you are so disinclined to answer this simple question.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?
> ...



You can't be that ignorant, can you?

There have been a lot of similar treaties that have been failures.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> There have been a lot of similar treaties that have been failures.


No, you have been deceived into spouting raw, unfiltered hooey.

Don't become enraged when I request that you substantiate your fake claim by citing comparable global concurrence - either with  scientific reality or other matters.

The extent to which the global effort to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic climate change succeeds remains to be seen, of course.

Once again, these are the nations that have signed and ratified the agreement:



























[UNTC]

... and these are your nations that have signed but not yet ratified the agreement:

Turkey
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Eritrea
Yemen
South Sudan


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > There have been a lot of similar treaties that have been failures.
> ...



Almost all those countries would be receiving money from the United States ... the American tax-payer funding their supposed renewable energy programs ... many of these countries have a very long history of corruption and past money sent by the US was squandered on luxury items for the political strongmen there ...

You asked for authentic peer-reviewed NASA-approved scientific information ... and I gave you some that clearly refutes catastrophic sea level rise ... are you going to respond? ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Almost all those countries would be receiving money from the United States ... the American tax-payer funding their supposed renewable energy programs ... many of these countries have a very long history of corruption and past money sent by the US was squandered on luxury items for the political strongmen there ...
> 
> You asked for authentic peer-reviewed NASA-approved scientific information ... and I gave you some that clearly refutes catastrophic sea level rise ... are you going to respond? ...


If you need to denounce 197 nations - including all first-world democracies -  as corrupt, and embrace Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya. Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan in their scientific apostasy as your examples of good government, it seems hardly worth the bother to note that your linked source does not refute the reality of sea level rise attributable to anthropogenic climate change.



How NASA is Monitoring Sea Level Rise​[Rising Waters: How NASA is Monitoring Sea Level Rise]​


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all those countries would be receiving money from the United States ... the American tax-payer funding their supposed renewable energy programs ... many of these countries have a very long history of corruption and past money sent by the US was squandered on luxury items for the political strongmen there ...
> ...





No one here is disputing the small sea level rise, what is being disputed are YOUR assertions of a Catastrophic sea level rise, which isn't happening at all.

Why did you ignore ReinyDays post 208?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> YOUR assertions of a Catastrophic sea level rise


Please cite where I described the inexorable rise in sea level as _"Catastrophic."_


Sunsettommy said:


> Why did you ignore ReinyDays post 208?


I accept the overwhelming consensus of the world's climatologists, and recognize that their improved technological resources are continually improving their accuracy. See [Sea-level Forecasts: Watching Decades of Change in Real Time] (April 28, 2021)

Ideologues upset with the science like to cherry-pick the science, but cherry-picking data is grossly unscientific. Those who actually compile and analyze the data do not deal in self-serving, selective snippets.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Ideologues upset with the science like to cherry-pick the science, but cherry-picking data is grossly unscientific.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


I have forgotten more science than you ever knew.  The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> ...



He keeps ignoring post 190, he keeps ignoring ReinyDays definitive post too, we are dealing with a "believer" in consensus and climate based political ideology. Evidence means nothing to him, he exemplifies why America is in trouble.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> He keeps ignoring post 190, he keeps ignoring ReinyDays definitive post too, we are dealing with a "believer" in consensus and climate based political ideology. Evidence means nothing to him, he exemplifies why America is in trouble.


I reject the dogma of ideologues regarding anthropogenic climate change for the same reason every nation on earth (except for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya,Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan if you wish to cite _them_) accept the consensus of every reputable scientific body on earth.

Climatologists _are_ far more knowledgable concerning climatology than are ideologues, and the _People_ have chosen climatologists over ideologues:

The biggest ever opinion poll on climate change has found two-thirds of people think it is a “global emergency”.​​The survey shows people across the world support climate action and gives politicians a clear mandate to take the major action needed, according to the UN organisation that carried out the poll.​
The UN Development Programme (UNDP) questioned 1.2 million people in 50 countries, many of them young.​​While younger people showed the greatest concern, with 69% of those aged 14-18 saying there is a climate emergency, 58% of those over 60 agreed, suggesting there is not a huge generational divide.​​Even when climate action required significant changes in their own country, majorities still backed the measures.​​In nations where fossil fuels are a major source of emissions, people strongly supported renewable energy, including the US (65% in favour), Australia (76%) and Russia (51%).​​The scientific data confirms that the earth is_ not _flat, and spewing thousands of tonnes of industrial waste into the atmosphere into the atmosphere_ does_ impact the atmosphere, regardless of fringe denialists insisting otherwise. 

Are there vast conspiracies by scientists to falsify the shape of the planet or its climatic data? Where's the evidence?




​Anybody silly enough to fall for _that_ one that would be eager to fantasize that the 
Cry Baby Sore Loser, too morally feeble to face the truth, won the 2020 election in a_ "Landslide!"_


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > He keeps ignoring post 190, he keeps ignoring ReinyDays definitive post too, we are dealing with a "believer" in consensus and climate based political ideology. Evidence means nothing to him, he exemplifies why America is in trouble.
> ...


What's your background in science?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


Don't be so modest. You have apparently forgotten more science that every reputable scientific academy, association, society, and organization on earth.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Just more than you. Do you even have a college degree?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:


> What's your background in science?


I have no expertise in cardiology, so in matters of cardiology, I respect the consensus of cardiologists.

If I were diagnosed with a serious heart problem, I would not rave that my cardiologist was being controlled by evil forces. I would consult other respected cardiologists, and if they were to corroborate his findings, I would not decide that the opinion of a failed casino operator would be superior.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What's your background in science?
> ...


Great.  Then let me talk to the cardiologist because you don't know jack shit about the earth's climate.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:
			
		

> Do you even have a college degree?



Yes, but neither of my degrees are in climatology, so, concerning climatology, I would follow your citation of academic credentials, and respect the consensus of PhD's in climatological disciplines, of course.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Then when one of those guys shows up we can have an intelligent discussion.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > What's your background in science?
> ...


Non sequitur.

A cardiologist can explain to patients, in plain English, what's happening to them as it relates to their heart and show you the science behind it....And there's not a one of them who's afraid if the patient were to get a second opinion.

Goebbels warming "scientists" can't do that, because they don't have any reproducible, quantifiable, and falsifiable science....Only vague and bewildering models, that have *never ever* been predictive....And if you point out these things you get shouted down as a_* DENIER!*_

You definitely fall into the group that has been baffled with bullshit.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Appeal to authority is still appeal to authority.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

The science is settled.  No need to ever do science again.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

Dammit, the earth is flat... The science is settled.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Dammit, the earth is flat... The science is settled.


Only birds can fly...THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

What the fuck do you mean that time is relative.  You are just a patent clerk.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

The Black Plague is caused by demons...THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

If the solid booster rocket o-rings ever see heat the shuttles are grounded.  ~NASA

(solid booster rockets see heat)

Let's do some tests to see if damaged o-rings still hold pressure.  ~NASA

The o-rings held.  We are good to go.  ~NASA


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)




----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

hey dipshcmidt science is never settled.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

ding said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If you listen to it, you might learn something.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


Repeat after me... there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate changes.  None, nada, zip.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Oddball said:


> View attachment 512342


Your reminder that science is self-correcting, based upon the accrual of empirical data, reminds us that the dogmatists who deny science are out of their depth.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


We are in the middle of an ice age that began 2.7 million years ago.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


The transition to a greenhouse planet was due to plate tectonics which isolated the polar regions from the warmer marine currents and the rise of the Himalayan mountains which altered weather circulation patterns and the rise of the Panama isthmus which altered ocean circulation patterns.

Conditions which still exist today.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


The planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation.  A configuration which has never existed before in the earth's history.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 512342
> ...


There is no empirical data, just eternally flawed computer models and back-slapping "peer review" dreck that have _*never ever*_ been correct.

And you have the gall to talk about dogmatists who are out of their depth!


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

CO2 – the major cause of global warming​








						CO2 emissions are the major cause of global warming
					

Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. Recent investigations have shown that...




					timeforchange.org
				





ding said:


> Repeat after me... there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes climate changes.  None, nada, zip.


I don't know who trained you to parrot that, but you might wish to acquire a megaphone and educate NOAA, among other institutions. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.  According to _State of the Climate in 2019 _from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, 



> From 1850 to 2018, 440 ± 20 Pg C (1 Pg C = 10¹⁵ g C) were emitted as CO₂ from fossil fuel burning (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). For 2018 alone, global fossil fuel emissions reached 10 ± 0.5 Pg C yr−1 for the first time in history (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). About half of the CO₂ emitted since 1850 remains in the atmosphere. The rest of it has partially dissolved in the world’s oceans… . While the terrestrial biosphere is currently also a sink for fossil fuel CO₂, the cumulative emissions of CO₂ from land use changes such as deforestation cancel terrestrial uptake over the 1850–2018 period (Friedlingstein et al. 2019).





> Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
> 
> 
> In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.
> ...



(Be sure to wow them with your academic credentials in climatology.)


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Oddball said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


If your dogma compels you to rage at the empirical data, so be it.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


*If your dogma...*

Project much?


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 512342
> ...





schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The southern polar region is more susceptible to extensive continental glaciation than the northern polar region because the southern polar region has a continent parked over it whereas the northern polar region has an ocean parked over it which is largely land locked.  

So both polar regions are isolated from warmer marine currents but the southern polar region is more so isolated from warmer marine currents than the northern polar region.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*. The rest of it has partially dissolved in the world’s oceans…*

The dog ate my Goebbels warming!!!

That line of bullshit was pulled out of their asses after _*yet another*_ of the IPCC warmers' models failed to be predictive.

But nobody ever believed that the goalposts were going to move themselves.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But it's the northern hemisphere which determines the climate of the planet during this ice age because it has a higher threshold for glaciation than the southern hemisphere.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Oddball said:


> *If your dogma...*
> 
> Project much?


These sources of information based upon empirical data may help you. If you are not amenable to the preponderance of evidence from the most knowledgeable in the field, so be it.

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.​​AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES​Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations​"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2​​


American Association for the Advancement of Science​"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3​


American Chemical Society​"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4​


American Geophysical Union​"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5​


American Medical Association​"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6​


American Meteorological Society​"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7​


American Physical Society​"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8​


The Geological Society of America​"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9​
SCIENCE ACADEMIES​International Academies: Joint Statement​"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10​​


U.S. National Academy of Sciences​"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11​
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES​


U.S. Global Change Research Program​"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12​
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES​


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change​“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14​
OTHER RESOURCES​List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations​The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research​​U.S. Agencies​The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
*https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf*​​







						Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
					

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The warmest average temperature of the planet occurs when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The coldest average temperature of the planet occurs when the northern hemisphere receives the least sunshine.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *If your dogma...*
> ...


There is no empirical data, dummy.  

What empirical data do you suppose they have that shows that CO2 drives the climate?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *If your dogma...*
> ...


A closed circuit of political/technocrat hacks, all of whom mutually masturbate one another with their "peer pal review", and whose predictions have always -yes, I said _*always*_- failed to come to pass.

Whoop-de-fucking-do


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Through out the geologic record CO2 had trailed temperature by 800 years.  This is due to the sequestration of CO2 by the ocean.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When temperatures rise the oceans release CO2.  When temperature fall the oceans sequesters CO2.  94% of the earth's CO2 is contained in the ocean.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.  So our present temperature is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Our present sea level is 26 feet below the level of the last interglacial cycle.  So our present sea level is still within the normal range for an interglacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only experiment that was done to measure back radiation from CO2 showed that there was minimal back radiation.  

The vast benefit of greenhouse warming occurs at extremely low concentrations of CO2.  Further increases of CO2 do not appreciably increase the greenhouse gas effect.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2021)

The fool just repeats Consensus and Authority fallacies, he has no evidence of science understanding on anything, he is a BELIEVER of the worst kind.

He ignored my questions many times because he is a know nothing jackass.

He ignored these:

What is the AGW conjecture?

What is the NULL Hypothesis?

What is the Scientific Method?

He doesn't even know what to believe because he doesn't know jack shit about it, he is a sheep following the politically created consensus bullcrap.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


During the past 2.7 million years there have been 33 glacial/interglacial cycles with temperature swings of 8C.  Never before in the history of the planet has there been such frequent and drastic temperature swings over such short periods of time.  The very nature of our present configuration - different thresholds for glaciation at the northern and southern polar regions - is why our climate fluctuates the way it has.  A condition that has never existed in the history of the planet.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


D-O events during the last glacial cycle showed that temperature swings of 8C occured over several decades.  And this occurred repeatedly.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the argument that our present temperature rise is unprecedented is patently false.  D-O events prove that the planet did experience rapid warming and cooling over periods of decades.  As much as 8C swings in temperature.  Much more than anything we have seen over the past 1000 years.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Over the last 1000 years the average temperature has risen less than 0.8C.  The models you have elevated to a religion predicted it should have been twice that and that is without adding any of the positive feedbacks that they claim exist.


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> CO2 – the major cause of global warming​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rise in temperature is normal during an interglacial cycle.  We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.  

At what point will you begin to think for yourself?


----------



## ding (Jul 13, 2021)

dipschmidt I skip the fighting and go straight to winning.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> The fool just repeats Consensus and Authority fallacies, he has no evidence of science understanding on anything, he is a BELIEVER of the worst kind.
> 
> He ignored my questions many times because he is a know nothing jackass.
> 
> ...


He hasn't even pointed to where the "science" is physically reproducible, quantifiable, and falsifiable; three of the time-tested acid tests of "settled science"


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 13, 2021)

Everybody gets to choose:




Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia.



​The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.
[Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?]

*vs



*
*"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese*
*to in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive!"*​


----------



## Oddball (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Everybody gets to choose:
> 
> View attachment 512442
> Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
> ...


More scientifically unsubstantiated crap, with a big scoop of TDS mixed in.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 13, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Your reminder that science is self-correcting, based upon the accrual of empirical data, reminds us that the dogmatists who deny science are out of their depth.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> More scientifically unsubstantiated crap, with a big scoop of TDS mixed in.


You can cling to your ideological dogma.

Virtually all nations on earth (except for your Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, South Sudan) have accepted the science as confirmed by virtually every climatological body on earth.

Whether you opt to throw a hissy fit and screech _"Stupid! Stupid Stupid!"_ or _"Liar! "Liar, Liar!" _is your concern.

Your faith-based community can avail itself of the science here.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > More scientifically unsubstantiated crap, with a big scoop of TDS mixed in.
> ...



Do you have any scientific citations? ... all the links you've been posting are to educational materials written for Middle Schools ... which does explain your childish Middle School temper tantrums ... you have to hide in the Middle School Library every lunch hour because so many of your fellow students are out to beat you up ... even the cheerleaders ...

What's silly is that you keep bring up the scientific institutions in Yemen ... there are none, haven't been since the Wahabists crossed the border and began their genocide of the Yemenese people, and this started during the Obama administration ... "Thanks Obama !!!" ... the Trump Administration sold these Wahabists $108 billion in advanced weapons systems ... "Bringing jobs back to America" ... and now _Quid Pro_ Joe has donned the Presidential Knee-Pads and is actively preforming oral sex on all the Saudi Royal Family ... have we already forgotten that 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th, 2001, were in fact Saudi nationals? ... not Iraqi, not Afghani, but Saudi Arabian citizens ...

You seem ignorant of these facts ... as ignorant as you are of anything meteorological ...

Your nastiness makes you a piss-poor spokesperson for the scientific consensus ... because you're clueless as to what that scientific consensus is ... you should let climatologists speak for themselves, because we have a clear 104% consensus among them that you should shut the fuck up already ... I suppose you're advocating a reduction in CO2 emissions, starting in Yemen, right? ... and killing everyone there is a good first step ... at least Wahabists don't lie about what their about, ISIS is very clear about their goals ...


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > More scientifically unsubstantiated crap, with a big scoop of TDS mixed in.
> ...


I didn't see any science at that link.  Can you point out the science for me please?

Here's an example of some science.



			https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
		


Do you have any science like that that proves CO2 is causing runaway warming?


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

Why is it that people who are so illiterate in science are always the ones who accuse other of being illiterate in science?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:

*Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.*​​*Climate Mayorsis a bipartisan network of more than 470 U.S. mayors demonstrating climate leadership through meaningful actions in their communities. Representing 48 states and 74 million Americans, the Climate Mayors coalition reflects U.S. cities’ commitment to climate progress.*​​*The planet's changing climate has a significant effect on Defense Department missions, plans and installations. DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements.*​​*The CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security created. **The **CIA** Center on Climate Change and National Security was created as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations*​​*The regulatory review, which will be done by theFinancial Stability Oversight Council, will examine whether banks and other lending institutions are properly assessing the risks to financial stability. [Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen] chairs the committee, which includes Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other financial regulators.*​​*The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a federal program  to coordinate federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society. USGCRP facilitates collaboration and cooperation across its 13 federal member agencies to advance understanding of the changing Earth system and maximize efficiencies in federal global change research.*​​​*The US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries, with international polling finding a significant number of Americans do not believe human-driven climate change is occurring.*​​*A total of 13% of Americans polled in a 23-country survey conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project agreed with the statement that the climate is changing “but human activity is not responsible at all”. A further 5% said the climate was not changing.*​​*Only Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) had a higher proportion of people doubtful of manmade climate change.*​​[US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds]​


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Why is it that people who are so illiterate in science are always the ones who accuse other of being illiterate in science?


We know this as "projection"....It is most pronounced in those who are lacking in self-awareness. which covers the lion's share of the political left.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:
> 
> *Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.*​​*Climate Mayorsis a bipartisan network of more than 470 U.S. mayors demonstrating climate leadership through meaningful actions in their communities. Representing 48 states and 74 million Americans, the Climate Mayors coalition reflects U.S. cities’ commitment to climate progress.*​​*The planet's changing climate has a significant effect on Defense Department missions, plans and installations. DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements.*​​*The CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security created. **The **CIA** Center on Climate Change and National Security was created as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations*​​*The regulatory review, which will be done by theFinancial Stability Oversight Council, will examine whether banks and other lending institutions are properly assessing the risks to financial stability. [Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen] chairs the committee, which includes Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other financial regulators.*​​*The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a federal program  to coordinate federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society. USGCRP facilitates collaboration and cooperation across its 13 federal member agencies to advance understanding of the changing Earth system and maximize efficiencies in federal global change research.*​​​​


Panic porn isn't science.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:
> ...


It's mind boggling how they can ignore their own senses and buy into gloom and doom scenarios which their own senses tell them do not exist.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that people who are so illiterate in science are always the ones who accuse other of being illiterate in science?
> ...



The Bible addresses this ... "It's the thief who cries 'thief' first" ... human behavior well known since antiquity ... the political right isn't immune from humanity, they do the same thing ...


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Politics makes people go bat shit crazy.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change
> ...


 
Build giant corks for volcanoes then.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:
> 
> *Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.*​​*Climate Mayorsis a bipartisan network of more than 470 U.S. mayors demonstrating climate leadership through meaningful actions in their communities. Representing 48 states and 74 million Americans, the Climate Mayors coalition reflects U.S. cities’ commitment to climate progress.*​​*The planet's changing climate has a significant effect on Defense Department missions, plans and installations. DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements.*​​*The CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security created. **The **CIA** Center on Climate Change and National Security was created as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations*​​*The regulatory review, which will be done by theFinancial Stability Oversight Council, will examine whether banks and other lending institutions are properly assessing the risks to financial stability. [Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen] chairs the committee, which includes Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other financial regulators.*​​*The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a federal program  to coordinate federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society. USGCRP facilitates collaboration and cooperation across its 13 federal member agencies to advance understanding of the changing Earth system and maximize efficiencies in federal global change research.*​​​*The US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries, with international polling finding a significant number of Americans do not believe human-driven climate change is occurring.*​​*A total of 13% of Americans polled in a 23-country survey conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project agreed with the statement that the climate is changing “but human activity is not responsible at all”. A further 5% said the climate was not changing.*​​*Only Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) had a higher proportion of people doubtful of manmade climate change.*​​[US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds]​



Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.

Your appeal to that simply says that the U.S. is the one thing keeping us from making some seriously stupid decisions.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:
> ...


They actually don't.  At least not according to their Paris accord pledges anyway.  It's all greenwashing to appease the environazis.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> 
> Your appeal to that simply says that the U.S. is the one thing keeping us from making some seriously stupid decisions.


The United Sates, along with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, are the hotbeds of science denialism, but that does not mean that the fringe element of dogmatic ideologues, impervious to the ever-mounting evidence, is anything more than that.

Whether all the world's scientific institutions, academies, and societies are _corrupt_ or are all_ ignorant_ regarding the science, - either way duping virtually all the nations on earth who have ratified the Paris Agreement - is a comprehensive paranoia, indeed.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...


What part of there is no science to deny don't you understand?

Here is some science on the subject.  Do you have any science like this?



			https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...


The Paris accord is a joke.  Did you even read it?


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...


Seriously dude, you are exactly like the sheep in Animal Farm.  Did you ever read that book?

You'll be chanting something else just as soon as they tell you what to chant and it will probably even be exactly the opposite of what you are chanting now.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

Coincidence?  I think not.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

stooge:  a person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.

When Representative John Curtis quietly approached fellow Republicans to invite them to discuss climate change at a clandestine meeting in his home state of Utah, he hoped a half dozen members might attend.​
Soon the guest list blew past expectations as lawmakers heard about the gathering and asked to be included. For two days in February, 24 Republicans gathered in a ballroom of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City where they brainstormed ways to get their party to engage on a planetary problem it has ignored for decades.​​_“Some came with the promise of being anonymous. It’s terrible that Republicans can’t even go talk about it without being embarrassed,”_ Mr. Curtis said in an interview.​​

_*"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese *_​*in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."*​​For four years underTrump, even uttering the phrase_ “climate change”_ was verboten for many Republicans. His administration scrubbed the words from federal websites, tried to censor testimony to Congress and mocked the science linking rising fossil fuel emissions to a warming planet.​​Now, many in the Republican Party are coming to terms with what polls have been saying for years: independents, suburban voters and especially young Republicans are worried about climate change and want the government to take action.​​_“There is a recognition within the G.O.P. that if the party is going to be competitive in national elections, in purple states and purple districts, there needs to be some type of credible position on climate change”_ said George David Banks, a former adviser to Trump...​​[Some Republicans Find Failure to Grapple With Climate Change a ‘Political Liability’]​​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

ding said:


> View attachment 512691
> 
> Coincidence?  I think not.


Your impotence in contriving a credible refutation of science may well induce you to lash out in _ad hominem_ desperation.

I cite the consensus of reputable folks, and that upsets you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science…



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 512691
> ...


The experiment that was performed on back radiation and peer reviewed is the ONLY science that has been done to date on the subject.  Let me know when your supposedly credible sources do some actual science.

Cause right now.... YOU are the science denying zealot.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I cite the consensus of reputable folks, and that upsets you.


Who have done zero experiments to measure back radiation of CO2, right?  

Where is your science, science denier?


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 512691
> ...


Given the title of YOUR thread it's ironic that you are accusing me of an ad hominem attack.

Your whole thread is an ad hominem attack.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The remnant of hardcore ideologue in denial of science can pleasure themselves with their dogma, but, as a_ practical_ matter, the reality of anthropogenic clime change_ is_ being confronted by responsible people:
> 
> *Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.*​​*Climate Mayorsis a bipartisan network of more than 470 U.S. mayors demonstrating climate leadership through meaningful actions in their communities. Representing 48 states and 74 million Americans, the Climate Mayors coalition reflects U.S. cities’ commitment to climate progress.*​​*The planet's changing climate has a significant effect on Defense Department missions, plans and installations. DOD is elevating climate change as a national security priority, integrating climate considerations into policies, strategies and partner engagements.*​​*The CIA Center on Climate Change and National Security created. **The **CIA** Center on Climate Change and National Security was created as a primary producer of finished intelligence on the national security implications of climate change, including its impact on the political, economic, and social stability of foreign nations*​​*The regulatory review, which will be done by theFinancial Stability Oversight Council, will examine whether banks and other lending institutions are properly assessing the risks to financial stability. [Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen] chairs the committee, which includes Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other financial regulators.*​​*The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a federal program  to coordinate federal research and investments in understanding the forces shaping the global environment, both human and natural, and their impacts on society. USGCRP facilitates collaboration and cooperation across its 13 federal member agencies to advance understanding of the changing Earth system and maximize efficiencies in federal global change research.*​​​*The US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries, with international polling finding a significant number of Americans do not believe human-driven climate change is occurring.*​​*A total of 13% of Americans polled in a 23-country survey conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project agreed with the statement that the climate is changing “but human activity is not responsible at all”. A further 5% said the climate was not changing.*​​*Only Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) had a higher proportion of people doubtful of manmade climate change.*​​[US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds]​



Ha ha ha, no science visible, but a lot of government funded organizations and programs to enhance governmental power over sheep's like you.

The copy and paste master you are!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...



What science is being denied, this means YOU have to post the science research YOU claim are being denied.

Let's see if you can do it......


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > go to China and fix the problem and then let us know how you made out when you get out of prison.
> ...





I see you are projecting again.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.
> 
> ... Now, many in the Republican Party are coming to terms with what polls have been saying for years: independents, suburban voters and especially young Republicans are worried about climate change and want the government to take action.​​[Some Republicans Find Failure to Grapple With Climate Change a ‘Political Liability’]​​


Expect to see Republicans increasingly respecting the science, recognizing the crisis, and joining in measure to mitigate the consequences.

*The U.S. Senate recently passed the bipartisan Growing Climate Solutions Act by a 92-8 margin.* This measure to provide access to carbon markets so that farmers can be rewarded for climate-smart farming methods has now also been introduced into the House with 15 Republican and 19 Democratic cosponsors...​​As ranking minority member of the Agriculture Committee, Thompson (R) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Examiner in April promoting the role of agriculture in addressing climate change: _“To mitigate climate change and bolster rural economies, we must engage and empower the original stewards of our land and give them the tools to expand upon the work they are already carrying out day to day. This means greater access to affordable technologies and proven land management practices to harness the carbon-reducing potential of our farms and ranches while increasing their bottom lines and economic competitiveness.”_​​Enhanced agricultural techniques and better forest management are welcome. But we cannot stop climate change by increasing carbon sinks alone. We must reduce emissions by doing many different things at the same time and quickly. *The measures Republicans are taking in the agricultural sector nonetheless give hope because they indicate a recognition of the issue and a growing spirit of cooperation in addressing this difficult problem.*​​[https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article252667948.html]​


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.
> ...


CO2 is not causing climate change, dummy.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.
> ...



This is POLITICS, has no science in it, you are easily suckered by government power moves over you.

Another copy and paste post.

You must have a nice singing voice, Baa baa.... baaaaaah


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 14, 2021)

I see that Schmidlap has ignored my request:



> What science is being denied, this means YOU have to post the science research YOU claim are being denied.
> 
> Let's see if you can do it......



He will neeeevr do it because he is a "believer" without knowing what the heck AGW conjecture is about. He ignored these three questions several times now that I have asked this galoot:

What is the AGW conjecture?

What is the NULL Hypothesis?

What is the Scientific Method?

This is a low IQ human being who keeps ignoring many questions and evidence, and fails to realize he is a *copy and paste parrot*, can't make a science based comments in his own words.

He is on my list of the worst warmist/alarmists science illiterates I have met over the years, he is now on my ignore list.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...



You are asking if they are corrupt ?

Certainly, they are quick to cancel anyone who disagrees with them.

So your consensus is a joke.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.
> 
> When Representative John Curtis quietly approached fellow Republicans to invite them to discuss climate change at a clandestine meeting in his home state of Utah, he hoped a half dozen members might attend.​
> Soon the guest list blew past expectations as lawmakers heard about the gathering and asked to be included. For two days in February, 24 Republicans gathered in a ballroom of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City where they brainstormed ways to get their party to engage on a planetary problem it has ignored for decades.​​_“Some came with the promise of being anonymous. It’s terrible that Republicans can’t even go talk about it without being embarrassed,”_ Mr. Curtis said in an interview.​​​View attachment 512697​_*"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese *_​*in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."*​
> ​For four years underTrump, even uttering the phrase_ “climate change”_ was verboten for many Republicans. His administration scrubbed the words from federal websites, tried to censor testimony to Congress and mocked the science linking rising fossil fuel emissions to a warming planet.​​Now, many in the Republican Party are coming to terms with what polls have been saying for years: independents, suburban voters and especially young Republicans are worried about climate change and want the government to take action.​​_“There is a recognition within the G.O.P. that if the party is going to be competitive in national elections, in purple states and purple districts, there needs to be some type of credible position on climate change”_ said George David Banks, a former adviser to Trump...​​[Some Republicans Find Failure to Grapple With Climate Change a ‘Political Liability’]​​



We can discuss climate change all day long.

It is this silly concept of AGW that the GOP isn't willing to buy into.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> This is POLITICS, has no science


Yes, indeed. Politicians are increasingly deferring to science over ideology as the understanding of anthropogenic climate change increases. For elected officials to persist in ignoring the science would be disastrous.

A significant majority of the public, 61%, now grasp that _ “the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity,”_ and education must continue.

Meanwhile, the compilation of data needed to better assess it advances. Increasingly accurate and timely data analysis is essential.

NASA, ESA Partner in New Effort to Address Global Climate Change​July 13, 2021​​NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) have formed a first-of-its-kind strategic partnership to observe Earth and its changing environment. The global climate is rapidly changing and the demand for accurate, timely, and actionable knowledge is more pressing than ever. Recognizing that* climate change is an urgent global challenge,* the timing is right for *NASA and ESA*, as partners in space, t*o join forces to lead and support a global response to climate change*. *The partnership is an effort to help address and mitigate climate change* through monitoring Earth with combined efforts of both agencies in Earth science observations, research, and applications.​​*“Climate change is an all-hands-on deck, global challenge that requires action – now,”* said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “NASA and ESA are leading the way in space, building an unprecedented strategic partnership in Earth science. This agreement will set the standard for future international collaboration, providing the information that is so essential for tackling the challenges posed by climate change and helping to answer and address the most pressing questions in Earth science for the benefit of the United States, Europe, and the world.”...​​_*“Together, NASA and ESA provide most of the world’s Earth science coverage through our Earth-observing satellites,”*_ said Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA associate administrator for science. *“This transformative agreement will build on that capability, forging a critical international climate science partnership to tackle the most challenging climate questions in an integrated and strategic way.* Not only will NASA and ESA work together to deliver unparalleled Earth science observations, research, and applications, but all of our findings will also be free and open for the benefit of the entire world as *we work together to combat and mitigate climate change.”*​​NASA and ESA have a long and successful history working together to understand climate change. In 2020, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and European partners, including ESA, launched the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite, which is collecting the most accurate data yet on global sea level and how oceans are rising in response to climate change. The mission also is collecting data of atmospheric temperature and humidity that will help improve climate models and weather forecasts.​​*“Without doubt, space is the best vantage point to measure and monitor climate change, but joining forces is also key to tackling this global issue,”* said Josef Aschbacher, ESA director general...​​In May, NASA announced its Earth System Observatory, which will design a new set of Earth-focused missions to provide key information to guide efforts related to climate change, disaster mitigation, fighting forest fires, and improving real-time agricultural processes. ​​Climate adaptation and mitigation efforts cannot succeed without robust climate observations and research. NASA has more than two dozen satellites and instruments observing how the planet is changing and measuring key climate indicators, such as the height of oceans and inland waters, clouds and precipitation, and carbon dioxide.​​]NASA, ESA Partner in New Effort to Address Global Climate Change]​​​​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Who have done zero experiments to measure back radiation of CO2, right?


Your ideology seems to compel you to rage against the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic clime change.

Is it your conviction that you know more about climate than the world's climatologists, or that they are all complicit in a vast conspiracy to deceive you for mysterious reasons? If the latter, _why _do you imagine they all want to fool you?

Do you trust self-interested dirty fuel interests like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, or the American Chemistry Council to tell you the truth? If so, why?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Who have done zero experiments to measure back radiation of CO2, right?
> ...


*Your ideology seems to compel you to....*

More projection.


schmidlap said:


> Is it your conviction that you know more about climate than the world's climatologists, or that they are all complicit in a vast conspiracy to deceive you for mysterious reasons? If the latter, _why _do you imagine they all want to fool you?


More eppeal to authority, with no scientific backup.



schmidlap said:


> Do you trust self-interested dirty fuel interests like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, or the American Chemistry Council to tell you the truth? If so, why?


Begging the question and ad hominem.

You really suck at this thing known as "debate", Schmendrick.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> More eppeal to authority, with no scientific backup.


If you need to pretend that you are an authority concerning anthropogenic climate change, please provide your credentials, and list all the legitimate scientific academies, societies, and other scientific organizations that recognize and support you.

I have provided my extensive list of those that confirm the reality.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Who have done zero experiments to measure back radiation of CO2, right?
> ...


I'm surprised you didn't implode from the irony of you calling me an ideologue.  My ideology is truth.  Yours is politics. 

Man very well may be affecting the climate of the planet but it is NOT due to CO2 emissions.  There is literally zero evidence to support that assertion. 

My conviction is that I studied the earth's climate and climatologists study computer models which are not calibrated and ignore the self compensating effect of water vapor and clouds and pile on positive feedbacks which do not exist.

You know absolutely nothing about any of this and think you are in a position to call others ideologues and make ad hominen attacks because they do not conform to your ideology.

My conviction is the truth.  The conviction of climatologists is money.  They only get paid for a certain answer. 

I don't rely on API, AFPM or the ACC.  I studied paleontology and geology.  I understand what drive the climate of the earth.  You don't.  You know nothing about any of this and condescend to those that do.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > More eppeal to authority, with no scientific backup.
> ...


Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.


You do not seem to be able to cite a single recognized climatological institution to sustain your ideological denial.

If you can, please do so. If you can't, you can just persist in mewling, of course.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.
> ...











						Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts
					

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.




					defyccc.com


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > More eppeal to authority, with no scientific backup.
> ...


What you provided is a cabal of mutually masurbating political hacks, not scientific authorities.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts
> 
> 
> We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.
> ...


Of _14 year_ vintage, and the majority of signatories_ not _climatologists?

Your desperation is entirely understandable.

Your desperation to contrive support for you ideological dogma induces mirth.  The National Academy held a press conference to disclaim the mailing.

The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting the names of Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls and characters from _Star Wars_, and getting them briefly included on the list.​


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 14, 2021)

Still no 

I'm still freaking out over spock


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Inevitably, ineluctably, the taboo is being vanquished and the science accepted.
> ...



What issue ?

They want to boost rural economies.

More government redistribution of wealth.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.
> ...



Recognized by who ?

You ?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts
> ...


The 31,000 number remains, Gomer Pyle.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 14, 2021)

Oddball said:


> The 31,000 number remains, Gomer Pyle.


I'll continue to respect the current consensus of climatologists, but you can go with the Spice Girls if you prefer, of course, even if the National Academy of Sciences has disavowed the wonky artifact you have excavated.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.
> ...


Read the content of what I have posted, dummy.  Elevate your game.  

You know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.  You should not be calling people who do understand the science ideologues.  YOU are the ideologue.


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to you any of us are world renowned experts on climate.
> ...


Here is your citation, dummy.



			https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...



Not too long ago, you fear whores were railing about global cooling:


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 14, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Yes, indeed. Politicians are increasingly deferring to science over ideology as the understanding of anthropogenic climate change increases. For elected officials to persist in ignoring the science would be disastrous.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## ding (Jul 14, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, indeed. Politicians are increasingly deferring to science over ideology as the understanding of anthropogenic climate change increases. For elected officials to persist in ignoring the science would be disastrous.
> ...


He's waiting for the climatologists to tell him the answer.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

marvin martian said:


> Not too long ago, you fear whores were railing about global cooling:


If you actually need to cling to_ Dr Spock,_ back in the 1970s, citing no source, telling you that you will freeze your ass off, to refute every climatological academy, society, and association on earth, you must have done a mindmeld with a tribble.


...


*"Dammit! The Fir Ball sucked out his brain!" *



.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

ding said:


> He's waiting for the climatologists to tell him the answer.


_*

*_
_*"WHAAAA!
Why are the world's climatologists
and virtually every nation on earth 
not pandering to ME???*_
*WHAAA!"*​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


You have clearly summoned all your intellectual resources in your defense of your ideological dogma vs science.

You get an _"A"_ for effort, but it still needs a little work.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> Recognized by who ?
> 
> You ?


Who_m._

No. not by_ me. _By_ these _folks:




[Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming]​

​AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES​Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations​"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2​​


American Association for the Advancement of Science​"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3​


American Chemical Society​"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4​


American Geophysical Union​"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5​


American Medical Association​"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6​


American Meteorological Society​"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7​


American Physical Society​"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8​


The Geological Society of America​"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9​
SCIENCE ACADEMIES​International Academies: Joint Statement​"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10​​


U.S. National Academy of Sciences​"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11​
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES​


U.S. Global Change Research Program​"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12​
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES​


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change​“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14​
OTHER RESOURCES​List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations​The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research​​U.S. Agencies​The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/up...daptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf​​*_Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved)._​​_As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena._​
In the interests of recognizing the opposing viewpoint:

​


----------



## ding (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > He's waiting for the climatologists to tell him the answer.
> ...





			https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
		


Let's see you deny some more science, you ideological zealot.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

ding said:


> https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see you deny some more science, you ideological zealot.


You are free to cling to whatever your dogmatic ideology demands..

The scientific community will persist in objectively dealing with the credible empirical data that has resulted in the consensus.

Take whatever solace you can derive from Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) having an even higher proportion of people denying science than the U.S., and/or Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, South Sudan remaining apostates by not having yet ratified the Paris Climate Accord.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.
> ...



*... impervious to the ever-mounting evidence ...*

Whoa ... _you have evidence of climate change?_ ... so far you've relied on political consensus ... which isn't evidence ... generally, the Alarmists use statistics, which are easily manipulated and disdained as evidence in science ... only politicians use statistics ... from "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics" we can derive "LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS" -- Benjamin Disraeli ...

For over 200 years, we had universal consensus about Newton's Laws of Gravity and Motion ... only one person dared to think otherwise ... Albert Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity was published _without_ citations ... no one had ever considered this before ... not only did Einstein provide the rigid mathematical proof of Special Relativity, the principles were easily demonstrated in any university lab ... consensus immediately changed while that edition of _Annalen der Physik_ was still warm from the presses ... if 100% of the world's scientists can change their collective mind in an instant, consensus is worthless in science ... (I only made a quick scan of the paper itself, here's the link to the English version) ...

The CO2 portion of AGW Theory lacks both these conditions ... there's a serious gap in the mathematical proof and there's no demonstration that man-kind's CO2 has anything more that a trivial effect on global temperatures ... thus I ask for this evidence no one else seems to know about ...

I don't know why my fellow denialists disdain Climatology so much ... it's certainly deeper than any biologist or chemist would understand ... what biologists or chemists learn in first year physics is all they'll every use ... anything to do with the atmosphere is physics physics physics, and all that God-awful math that goes along with physics physics physics ... fluid mechanics with heaping doses of chemistry and geology and we have meteorology ... now blend in with astrophysics and we have climatology ...

"Appealing to Authority" is a logical fallacy ... I have the deepest respect for biologists who brought us this Covid vaccine ... amazing workmanship ... but that doesn't mean I'd trust them with a sling psychrometer around children ... once we get to Navier-Stokes-land, the typical scientist pees their pants ... _this_ is the consensus you rely on? ... <sicilian voice>"morons, all of them"</sicilian voice> ...

ETA:  I should probably qualify my claims above to the English speaking world ... the Vortex Theory of the Universe held out in some places until the late 18th Century ... when absolute proof of Newton's gravity became available ... yes, France, good guess ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> I see that Schmidlap has ignored my request:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Schmiddy is the poster child for anti science religious nutbaggery.  Not one of these fools has the slightest idea of what science even is, or what makes it scientific.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
> ...






Climatology stopped being part of the science community when it abandoned the scientific method.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Recognized by who ?
> ...







Sure thing, olfraud.  They all get funding by supporting the fraud.

Leave it to an idiot, like you, to not understand how that works.


----------



## Confederate Soldier (Jul 15, 2021)

I am accepting the fact that Pluto isn't a planet.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Climatology stopped being part of the science community when it abandoned the scientific method.


Please document your alleged rejection of climatologists from the scientific community.

List all who have been expelled from the National Academy of Sciences or any other interdisciplinary scientific academy or society.

It sounds as if it is your ideological dogma that  compels you to make such fake charges.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

Confederate Soldier said:


> I am accepting the fact that Pluto isn't a planet.


The plutocrats don't care which planets recognize them and which do not.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > MadChemist said:
> ...


I expect that the science-denying ideologues will persist in attacking the world's scientific academies, societies, and organizations as well as the 197 nations and all governmental agencies  that acknowledge the science.

Their being in a tizzy has no impact upon science.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



*Their* [sic] *being in a tizzy has no impact upon science.*

Neither does consensus ... and it's "there", try not to spelt like a moron ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Climatology stopped being part of the science community when it abandoned the scientific method.
> ...






One of the leading lights of your religious movement famously said that climatology experiments didn't need to be repeatable.

That is a fundamental REQUIREMENT of the scientific method.   Fail to follow the scientific method and you are at best a pseudo science.  At worst you are a religious nutjob.

I'll let you choose which you are.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Climatology stopped being part of the science community when it abandoned the scientific method.
> ...


You already got a link to the Oregon Petition, Schmendrick.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I expect that the science-denying ideologues…



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Ummm.........but that has been so for almost 20 years. So what? What beyond symbolism has that impacted? Answer? Nothing. 

The folks who make western energy policy arent caring a lick. Here...........check the US EIA report from a few months ago.........

*https://www.eia.gov/analysis/*

The 97% "consensus" hasnt done dick in terms of impacting anything outside of the field. Its not even debatable. Only progressives spike the ball based upon symbolic stuff. Only matters who is winning and who is not.

After 20 years of the "97% consensus", solar/wind still only combine to generate less than 8% of the electricity in the US. By any measure.........laughable. And if you click that EIA report with projections out to 2040, its grim if one is a climate crusader.  

The "97%......" stuff is as valuable as a fossil in 2021. Meanwhile, the skeptics routinely get to observe the abject failure on the resume's of climate activists. Think of the millions of internet posts over the years that havent added up to dick.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


The relatively few and increasingly isolated hardcore ideologues who persist in vehemently opposing science will not sabotage the inclusive international effort to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, nor cause the scientific community worldwide to falsify its empirical data that increasingly confirms the reality.

If a few crackpots fantasize that global warming is a Chinese hoax contrived to adversely impact U.S. manufacturing, responsible folks need not be concerned about them.

Mayors, especially, are confronted by immediate and disastrous consequences of climate change, and it is not a partisan nor an ideological issue for them. It is a practical one, a growing problem that must be confronted:

Over 140 mayors from cities across the country are calling on congressional leadership today to push for aggressive climate measures in their infrastructure legislation that they say will benefit localities. The group, which ranges from the heads of country’s 10 most populous cities to the leaders of small rural towns, wrote to the lawmakers to press them to address climate change through the lens of equity as the country emerges from the pandemic.​​*“The climate and equity crises we face are interrelated *and have been compounded by Covid-19, and therefore must be addressed through collaborative, holistic thinking and bold, innovative ideas,” the mayors write. The signatories are members of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group that formed in 2014 and ballooned following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.​​*The mayors outlined a host of climate measures,* focusing on expanding programs that directly finance cities, promote job quality and help disadvantaged communities. Among the items is at least $4 billion in direct appropriation on top of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities funding to reduce communities’ risks to natural disasters and hazards and at least $200 million to support community development and implementation of wildfire defense plans — just as wildfires ravage a dozen Western states.​​[Mayors push climate infrastructure action]​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

The crackpots on the fringe cannot be allowed to compromise the security of the United States over their silly notion that they are licensed to poop into the heavens with impunity:



*"Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis.*
* We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. *
*The climate crisis does. Climate change is making the world more unsafe and we need to act."*
[Defense Secretary Calls Climate Change an Existential Threat]​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



You haven't answered my question ... why do you put so much trust in biologists and chemists in matters wholly unrelated to their field of expertise? ... do you also get investment advise from a fast food workers? ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The crackpots on the fringe cannot be allowed to compromise the security of the United States over their silly notion that they are licensed to poop into the heavens with impunity:
> View attachment 513152
> *"Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis.*
> * We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. *
> ...







I love your use of language.  Very nazi like.  

Hello Nazi!


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


The appropriate question for an ideological denialist is _"Why do you imagine that you know more about climate than climatologists?"_

Besides the understandable concerns of the nations mayors confronting the immediate consequences, and the U.S Department of Defense necessarily attuned to the national security repercussions,_ agriculture_ is, obviously, seriously impacted.



Agriculture in a Changing Climate​Changes in climate and extreme weather have already occurred and are increasing challenges for agriculture nationally and globally. Many of the impacts are expected to continue or intensify in the future. Because of the sensitivity of agriculture to weather and climate conditions, these impacts can have substantial direct and indirect effects on farm production and profitability.​The effects of a changing climate and climate variability are already being seen across the Midwest Region; over the past century, temperatures have risen across all seasons, growing seasons have become longer, precipitation patterns have changed, and extreme precipitation events have increased in frequency and severity. The impact of climate on agricultural production in the Midwest varies among years particularly in grain, vegetable, and fruit production. The diversity of the annual and perennial crops across the Midwest creates a range of responses to climate and weather. One of the goals of the Midwest Climate Hub is to work with each of these different commodities to determine the impacts that different conditions have on production.​Climate impacts on livestock and agricultural production are detectable via data-based observations in the United States. The following links give more information on these changes and observations....​​[Agriculture in a Changing Climate | USDA Climate Hubs]​


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...







The claim that the "precipitation events" are increasing in severity, and frequency is an outright lie.  Anyone who has bothered to to read the historical record would laugh at this claim.

Here's an example of a "precipitation event" that dwarfs ANYTHING we have witnessed in the 20th, or 21st centuries.  Yet you idiots trot your lies out and expect thinking people to believe you.  You ignorant baboons are a disgrace to science.

California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe​A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again

Geologic evidence shows that truly massive floods, caused by rainfall alone, have occurred in California every 100 to 200 years. Such floods are likely caused by atmospheric rivers: narrow bands of water vapor about a mile above the ocean that extend for thousands of kilometers.

The atmospheric river storms featured in a January 2013 article in _Scientific American_ that I co-wrote with Michael Dettinger, The Coming Megafloods, are responsible for most of the largest historical floods in many western states. The only megaflood to strike the American West in recent history occurred during the winter of 1861-62. California bore the brunt of the damage. This disaster turned enormous regions of the state into inland seas for months, and took thousands of human lives. The costs were devastating: one quarter of California’s economy was destroyed, forcing the state into bankruptcy.









						California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe
					

A 43-day storm that began in December 1861 put central and southern California underwater for up to six months, and it could happen again




					www.scientificamerican.com


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


You must immediately enlighten all scientific academies, societies, and institutions throughout the world, and all the agencies and departments of all the governments throughout the word that they have been duped by a pervasive, mysterious conspiracy, but that you are privy to the truth that eludes them all, and that you are eager to share your exceptional perspicacity with them all.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...






You must go fuck yourself.  You are a semi sentient toad.  I just gave you historical fact that blows the claims of the climatologists right out of the water.

An honest person, which you are not, would say "hey, thank you.  I was not aware of those facts" but you resort to non sequitur attacks like the intellectual cripple you are.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> You must go fuck yourself.  You are a semi sentient toad.  I just gave you historical fact that blows the claims of the climatologists right out of the water.
> 
> An honest person, which you are not, would say "hey, thank you.  I was not aware of those facts" but you resort to non sequitur attacks like the intellectual cripple you are.


Whatever data you evoke for your ideological dogma in denial of science has not been concealed from legitimate climatologists, scientists, or the community of nations. All legitimate and relevant empirical data is integrated into their analysis. Your cherry-picked, self-serving snippets are no substitute.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​​2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​​3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​
You may become flustered and need to rage and spew your vituperations, but please try to control yourself, be civil,  and attempt to address these entreaties to be rational.


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Recognized by who ?
> ...


Correlation does not prove causation, dummy.

Where is the science?


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
> ...


Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

ding said:


> Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?


if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​​2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​​3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?
> ...


Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?



			https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf
		


The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

ding said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are entitled to your ideological dogma, but your pretense that you are privy to vital data that mysteriously eludes all climatological associations, academies, and societies, all the scientific institutions, and all the nations on earth is a bit much.

Doesn't maintaining such a crackpot insistence make you feel very, very silly?


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

dipschmidt is a prime example of a brainwashed dupe of communism.  I know some of you may not be able to make that connection but I assure you that connection exists even if dipschmidt doesn't believe he supports communism.


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

America has become communism lite.


----------



## ding (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...


You are a political ideologue, dipschmidt. 

Here is the only science that has been done, dummy. 


https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. *Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.*


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



_"Why do you imagine that you know more about climate than climatologists?"_

First off ... climatology is easy to understand ... statistics involves basic arithmetic ... any amateur astronomer will know enough about radiative physics to understand all this about the greenhouse effect ... I guess we'll need high school algebra to derive the form of SB we're using ... there's on-line calculators that will give you fourth roots if your wrist watch doesn't ... dynamic meteorology is difficult ... only stupid people resort to a climatology degree because third year calculus is too hard for them, poor babies ... 

You haven't even bothered to understand ... which makes you look totally ignorant ... I'm sorry, just about all climatologists interviewed on tofu-puking NPR all say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I don't know either, that makes me as smart as climatologists ... you accept the word of some biologist ... how stupid is that? ...

Now you're posting the opinions of farmers ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?
> ...



*3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.*

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Every reputable climatological organization on earth supported by every scientific one, have confirmed the impact of anthropogenic global warming to the satisfaction of virtually ever nation on earth. Even your Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan are signatories to the Paris Accord, even if they have yet to ratify it.

Why can't to get their attention with your astounding exposition of such monumental fraud and/or error?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Yes, anthropogenic climate change is a matter of great concern for farmers, and so the Department of Agriculture, like the Department of Defense, Commerce, and other responsible entities, like the hundreds of mayors throughout America, are conscientiously attempting to mitigate the scientific reality.

[Climate Change and Agriculture]

For them to defer to a crackpot ideological fringe rather than heed the global consensus of experts would be criminally negligent.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Which point on Earth's surface are you referring to? ...

Please provide your confirmation of AGW ... climatologists say there is none yet ...

*3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.*

Please provide these documents ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is tracking the largest of these disasters. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained close to 300 major weather-related events with a total cost close to $2 trillion. In 2020, 22 such events occurred, and the cost of dealing with them was $95 billion. What would be the cost of prevention? A 2020 report by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projected that a global investment of $110 trillion in decarbonization by 2050 would set the world on a sustainable growth path (and allow the recouping of many of these initial costs). The U.S. share of this total would probably come out to about $30 trillion.



$2 trillion in weather costs between 1980-2020 is awful!!!!

We need to do something now. Today!!!
Quick, let's spend $30 trillion by 2050 ($1 trillion a year).

You assholes are bad at science and AWFUL at accounting.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...*

After that, tell the class, under no uncertain terms, what the perfect temperature would/should be.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You must go fuck yourself.  You are a semi sentient toad.  I just gave you historical fact that blows the claims of the climatologists right out of the water.
> ...







Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T  monetarily benefit from the fraud.

We'll wait.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T  monetarily benefit from the fraud.


I am unaware if the world's climatological and other scientific organizations, all the signatories to the Paris Accord, hundreds of U.S. mayors, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, or others are all being paid off by the dirty fuel cartel, but it sounds paranoid.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

Oddball said:


> *Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...*
> 
> After that, tell the class, under no uncertain terms, what the perfect temperature would/should be.


Rather than make up a snippet fake criteria, why not reference global expertise and the vast amount of data the most knowledgable and experienced have accrued and analyzed? The consensus is quite significant.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T  monetarily benefit from the fraud.
> ...




I  asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.

GO!

And it is quite apparent that you are unaware.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> I  asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.


All lof them. Why did you think that was a tough question?

Oh, I get it. Every person and organization on your own side is corrupt. Your side runs entirely on bribe money and paid propaganda, so you project your own lifestyle on to that of moral people.

Always remember that we are not like you. Your side's corruption and immorality is unique to your side.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

I wouldn't be surprised if there are also crackpots whose ideological dogma compels them to rave against lepidopterists, vulcanologists, cardiologists - or experts in any other scientific discipline.

It's odd, but some folks are just not rational in such matters.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...*
> ...



*why not reference global expertise and the vast amount of data the most knowledgable and experienced have accrued and analyzed?*

Yes ... please ... provide us with all this data ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 16, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


It is readily available to you. To begin, you might find NASA  informative.

If you believe that you know more about climate than climatologists, there is nothing that I can provide that will help you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is readily available to you. To begin, you might find NASA informative.
> 
> If you believe that you know more about climate than climatologists, there is nothing that I can provide that will help you.


  If you believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, if you're even willing to entertain the idea that he might plausibly be a woman, then there is nothing that any sane person can tell you that will help you.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2021)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I  asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.
> ...








You are correct.  They ALL get money for supporting the fraud.  So why should i believe anything that they have to say?

They are being paid to lie.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if there are also crackpots whose ideological dogma compels them to rave against lepidopterists, vulcanologists, cardiologists - or experts in any other scientific discipline.
> 
> It's odd, but some folks are just not rational in such matters.






Non sequiturs don't help you.  You are doing nothing more than claiming we have to sacrifice virgins to the volcano god.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



*It is readily available to you. To begin, you might find NASA  informative.*

Thank you ... that page says temperatures have risen 2.1ºF (= 1ºC) in the past 140 years ... where has climate changed? ... we're only expecting another 4ºF (=2ºC) rise over the next 100 years according to the latest IPCC report ... something we experience almost every morning ...

NASA should send this to a reputable scientific journal for publishing ... see if it survives the peer-review process ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 16, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> If you believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, if you're even willing to entertain the idea that he might plausibly be a woman, then there is nothing that any sane person can tell you that will help you.


So gender science is also something you're completely ignorant of. I understand. You fascist cult woujld toss you out if you weren't completely ignorant of everything. Your stupidity is well-rounded, so you're a denier as well. You fall for every bit of nonsense that your cult feeds you.

You deniers all need to try to grasp that you're the retards here, across a broad spectrum of topics. It would make your lives so much simpler. You won't have to engage in any conspiracy theories if you just gain the awareness that you've been the paste-eaters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, if you're even willing to entertain the idea that he might plausibly be a woman, then there is nothing that any sane person can tell you that will help you.
> ...



Gender science?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 16, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So gender science is also something you're completely ignorant of. I understand. You fascist cult woujld toss you out if you weren't completely ignorant of everything. Your stupidity is well-rounded, so you're a denier as well. You fall for every bit of nonsense that your cult feeds you.
> ...



  It's exactly as I said earlier in this thread, as I've been saying wherever else it comes up, and the point with which I've been trying to hit SHITlap…



Bob Blaylock said:


> It always needs to be pointed out, whenever anyone on the left *wrong* makes any attempt to lay any claim to _“science”_, that theirs is the _“science”_ that asserts that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 16, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman, if you're even willing to entertain the idea that he might plausibly be a woman, then there is nothing that any sane person can tell you that will help you.
> ...



*So gender science is also something you're completely ignorant of.*

Actually ... it's more about linguistics ... words have gender ... people have sex ... that's where babies come from ... [giggle] ...


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 16, 2021)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I  asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.
> ...



Now that was rich.

Remind us again how Al Gore peddles a bike to his climate fear monger activities.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 16, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Going to start putting corks in cow's rear ends, are they ?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 17, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*Going to start putting corks in cow's rear ends, are they ?*

<nitpick>

Cows belch methane ... this has to do with their ruminant stomach ...

</nitpick>


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 17, 2021)

The increase in severe weather events comport with climatological forecasts. Catastrophic flooding in Europe and conflagrations in the Northwestern United States will require extensive scientific analysis to assess the extent to which the reality of anthropological climate change contributed, but such natural disasters do nothing to sustain the remnant of ideologues in their pathological denial.

One certitude, given the impact of the documented increase in extremes - droughts, downpours, more frequent and severe heatwaves, hurricanes, blizzards, etc., is that willful ignorance would come with a devastating cost if normal folks were to ignore science and substitute ideology. Fortunately, rigorous, dispassionate study will not be impeded by the strident revilements of the raging dissenters.

Studies have shown an increase in extreme downpours as the world warms, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed group that reports on the science and impacts of global warming, has said that the frequency of these events will increase as temperatures continue to rise...​​Dr. van Oldenborgh is one of the primary scientists with World Weather Attribution, a loose-knit group that quickly analyzes specific extreme weather events with regard to any climate-change impact. He said the group, which just finished a rapid analysis of the heat wave that struck the Pacific Northwest in late June, was discussing whether they would study the German floods.​​One reason for stronger downpours has to do with basic physics: warmer air holds more moisture, making it more likely that a specific storm will produce more precipitation. The world has warmed by a little more than 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 19th century, when societies began pumping huge amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.​​For every 1 Celsius degree of warming, air can hold 7 percent more moisture. As a result, said Hayley Fowler, a professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University in England, “These kinds of storm events will increase in intensity.”​​And although it is still a subject of debate, there are studies that suggest rapid warming in the Arctic is affecting the jet stream, by reducing the temperature difference between northern and southern parts of the Northern Hemisphere. One effect in summer and fall, Dr. Fowler said, is that the high-altitude, globe-circling air current is weakening and slowing down.​​“That means the storms have to move more slowly,” Dr. Fowler said. The storm that caused the recent flooding was practically stationary, she noted. The combination of more moisture and a stalled storm system can lead to extra-heavy rains over a given area.​​Kai Kornhuber, a climate scientist with the Earth Institute of Columbia University, said that his and his colleagues’ research, and papers from other scientists, drew similar conclusions about slowing weather systems. “They all point in the same direction — that the summertime mid-latitude circulation, the jet stream, is slowing down and constitutes a more persistent weather pattern” that means extreme events like heat waves and pounding rains are likely to go on and on...​​The European storm is “part of this bigger picture of extremes we’ve been seeing all along the Northern Hemisphere this summer,” she said, which include the heat in the American West and Pacific Northwest, intense rainfall and cooler temperatures in the Midwest, and heat waves in Scandinavia and Siberia.​​“It’s never in isolation when it comes to an odd configuration of the jet stream,” Dr. Francis said. “One extreme in one place is always accompanied by extremes of different types.”​​“It is all connected, and it’s all the same story, really,” she added.​​[‘It Is All Connected’: Extreme Weather in the Age of Climate Change]​​​Whether a science hater sputters against_ all_ of science, or focuses his ire upon microbiologists, geologists, botanists, biophysics, or the plethora of practitioners of other scientific disciplines including medical specialties, is certainly peculiar, but hardly impactful as the world's scientific bodies persist in the advancement of their specializations, and that knowledge they accrue benefits _all_ - even those whose dogma compels them to rail against it.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 17, 2021)

Maybe the ideological crackpots, in their anti-science frenzy, can be gently redirected to attack _astrobiologists_ or _rheumatologists _for a while, and give climatologists a break. Surely, they have a plethora of disciplines to choose from.




*"Come out of there! We know you're a board-certified proctologist!"*​


----------



## mamooth (Jul 17, 2021)

MadChemist said:


> Remind us again how Al Gore peddles a bike to his climate fear monger activities.


Gore Rule invoked. Whenever some crybaby loser brings up Gore, they forfeit the thread their side.

Those who can talk about the issues, do. Those who are helpless propaganda patsies, they focus on politicians.

Needless to say, you almost never see a liberal talking about Gore or any politician when the issue is climate science. We can talk about the science, so we do.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 17, 2021)

mamooth said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> > Remind us again how Al Gore peddles a bike to his climate fear monger activities.
> ...



Gore provided as a answer to your stupid unsupported claim about one-sided corruption.

Maybe you need to up the dosage of your ADD meds.

The entire post I countered was NOTHING BUT PROPAGANDA and one of the articles of faith of the brainless left.

Nice attempt at deflection.


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The increase in severe weather events comport with climatological forecasts. Catastrophic flooding in Europe and conflagrations in the Northwestern United States will require extensive scientific analysis to assess the extent to which the reality of anthropological climate change contributed, but such natural disasters do nothing to sustain the remnant of ideologues in their pathological denial.
> 
> One certitude, given the impact of the documented increase in extremes - droughts, downpours, more frequent and severe heatwaves, hurricanes, blizzards, etc., is that willful ignorance would come with a devastating cost if normal folks were to ignore science and substitute ideology. Fortunately, rigorous, dispassionate study will not be impeded by the strident revilements of the raging dissenters.
> 
> Studies have shown an increase in extreme downpours as the world warms, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed group that reports on the science and impacts of global warming, has said that the frequency of these events will increase as temperatures continue to rise...​​Dr. van Oldenborgh is one of the primary scientists with World Weather Attribution, a loose-knit group that quickly analyzes specific extreme weather events with regard to any climate-change impact. He said the group, which just finished a rapid analysis of the heat wave that struck the Pacific Northwest in late June, was discussing whether they would study the German floods.​​One reason for stronger downpours has to do with basic physics: warmer air holds more moisture, making it more likely that a specific storm will produce more precipitation. The world has warmed by a little more than 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 19th century, when societies began pumping huge amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.​​For every 1 Celsius degree of warming, air can hold 7 percent more moisture. As a result, said Hayley Fowler, a professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University in England, “These kinds of storm events will increase in intensity.”​​And although it is still a subject of debate, there are studies that suggest rapid warming in the Arctic is affecting the jet stream, by reducing the temperature difference between northern and southern parts of the Northern Hemisphere. One effect in summer and fall, Dr. Fowler said, is that the high-altitude, globe-circling air current is weakening and slowing down.​​“That means the storms have to move more slowly,” Dr. Fowler said. The storm that caused the recent flooding was practically stationary, she noted. The combination of more moisture and a stalled storm system can lead to extra-heavy rains over a given area.​​Kai Kornhuber, a climate scientist with the Earth Institute of Columbia University, said that his and his colleagues’ research, and papers from other scientists, drew similar conclusions about slowing weather systems. “They all point in the same direction — that the summertime mid-latitude circulation, the jet stream, is slowing down and constitutes a more persistent weather pattern” that means extreme events like heat waves and pounding rains are likely to go on and on...​​The European storm is “part of this bigger picture of extremes we’ve been seeing all along the Northern Hemisphere this summer,” she said, which include the heat in the American West and Pacific Northwest, intense rainfall and cooler temperatures in the Midwest, and heat waves in Scandinavia and Siberia.​​“It’s never in isolation when it comes to an odd configuration of the jet stream,” Dr. Francis said. “One extreme in one place is always accompanied by extremes of different types.”​​“It is all connected, and it’s all the same story, really,” she added.​​[‘It Is All Connected’: Extreme Weather in the Age of Climate Change]​​​Whether a science hater sputters against_ all_ of science, or focuses his ire upon microbiologists, geologists, botanists, biophysics, or the plethora of practitioners of other scientific disciplines including medical specialties, is certainly peculiar, but hardly impactful as the world's scientific bodies persist in the advancement of their specializations, and that knowledge they accrue benefits _all_ - even those whose dogma compels them to rail against it.



This from the same crew that said the gulf would be devastated by dozens of hurricanes each year.


----------



## cnm (Jul 17, 2021)

> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​


Looks like the MAGA morons still haven't got the message.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 17, 2021)

As the evidence accrues, hardcore ideologues become increasingly hysterical in the face of the empirical data:

When professor Dieter Gerten learned that his home village was one of many hit with torrential rains and severe flooding this week, he was devastated, but not entirely surprised.​​_“These sorts of events are totally what is expected due to climate projections for the past 30 years, which have said there will be a higher intensity and frequency of heat waves, of droughts and of strong rain events”_ ...​​Gerten acknowledged it was _"not easy or possible to link a single event to climate change.” _However, he said, it was _“possible to link a series of events, as well as the increasing frequency and the increasing intensity.”_​​Pointing to the recent record-breaking deadly heat wave that affected parts of the western United States and Canada earlier this month, he said the frequency of such weather events could increase if the global community does not do more to combat climate change.​​Experts have cautioned that it is too soon to directly blame the floods on climate change, but the science is clear that such disasters could become more common due to its impact.​​German politicians, including President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, have nonetheless called for greater efforts to combat global warming.​​“Only if we decisively take up the fight against climate change will we be able to limit the extreme weather conditions we are now experiencing,” he said Friday.​​['Climate change has arrived': Deadly flooding in Europe makes future impossible to ignore]​​_Acknowledging the opposing viewpoint:_
_

_​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> One certitude, given the impact of the documented increase in extremes - droughts, downpours, more frequent and severe heatwaves, hurricanes, blizzards, etc.,



More severe than the 1200s? Than the 800s BC? Than the 3000s BC?

Maybe you have a NASA link with proof?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The increase in severe weather events comport with climatological forecasts. Catastrophic flooding in Europe and conflagrations in the Northwestern United States will require extensive scientific analysis to assess the extent to which the reality of anthropological climate change contributed, but such natural disasters do nothing to sustain the remnant of ideologues in their pathological denial.
> 
> One certitude, given the impact of the documented increase in extremes - droughts, downpours, more frequent and severe heatwaves, hurricanes, blizzards, etc., is that willful ignorance would come with a devastating cost if normal folks were to ignore science and substitute ideology. Fortunately, rigorous, dispassionate study will not be impeded by the strident revilements of the raging dissenters.
> 
> Studies have shown an increase in extreme downpours as the world warms, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed group that reports on the science and impacts of global warming, has said that the frequency of these events will increase as temperatures continue to rise...​​Dr. van Oldenborgh is one of the primary scientists with World Weather Attribution, a loose-knit group that quickly analyzes specific extreme weather events with regard to any climate-change impact. He said the group, which just finished a rapid analysis of the heat wave that struck the Pacific Northwest in late June, was discussing whether they would study the German floods.​​One reason for stronger downpours has to do with basic physics: warmer air holds more moisture, making it more likely that a specific storm will produce more precipitation. The world has warmed by a little more than 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 19th century, when societies began pumping huge amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.​​For every 1 Celsius degree of warming, air can hold 7 percent more moisture. As a result, said Hayley Fowler, a professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University in England, “These kinds of storm events will increase in intensity.”​​And although it is still a subject of debate, there are studies that suggest rapid warming in the Arctic is affecting the jet stream, by reducing the temperature difference between northern and southern parts of the Northern Hemisphere. One effect in summer and fall, Dr. Fowler said, is that the high-altitude, globe-circling air current is weakening and slowing down.​​“That means the storms have to move more slowly,” Dr. Fowler said. The storm that caused the recent flooding was practically stationary, she noted. The combination of more moisture and a stalled storm system can lead to extra-heavy rains over a given area.​​Kai Kornhuber, a climate scientist with the Earth Institute of Columbia University, said that his and his colleagues’ research, and papers from other scientists, drew similar conclusions about slowing weather systems. “They all point in the same direction — that the summertime mid-latitude circulation, the jet stream, is slowing down and constitutes a more persistent weather pattern” that means extreme events like heat waves and pounding rains are likely to go on and on...​​The European storm is “part of this bigger picture of extremes we’ve been seeing all along the Northern Hemisphere this summer,” she said, which include the heat in the American West and Pacific Northwest, intense rainfall and cooler temperatures in the Midwest, and heat waves in Scandinavia and Siberia.​​“It’s never in isolation when it comes to an odd configuration of the jet stream,” Dr. Francis said. “One extreme in one place is always accompanied by extremes of different types.”​​“It is all connected, and it’s all the same story, really,” she added.​​[‘It Is All Connected’: Extreme Weather in the Age of Climate Change]​​​Whether a science hater sputters against_ all_ of science, or focuses his ire upon microbiologists, geologists, botanists, biophysics, or the plethora of practitioners of other scientific disciplines including medical specialties, is certainly peculiar, but hardly impactful as the world's scientific bodies persist in the advancement of their specializations, and that knowledge they accrue benefits _all_ - even those whose dogma compels them to rail against it.



*The increase in severe weather events comport with climatological forecasts. *

You watch too much TV ... The Weather Channel's goal is to get you to buy a Ford F-150 pick-up with a snow plow attachment, and sow you everyplace in the world where's it's snowing ... because ... "this could happen to YOU !!!" ... this particular claim is not made within the scientific literature, unless you have a scientific citation you can post ...

You might want to read the the blurbs you copy/paste ... the one above fully supports my position in this matter ... the large-scale circulation is slowing down with rising temperatures ... as the blurb points out ... "bad" weather will last a little bit longer, but also "good" weather will last longer as well ... average wind speed is decreasing, thus it natural follows there is less average power in the atmosphere ... making it less likely for this power to concentrate into powerful storms ... this is offset by increased mass of water vapor _at the surface_ ... the balance point no climatologist can say right now ... yeah, that 7% number applies to the upper atmosphere as well ... that fact is of profound importance ...

*Catastrophic flooding in Europe and conflagrations in the Northwestern United States will require extensive scientific analysis to assess the extent to which the reality of anthropological climate change contributed*

Of which many are returned "global warming had minimal contribution" ... this news isn't click-bait, so you've never seen it ... now have you? ...

The IPCC report takes into account quantum saturation ... why aren't you? ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The increase in severe weather events comport with climatological forecasts. Catastrophic flooding in Europe and conflagrations in the Northwestern United States will require extensive scientific analysis to assess the extent to which the reality of anthropological climate change contributed, but such natural disasters do nothing to sustain the remnant of ideologues in their pathological denial.
> 
> One certitude, given the impact of the documented increase in extremes - droughts, downpours, more frequent and severe heatwaves, hurricanes, blizzards, etc., is that willful ignorance would come with a devastating cost if normal folks were to ignore science and substitute ideology. Fortunately, rigorous, dispassionate study will not be impeded by the strident revilements of the raging dissenters.
> 
> Studies have shown an increase in extreme downpours as the world warms, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed group that reports on the science and impacts of global warming, has said that the frequency of these events will increase as temperatures continue to rise...​​Dr. van Oldenborgh is one of the primary scientists with World Weather Attribution, a loose-knit group that quickly analyzes specific extreme weather events with regard to any climate-change impact. He said the group, which just finished a rapid analysis of the heat wave that struck the Pacific Northwest in late June, was discussing whether they would study the German floods.​​One reason for stronger downpours has to do with basic physics: warmer air holds more moisture, making it more likely that a specific storm will produce more precipitation. The world has warmed by a little more than 1 degree Celsius (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 19th century, when societies began pumping huge amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.​​For every 1 Celsius degree of warming, air can hold 7 percent more moisture. As a result, said Hayley Fowler, a professor of climate change impacts at Newcastle University in England, “These kinds of storm events will increase in intensity.”​​And although it is still a subject of debate, there are studies that suggest rapid warming in the Arctic is affecting the jet stream, by reducing the temperature difference between northern and southern parts of the Northern Hemisphere. One effect in summer and fall, Dr. Fowler said, is that the high-altitude, globe-circling air current is weakening and slowing down.​​“That means the storms have to move more slowly,” Dr. Fowler said. The storm that caused the recent flooding was practically stationary, she noted. The combination of more moisture and a stalled storm system can lead to extra-heavy rains over a given area.​​Kai Kornhuber, a climate scientist with the Earth Institute of Columbia University, said that his and his colleagues’ research, and papers from other scientists, drew similar conclusions about slowing weather systems. “They all point in the same direction — that the summertime mid-latitude circulation, the jet stream, is slowing down and constitutes a more persistent weather pattern” that means extreme events like heat waves and pounding rains are likely to go on and on...​​The European storm is “part of this bigger picture of extremes we’ve been seeing all along the Northern Hemisphere this summer,” she said, which include the heat in the American West and Pacific Northwest, intense rainfall and cooler temperatures in the Midwest, and heat waves in Scandinavia and Siberia.​​“It’s never in isolation when it comes to an odd configuration of the jet stream,” Dr. Francis said. “One extreme in one place is always accompanied by extremes of different types.”​​“It is all connected, and it’s all the same story, really,” she added.​​[‘It Is All Connected’: Extreme Weather in the Age of Climate Change]​​​Whether a science hater sputters against_ all_ of science, or focuses his ire upon microbiologists, geologists, botanists, biophysics, or the plethora of practitioners of other scientific disciplines including medical specialties, is certainly peculiar, but hardly impactful as the world's scientific bodies persist in the advancement of their specializations, and that knowledge they accrue benefits _all_ - even those whose dogma compels them to rail against it.






All lies camouflaged as opinion.  A simple review of historical fact exposes your claims as outright lies.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> As the evidence accrues, hardcore ideologues become increasingly hysterical in the face of the empirical data:
> 
> When professor Dieter Gerten learned that his home village was one of many hit with torrential rains and severe flooding this week, he was devastated, but not entirely surprised.​​_“These sorts of events are totally what is expected due to climate projections for the past 30 years, which have said there will be a higher intensity and frequency of heat waves, of droughts and of strong rain events”_ ...​​Gerten acknowledged it was _"not easy or possible to link a single event to climate change.” _However, he said, it was _“possible to link a series of events, as well as the increasing frequency and the increasing intensity.”_​​Pointing to the recent record-breaking deadly heat wave that affected parts of the western United States and Canada earlier this month, he said the frequency of such weather events could increase if the global community does not do more to combat climate change.​​Experts have cautioned that it is too soon to directly blame the floods on climate change, but the science is clear that such disasters could become more common due to its impact.​​German politicians, including President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, have nonetheless called for greater efforts to combat global warming.​​“Only if we decisively take up the fight against climate change will we be able to limit the extreme weather conditions we are now experiencing,” he said Friday.​​['Climate change has arrived': Deadly flooding in Europe makes future impossible to ignore]​​_Acknowledging the opposing viewpoint:_
> _View attachment 513828_​






What evidence?  You have presented none.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 17, 2021)

"Ah kin tell a lie _real_ easy!
It's whenever experts in their field contradict_ my _belief,
and they gussies up their phony _consensus _
with all that there  _"empirical data!"_​


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 17, 2021)

mamooth said:


> Gore Rule invoked. Whenever some crybaby loser brings up Gore, they forfeit the thread their side.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 17, 2021)

westwall said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > As the evidence accrues, hardcore ideologues become increasingly hysterical in the face of the empirical data:
> ...



To him evidence is by consensus.....

That is why I kept calling him a science illiterate since the fool doesn't even know what the AGW is about.

I have a consensus view that he is a 400 pound blob living off 50 hot pockets and a gallon of 7 up every day, I can't be wrong since it is a consensus......


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> View attachment 513869
> "Ah kin tell a lie _real_ easy!
> It's whenever experts in their field contradict_ my _belief,
> and they gussies up their phony _consensus _
> with all that there  _"empirical data!"_​





So you admit you have nothing.  Good.  Now everyone can see who the anti science religious nutjobs are.

Hello anti science religious nutjob!


----------



## basquebromance (Jul 17, 2021)

if we don't enact the Green New Deal RIGHT NOW, people in a coupla years will have to set themselves on fire for warmth


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 17, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> To him evidence is by consensus.....


When experts agree and ideological crackpots disagree with the experts, I definitely respect the former consensus far more than the latter.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > To him evidence is by consensus.....
> ...






When experts are paid to lie, they are no longer experts.

Moron.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2021)

basquebromance said:


> if we don't enact the Green New Deal RIGHT NOW, people in a coupla years will have to set themselves on fire for warmth





Okay,  that's pretty funny.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

westwall said:


> When experts are paid to lie, they are no longer experts.
> 
> Moron.


*NASA and NOAA faked climate data in the GISTEMP global temperature record to exaggerate global warming.*
[Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?]​If you actually know of anyone who is still spreading fake information concerning anthropogenic climate change who is still being paid by the dirty fuel cartel, you should name them, Skippy. An Exxon lobbyist spilled the beans, and the self-serving fraud of the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil and Shell Corporations has been exposed, but if you know of any such scams still afoot, out them, by all means!

Do crackpot notions with no credible evidence occur in _threes? _Willful ignorance concerning who the duly-elected President of the United States is, goofball ideological taboos concerning Covid vaccines, and nutcase refusal to recognize the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change seem to arise from the same susceptibility to conspiracy nonsense.

All such misconceptions have adverse consequences to the extent that gullible sorts are duped into swallowing them. Ignorance comes at a price. E.g.,

Insider reported on Tuesday that the highest number of new cases caused by the highly infectious Delta coronavirus variant are mostly in states with low vaccination rates — which on the whole are Republican.​​​​​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > When experts are paid to lie, they are no longer experts.
> ...



*... the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change ...*

You keep saying this, I do not think you know what it means ... you've already admitted you have very little knowledge of science, how would you know if there's scientific evidence or not? ...

Death tolls from hurricanes was measured in the thousand when I was a kid, tornadoes in the hundreds ... today temperatures are 1ºC warmer and these death tolls rarely exceed 100 ... this tread is going to continue so should we be expecting deaths from weather to be eliminated? ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 18, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Did you actually expect ANYONE to accept that as a valid argument?  Air and ocean temperatures have increased and that thermal energy is the source that drives hurricanes.  With what part of that statement do you disagree?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 18, 2021)

Crick said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



*Did you actually expect ANYONE to accept that as a valid argument?  Air and ocean temperatures have increased and that thermal energy is the source that drives hurricanes.  With what part of that statement do you disagree?*

This is based on Arctic Amplification ... the poles are warming twice as fast as the tropics, thus the temperature _difference_ is decreasing between the two ... the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics demands the driving force of this energy be decreasing, which in turn decreases the power ... this you already know ... the part here in meteorlogy is that cyclones are part of this energy transport system ...

Hurricanes generally form at around 10º latitude, the tropics ... and more often than not they'll track towards the poles in a big curve ... moving warm tropical air towards the poles ... alternately we have cold-core cyclones spinning off the polar front heading towards the tropics moving cold polar air towards the equator ... we can model this behavior as turbulence within the general air flow of the large-scale convective circulation, for which the force involved is gravity _via_ Navier/Stokes equations and/or Continuum Theory ...

The 2nd Law and the large scale atmospheric circulation are established scientific facts ... energy is more concentrated at the tropics than the poles, therefore energy MUST move toward the poles ... *how fast* (how powerfully) depends strictly on the temperature difference ... the larger the difference, the greater the force and the greater the power, and the greater the winds actually transporting this energy ... but we observe the opposite, the temperature difference is decreasing, so both force and power are decreasing ... with less power we have less turbidity (i.e. less frequent and less powerful cyclones) ...

You've made a very common mistake ... energy alone does not cause weather, we need this energy to be in motion to cause weather ... any average we calculate from weather is climate ... with average power in the atmosphere decreasing, the concentration of power becomes less likely ... this comes from the hurricanes experts at the NHC, who were all dismissed from the IPCC mainly for pointing out that all the empirical data collected on hurricanes show no treads either up or down on hurricane frequency or intensity ... any claims of increases are fabricated ...

Thank you to the OP for providing the citation to my claims here in his Post #394:  "And although it is still a subject of debate, there are studies that suggest rapid warming in the Arctic is affecting the jet stream, by reducing the temperature difference between northern and southern parts of the Northern Hemisphere. One effect in summer and fall, Dr. Fowler said, is that the high-altitude, globe-circling air current is weakening and slowing down." ... Climatologists all know this, so when they write scientific papers to each other, they assume the reader knows this as well ... it seems you don't so you should definitely get a good textbook on meteorology and read it, and by "good" I mean chuck full of differentials and integrals, you'll need to be competent in calculus before you begin ... and of course basic physics, I shouldn't have to explain to you the relationship between force and power ... and you might want to go over the physics of solutions found in general chemistry textbooks ... again, climatologists assume the reader already understands saturation and equilibrium at the air/water interface, where both weather and climate begin ...


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap 

Climate change is real and natural

The climate is and always has been in a constant state of change

Its the man-made global warming doomsday hoax that people reject


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


Even the most fanatical ideologues will be impacted by the reality. Denial is not an option.

More than 60 Republican members of Congress recently launched the Conservative Climate Caucus to provide leadership in America’s fight against climate change. All Americans who care about our country and our planet should welcome this development....​​With this caucus, lawmakers now have a place to come together and learn about energy and environmental issues from each other, from their constituents, and from top experts in the field without having to worry about hidden political motives or partisan hubris...​​As more Republicans engage on the topic, they’ll breathe new life into ideas designed to reduce pollution without putting people out of work, leverage natural solutions to lower emissions, and create pathways for all Americans – especially those closest to the environment, such as our farmers and ranchers – in the fight against climate change.​​This acceleration of ideas and engagement was demonstrated by House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s announcement of dozens of Republican-sponsored climate bills during Earth Week this year.​​The threat of climate change is real, but so is the threat that our adversaries will exploit any economic harm America self-inflicts for environmental showmanship.​​[We're conservatives and we're fighting against climate change: Here's how.]​​(_This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How conservatives can fight climate change and protect our economy}_​​Meanwhile, the crackpots appear to be convincing no one of their ideologically-induced paranoid fantasy of a vast, mysterious conspiracy perpetrated by climatologists and endorsed by the international community. As the forecasts of the extreme weather events are proven accurate, their jihad against science fizzles.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Do you have an actual _scientific_ citation that backs up your claims? ... no? ... didn't think so ...

You make for a good gorilla ... spewing the barf you've been eating ... you don't have to post anymore quotes from the _National Enquirer_ or _USA Today_ to show you're an idiot ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 18, 2021)

Crick said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > schmidlap said:
> ...



Ocean surface temperature has been warm enough for millions of years to spawn *Tropical* storms and Hurricanes, thus your statement is misleading and after the fact.  But temperature alone isn't enough, there are other factors that determine the development of storms to progress beyond the tropical depression level.

ReinyDays is correct the death toll has dropped dramatically over the decades as this chart that seems to anger many shows:


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 18, 2021)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...



*ReinyDays is correct the death toll has dropped dramatically over the decades as this chart that seems to anger many shows:*

This is mainly due to advances in science and technology, especially Doppler radar and to a lessor degree weather satellites ... truly amazing how much better we are today at preventing human suffering than just 50 years ago ... where will this be in 100 years? ... _Brave New World_ indeed ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> *ReinyDays is correct the death toll has dropped dramatically over the decades as this chart that seems to anger many shows:*
> 
> This is mainly due to advances in science and technology, especially Doppler radar and to a lessor degree weather satellites ... truly amazing how much better we are today at preventing human suffering than just 50 years ago ... where will this be in 100 years? ... _Brave New World_ indeed ...


Please provide your list of the international scientific bodies, national governments, and U.S. governmental departments and agencies, as well as any U.S. mayors, who have been won over by the ideologues in denial of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> As more Republicans engage on the topic, they’ll breathe new life into ideas designed to reduce pollution without putting people out of work, leverage natural solutions to lower emissions, and create pathways for all Americans – especially those closest to the environment, such as our farmers and ranchers – in the fight against climate change.



That's great news!!

How many new nuke plants should we build?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's great news!!
> 
> How many new nuke plants should we build?


That's debatable, but with the ideologists in denial of anthropogenic climate change unable to sell their notion to any scientific body anywhere on earth, and not a single nation sharing their refusal to respect the science, alternatives to dirty fuels are imperative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> alternatives to dirty fuels are imperative.



I agree. So 100 new nuke plants?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​Don't know. But us anti-hoax "zealots" aren't. You can only fool _some _of the people all of the time.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree. So 100 new nuke plants?


I'm glad that you are opting for science. A few are still in denial and cling to their ideological dogma.

Nuclear is among the alternatives to dirty fuels that must be debated.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​Don't know. But us anti-hoax "zealots" aren't. You can only fool _some _of the people all of the time.


The fact that the ideologues in denial are impotent in convincing any scientific body, or any nation, of their antic notion is encouraging.

 It is necessary to deal with reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I'm glad that you are opting for science. A few are still in denial and cling to their ideological dogma.
> 
> Nuclear is among the alternatives to dirty fuels that must be debated.



What is there to debate?
It's reliable, large-scale, baseline power that emits no CO2.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What is there to debate?
> It's reliable, large-scale, baseline power that emits no CO2.


If you wish to be an advocate for nuclear, or any other alternative to dirty fuels, you should initiate a thread to make your case. Others are likely to have differing preferences. Don't be afraid to discuss your solution. There are valid pluses and minuses for all.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The fact that the ideologues in denial are impotent in convincing any scientific body, or any nation, of their antic notion is encouraging.
> 
> It is necessary to deal with reality.


But the reality is the hoaxers want to keep people panicked so that they are easily controlled and separated from their valuables by the self-proclaimed "experts". Get a clue: Antarctica is still there. The polar bears remain happy. And costal cities are still dry. Follow the money


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> But the reality is the hoaxers want to keep people panicked so that they are easily controlled and separated from their valuables by the self-proclaimed "experts". Get a clue: Antarctica is still there. The polar bears remain happy. And costal cities are still dry. Follow the money


The fringe ideological dogmatists need to resort to such evidence-fee  paranoid delusions to explain why all reputable scientific academies, societies and research centers as well as the governments of all the nations on earth acknowledge the reality, of course.

Yes, the dirty fuel cartel has profited handsomely, but the cost to humanity is far too great.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> If you wish to be an advocate for nuclear, or any other alternative to dirty fuels, you should initiate a thread to make your case. Others are likely to have differing preferences. Don't be afraid to discuss your solution. There are valid pluses and minuses for all.



Don't be scared.
You can say you're for nuclear.
I won't tell your watermelon friends.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Yes, the dirty fuel cartel has profited handsomely, but the cost to humanity is far too great.



We need to use renewable fuels.....like cow dung.
Works great, eh?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The fringe ideological dogmatists need to resort to such evidence-fee  paranoid delusions to explain why all reputable scientific academies, societies and research centers as well as the governments of all the nations on earth acknowledge the reality, of course.
> 
> Yes, the dirty fuel cartel has profited handsomely, but the cost to humanity is far too great.


*The fringe ideological dogmatists need to resort to such evidence-fee  paranoid delusions to explain why all reputable scientific academies, societies and research centers as well as the governments of all the nations on earth acknowledge the reality, of course.*

If they did I might but they don't; so I won't. You just see what you want to see.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 18, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We need to use renewable fuels.....like cow dung.
> Works great, eh?



  If we burn all the cow dung as fuel, then what will Schmidlap and his kind eat for food?


----------



## MadChemist (Jul 18, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> If we burn all the cow dung as fuel, then what will Schmidlap and his kind eat for food?



Or post.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The fringe ideological dogmatists need to resort to such evidence-fee  paranoid delusions to explain why all reputable scientific academies, societies and research centers as well as the governments of all the nations on earth acknowledge the reality, of course.
> 
> Yes, the dirty fuel cartel has profited handsomely, but the cost to humanity is far too great.





The anti science fringe element are the fraudsters who decided the scientific method didn't apply to them.

That's YOU.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jul 19, 2021)

More propaganda drivel from those whom fail to grasp the math and science of one part versus 2,500 other parts;
Can Civilization Survive What’s Coming?​According to the IPCC, we need to cut carbon pollution as fast as humanly possible to avoid catastrophic climate changes.








						Can Civilization Survive What’s Coming?
					

According to the IPCC, we need to cut carbon pollution as fast as humanly possible to avoid catastrophic climate changes.




					getpocket.com
				



Note how the molecule essential to 99+% of life on this planet remains referred to as "pollution".
The pro-ACC/AGW idjoits are the anti-life killers of this world.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 19, 2021)

Still a big fat no ....
Any concrete irrefutable evidence that man is changing the climate yetv?with his miniscule co2 out put and cow farts ?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> The anti science fringe element are the fraudsters who decided the scientific method didn't apply to them.
> 
> That's YOU.


You can persist in fantasizing that all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth, and all those in other, related scientific disciplines, as well as all the governments of the nations on earth that respect the scientific consensus, are wrong and you are right regarding the climatological reality, of course.

Your superiority as a climatological expert to such an overwhelming concurrence of knowledgable folks entitles you to do a celebratory dance.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> You can persist in fantasizing that all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth, and all those in other, related scientific disciplines, as well as all the governments of the nations on earth that respect the scientific consensus, are wrong and you are right regarding the climatological reality, of course.
> 
> Your superiority as a climatological expert to such an overwhelming concurrence of knowledgable folks entitles you to do a celebratory dance.
> 
> View attachment 514495​



*... all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth ...*

Please list these ... I think they aren't saying what you think they're saying ... with links please ...

Still waiting for a shred of evidence ... if it's overwhelming, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> *... all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth ...*
> 
> Please list these ... I think they aren't saying what you think they're saying ... with links please ...
> 
> Still waiting for a shred of evidence ... if it's overwhelming, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find ...





_"Really, Skipper! Who are you going to listen to?
The global community of climatological PhDs with all that analytical data, 
or a guy who insists he can befoul the heavens with impunity"?_​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

So ... 
No organizations ...
No evidence ...
All lies then? ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> You can persist in fantasizing that all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth, and all those in other, related scientific disciplines, as well as all the governments of the nations on earth that respect the scientific consensus, are wrong and you are right regarding the climatological reality, of course.
> 
> Your superiority as a climatological expert to such an overwhelming concurrence of knowledgable folks entitles you to do a celebratory dance.
> 
> View attachment 514495​





You can persist in the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

And, I am sure that you will. 

Because it's all you have.

Just like the high priests demanding virgins be sacrificed to the volcano gods.

You're no different from them.


----------



## ding (Jul 19, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> *... all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth ...*
> 
> Please list these ... I think they aren't saying what you think they're saying ... with links please ...
> 
> Still waiting for a shred of evidence ... if it's overwhelming, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find ...





schmidlap said:


> View attachment 514515
> _"Really, Skipper! Who are you going to listen to?
> The global community of climatological PhDs with all that analytical data,
> or a guy who insists he can befoul the heavens with impunity"?_​


That you can't see that your behavior is textbook zealot is further confirmation that you are a zealot.

You have no basis for your beliefs other than you were told to have those beliefs. You have made no attempt to understand anything you believe in.

zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> You can persist in the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".


Out of curiosity, what other scientific disciplines do you insist you know more about than those who specialize in climatology?

Lepidoptery?​​Exobiology?​​Cardiology?​​Geochemistry?​​Paleontology?​​Dendrology?​​Chiropterology?​​Myrmecology?​​Coprology?​​etc.?​​​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

"My karma just ran over your dogma" --- some bumper sticker on a car I was stuck behind in a traffic jam ... (it was awful, too hot, too sunny, too much construction work) ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Out of curiosity, what other scientific disciplines do you insist you know more about than those who specialize in climatology?
> 
> Lepidoptery?​​Exobiology?​​Cardiology?​​Geochemistry?​​Paleontology?​​Dendrology?​​Chiropterology?​​Myrmecology?​​Coprology?​​etc.?​​​



Still waiting for a shred of evidence ... if it's overwhelming, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Still waiting for a shred of evidence ... if it's overwhelming, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find ...


If the evidence that has been accrued and analyzed by the world's climatologists that has enlightened the governments of every nation on earth enough to acknowledge reality is insufficient for your needs, I'm afraid that we'll just have to progress without you and hope that you can eventually catch up.

Former United States Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, admits he was “ignorant” on climate change...​​But today Mr. Inglis waxes poetic about how trips to Antarctica and the Great Barrier Reef, as a member of the House Science Committee, helped upend his views and spur him to try to win over like-minded potential converts to action on climate change.​​“Our deal is to go to conservatives and be able to speak the language of conservatism to them,” he said in an interview, calling such framing “our natural language.”​​Mr. Inglis’ proposition was put to the test when researchers rolled out a month’s worth of online ads, aimed at Republican-leaning voters and featuring prominent conservatives talking about climate risks.​​Mr. Inglis’ proposition was put to the test when researchers rolled out a month’s worth of online ads, aimed at Republican-leaning voters and featuring prominent conservatives talking about climate risks.​​A study of those 2019 ads, published in June in the journal Nature Climate Change, found they significantly boosted belief among right-leaning U.S. voters that global warming was a serious threat – a sentiment that still borders on heresy for many conservative hardliners...​​The campaign raises hopes that communicators are closing in on solving a long-thorny problem: How to shift public opinion on climate change among a relatively stubborn subset of the U.S. population.​​Awareness and concern about climate change has been growing in the U.S., but the shift has been far smaller among right-learning voters in a country where views on climate change often are shaped more by political affiliation than science...​​[GOP group aims to educate fellow Republicans on climate change]​​Will there always be a few knee-jerk ideological zealots contemptuous of climatological data that does not comport with their denialist dogma? No doubt.



​
We can't take them seriously.

Increasingly, Republican politicians, especially those with national ambitions, can't afford to:

... DeSantis’ first days in office were a whirlwind of environmental boons from promises of an annual earmark of $625 million to restore the state’s iconic river of grass to the ousting of the South Florida Water Management District governing board, which was seen as too friendly to agriculture.​


​The benchmark report of DeSantis’ blue-green algae task force mentions climate change on its first page as a contributor to toxic blooms, while the new chief science officer — a position DeSantis created — said on his inaugural day that climate change is real and that humans exacerbate it.​​Since then, DeSantis moved to buy 20,000 acres of Everglades land that was slated for oil drilling so that it could be preserved. He is supporting a bill to create a Statewide Office of Resiliency and Statewide Sea-Level Rise Task force, which were part of his January 2019 executive order on the environment.​​A resolution, simply titled “Climate Change,” also is moving through committees that expresses lawmaker backing for resiliency efforts, including the addition of a statewide grid of electric vehicle charging stations.​​[Climate change no longer dirty words for Florida's GOP, but how green will Trump go?]​
​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> If the evidence that has been accrued and analyzed by the world's climatologists that has enlightened the governments of every nation on earth enough to acknowledge reality is insufficient for your needs,



Were you going to post any?


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Were you going to post any?


The climatological oeuvre is voluminous. So much so that its eluding you is highly improbable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The climatological oeuvre is voluminous. So much so that its eluding you is highly improbable.



What did you think about Mike's Nature Trick?

That was wicked awesome, eh?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> You can persist in fantasizing that all climatological academies, societies, and associations on earth, and all those in other, related scientific disciplines, as well as all the governments of the nations on earth that respect the scientific consensus, are wrong and you are right regarding the climatological reality, of course.
> 
> Your superiority as a climatological expert to such an overwhelming concurrence of knowledgable folks entitles you to do a celebratory dance.
> 
> View attachment 514495​



But if the climate crusader folks are so knowledgeable, why has their science had virtually no impact on those who make energy policy in the western world? I mean, isnt that that goal? Otherwise, its just an internet debate and really, who cares?

Where is there any evidence that the "scientific consensus" means anything outside the consensus science club? Ive been waiting 10 years in this forum for any evidence. None has been submitted by anybody.

Celebratory dances for things symbolic = ghey. Liberals do it on guns, kneeling, climate change, crime, electric vehicles.....have nothing to show for it except egg on the face. 

It only matters who's winning in the real world........not the world of conjecture and unicorn chasing activities. Nobody cares about that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 19, 2021)

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/


*@www.whosnotwinning.com*


----------



## westwall (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Out of curiosity, what other scientific disciplines do you insist you know more about than those who specialize in climatology?
> 
> Lepidoptery?​​Exobiology?​​Cardiology?​​Geochemistry?​​Paleontology?​​Dendrology?​​Chiropterology?​​Myrmecology?​​Coprology?​​etc.?​​​






I'm a PhD geologist who helped build LANDSAT 1.  I am qualified to teach ANY climatology class, including graduate level.

They, on the other hand, are not qualified to teach graduate level geology classes.

So why should I be impressed by them?


----------



## westwall (Jul 19, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> But if the climate crusader folks are so knowledgeable, why has their science had virtually no impact on those who make energy policy in the western world? I mean, isnt that that goal? Otherwise, its just an internet debate and really, who cares?
> 
> Where is there any evidence that the "scientific consensus" means anything outside the consensus science club? Ive been waiting 10 years in this forum for any evidence. None has been submitted by anybody.
> 
> ...






So, a bunch of opinion.  But STILL no actual science.

Hello religious zealot.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

ding said:


> And yet the only scientific experiment that was performed to date proves they are wrong.


The pretense by incorrigible ideologues to knowing more about climatological science than the world's scientists who have actually accrued and analyzed the empirical data is always amusing.

Do scientists agree on climate change?​
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.​[Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet]​​Rather than whining, just post your list of actively publishing climate scientists who deny that humans are causing global warming and climate change. 




_"Oh, yeah! I believes the dirty fuel cartel! 
It was them liars at NASA_
_that faked them moon landings!"_​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The pretense by incorrigible ideologues to knowing more about climatological science than the world's scientists who have actually accrued and analyzed the empirical data is always amusing.
> 
> Do scientists agree on climate change?​
> Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.​[Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet]​​Rather than whining, just post your list of actively publishing climate scientists who deny that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
> ...



Dirty fuel user!!!


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 19, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dirty fuel user!!!


You have correctly identified the cause of the current plight and dire prospects.

Mitigation is absolutely essential.


----------



## westwall (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> You have correctly identified the cause of the current plight and dire prospects.
> 
> Mitigation is absolutely essential.





Provide evidence to support your claim.  That IS the difference between religious zealots (you) and science.  

Science requires evidence.  Not opinion.  Not computer derived fiction, but real, measurable evidence.

So provide some.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> You have correctly identified the cause of the current plight and dire prospects.
> 
> Mitigation is absolutely essential.



I have identified the cause.....you.

You never responded to my comment about Mike's Nature Trick........


----------



## Stryder50 (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The climatological oeuvre is voluminous. So much so that its eluding you is highly improbable.


And eluding itself.
Until you and they have each and all reduced your personal carbon dioxide~CO2 emissions to ZERO, you will have no credibility, nor will your stance/position.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> If the evidence that has been accrued and analyzed by the world's climatologists that has enlightened the governments of every nation on earth enough to acknowledge reality is insufficient for your needs, I'm afraid that we'll just have to progress without you and hope that you can eventually catch up.
> 
> Former United States Rep. Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, admits he was “ignorant” on climate change...​​But today Mr. Inglis waxes poetic about how trips to Antarctica and the Great Barrier Reef, as a member of the House Science Committee, helped upend his views and spur him to try to win over like-minded potential converts to action on climate change.​​“Our deal is to go to conservatives and be able to speak the language of conservatism to them,” he said in an interview, calling such framing “our natural language.”​​Mr. Inglis’ proposition was put to the test when researchers rolled out a month’s worth of online ads, aimed at Republican-leaning voters and featuring prominent conservatives talking about climate risks.​​Mr. Inglis’ proposition was put to the test when researchers rolled out a month’s worth of online ads, aimed at Republican-leaning voters and featuring prominent conservatives talking about climate risks.​​A study of those 2019 ads, published in June in the journal Nature Climate Change, found they significantly boosted belief among right-leaning U.S. voters that global warming was a serious threat – a sentiment that still borders on heresy for many conservative hardliners...​​The campaign raises hopes that communicators are closing in on solving a long-thorny problem: How to shift public opinion on climate change among a relatively stubborn subset of the U.S. population.​​Awareness and concern about climate change has been growing in the U.S., but the shift has been far smaller among right-learning voters in a country where views on climate change often are shaped more by political affiliation than science...​​[GOP group aims to educate fellow Republicans on climate change]​​Will there always be a few knee-jerk ideological zealots contemptuous of climatological data that does not comport with their denialist dogma? No doubt.
> 
> ...



Then you admit to *lying* about having "overwhelming evidence" ... what else have you been *lying* about? ...

What does God say about a *lying* tongue? ...

Next up:  name one "climatological institution" ...


----------



## Stryder50 (Jul 19, 2021)

This planet is in constant NATURAL Climate Change, either cooling or warming.  Current evidence suggests we may not yet be out of the cooling/ice age phase.

Get back to us in January~February when your 'nads are freezing off, if you live in the Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2021)

westwall said:


> I'm a PhD geologist who helped build LANDSAT 1.  I am qualified to teach ANY climatology class, including graduate level.
> 
> They, on the other hand, are not qualified to teach graduate level geology classes.
> 
> So why should I be impressed by them?



Horsefeathers ... why is there a cusp in the pseudo-adiabatic lapse rate? ... yeah, some basic meteorology that a geologist would never have come across building LANDSAT satellites ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Horsefeathers ... why is there a cusp in the pseudo-adiabatic lapse rate? ... yeah, some basic meteorology that a geologist would never have come across building LANDSAT satellites ...




You are correct.  We were working on the geologic remote sensing apparatus.  We had zero to do with meteorology.

I was working for what eventually became SBRC at the time.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> All lies camouflaged as opinion. A simple review of historical fact exposes your claims as outright lies.



Even the Germans have not reached a conclusion concerning the European floods.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> You are correct.  We were working on the geologic remote sensing apparatus.  We had zero to do with meteorology.
> 
> I was working for what eventually became SBRC at the time.



... but that doesn't mean you couldn't school a climatologist in math ... geology is rich with gradients ... something the typical climatologist avoids like Black Death ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Provide evidence to support your claim.  That IS the difference between religious zealots (you) and science.
> 
> Science requires evidence.  Not opinion.  Not computer derived fiction, but real, measurable evidence.
> 
> So provide some.


Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West,​ exacerbating drought and wildfires​Much of the western USA is enduring a punishing and unforgiving summer of heat, drought and wildfires. Hundreds of heat records have been shattered, and drought encompasses a whopping 94% of the West. Wildfires have scorched nearly 4,000 square miles, an area larger than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island put together...​​This cauldron of misery has been exacerbated by a sprawling heat dome that's wandered around the West this summer, sending temperatures skyrocketing. A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot air like a lid or cap...​​Nearly 60 million people in the West are enduring a drought, all the way from Washington to New Mexico. Nearly 95% of the region is in a drought, the highest percentage in at least the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor...​​"Extreme, record-breaking heat leading up to this week has resulted in rapid deteriorations in drought conditions across the Pacific Northwest, northern Great Basin and Northern Rockies," the most recent Drought Monitor said. ...​​In Oregon, where drought has intensified and expanded from severe to exceptional levels, soil moisture, stream flow and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (a drought-monitoring indicator that includes the effects of precipitation and temperature) show conditions are among the driest going back to 1895, the Drought Monitor said this month.​​Montana recorded less than 25% of its normal precipitation in June, which is historically its highest precipitation month. Impacts there included infestations of grasshoppers...​​Extreme conditions like what the West is enduring this summer are often from a combination of unusual random, short-term and natural weather patterns heightened by long-term, human-caused climate change.​​Scientists have long warned that the weather will get wilder as the world warms. Climate change has made the West much warmer and drier in the past 30 years...​​"With regard to climate change, it is expected that the jet stream will become more wavy in the future as average temperatures continue to climb, making these large deviations, and subsequently extreme heat events, more common," AccuWeather senior meteorologist Randy Adkins said.​​[Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West, exacerbating drought and wildfires]​​


​_"Oh, yeah!_
_"Well, Ah aksed the Petroleum Institute, 'Did you do it?' 
And they said 'No! We did not. Absolutely not!'
I then asked them a second time in a totally different way. 
They said, "Absolutely not.'_
_and Ah believes them!"_​


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 20, 2021)

Mindful said:


> Even the Germans have not reached a conclusion concerning the European floods.


No single event is conclusive. It is the aggregate of extreme weather events that confirms the scientific consensus. The scientific predictions, based upon empirical data, are being confirmed. The remnant of adamantine ideologues in denial are being discredited by reality.

In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) foresaw that global warming would lead to increasingly deadly heatwaves. _“More hot days and heatwaves are very likely over nearly all land areas,” _the world’s top climate scientists warned. “_These increases are projected to be largest mainly in areas where soil moisture decreases occur.” _​​ _“The greatest increases in thermal stress are forecast for mid- to high-latitude (temperate) cities, especially in populations with non-adapted architecture and limited air conditioning,”_ they wrote at the time. _“A number of U.S. cities would experience, on average, several hundred extra deaths each summer.”_​​Sound prescient? And familiar?  All too much so.​​Twenty years later, it seems as though these climate scientists were gazing into a crystal ball rather than computer monitors. At the end of June 2021, the normally temperate Pacific Northwest experienced a record-shattering heatwave. The village of Lytton, in British Columbia,  set a new all-time Canadian temperature record of 49.6 degrees Celsius (121.3 degrees Fahrenheit) and was largely destroyed by a wildfire soon thereafter. Quillayute in the northwest corner of Washington, shattered its previous high temperature record by a full 11°F.​​[As scientists have long predicted, warming is making heatwaves more deadly » Yale Climate Connections]​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West,​ exacerbating drought and wildfires​Much of the western USA is enduring a punishing and unforgiving summer of heat, drought and wildfires. Hundreds of heat records have been shattered, and drought encompasses a whopping 94% of the West. Wildfires have scorched nearly 4,000 square miles, an area larger than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island put together...​​This cauldron of misery has been exacerbated by a sprawling heat dome that's wandered around the West this summer, sending temperatures skyrocketing. A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot air like a lid or cap...​​Nearly 60 million people in the West are enduring a drought, all the way from Washington to New Mexico. Nearly 95% of the region is in a drought, the highest percentage in at least the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor...​​"Extreme, record-breaking heat leading up to this week has resulted in rapid deteriorations in drought conditions across the Pacific Northwest, northern Great Basin and Northern Rockies," the most recent Drought Monitor said. ...​​In Oregon, where drought has intensified and expanded from severe to exceptional levels, soil moisture, stream flow and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (a drought-monitoring indicator that includes the effects of precipitation and temperature) show conditions are among the driest going back to 1895, the Drought Monitor said this month.​​Montana recorded less than 25% of its normal precipitation in June, which is historically its highest precipitation month. Impacts there included infestations of grasshoppers...​​Extreme conditions like what the West is enduring this summer are often from a combination of unusual random, short-term and natural weather patterns heightened by long-term, human-caused climate change.​​Scientists have long warned that the weather will get wilder as the world warms. Climate change has made the West much warmer and drier in the past 30 years...​​"With regard to climate change, it is expected that the jet stream will become more wavy in the future as average temperatures continue to climb, making these large deviations, and subsequently extreme heat events, more common," AccuWeather senior meteorologist Randy Adkins said.​​[Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West, exacerbating drought and wildfires]​​​View attachment 514812​
> _"Oh, yeah!_
> _"Well, Ah aksed the Petroleum Institute, 'Did you do it?'
> And they said 'No! We did not. Absolutely not!'
> ...



Thanks for the weather update ... little behind though ... it's definitely long pants, flannel shirts and shoes in the mornings here in The West ... 

Climate-wise ... this is normal ... happens every ten years or so ... totally expected in a Mediterranean climate ... same with drought, farmers have their crops in by mid-June every year, and on the westside there's plenty of clean fresh mountain spring water ... that crap's a nuisance to be honest ... eastside always suffers from water shortages ... [raises eyebrows] ... that's why it's called a desert ... so the *current climate* requires severe drought over most of Washington State and Oregon, and that would be all eastside ... so you've given us evidence that climate .. is .. not .. changing ... duh ...

Randy Adkins is a journalist ... seemed to have come up through various radio and TV stations as a weather girl ... apparently she's made absolutely ZERO contributions to scientific literature ... not even a "letter to the editor" ... if AccuWeather doesn't list her _alma mater_, then it's a sure sign it's not worth listing ... "University of P.O. Box 3725, Phoenix, AZ" ... majored in 11th Century Occitanian Troubadour musicology ... she must be a great liar to be so successful at TV broadcasting ... 

... and speaking of liars ... any tiny bit of your "overwhelming evidence" available yet? ... most of what's published today is about trying to figure out a way to measure these values ... like why fully half of man-kind's annual CO2 emissions disappear ...


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ... but that doesn't mean you couldn't school a climatologist in math ... geology is rich with gradients ... something the typical climatologist avoids like Black Death ...


Ideological dogmatists being pissy about climatologists does not alter the scientific consensus, nor does it in any way invalidate the predicted, continually-accumulating confirmatory data.

Massive flooding killed at least 195 people in northern Europe last week. Massive wildfires are burning across much of the western United States. These extreme weather events, scientists warn, are clear signs of global warming. And they say more is needed to be done to fight climate change...​​Wim Thiery, a professor at Brussels University, spoke to the Associated Press Friday. He said of the flooding, “There is a clear link between extreme precipitation occurring and climate change.”...​​Across the Atlantic, a different kind of extreme weather is happening in Canada and the western United States.​​For the second straight year, Death Valley in California has recorded temperatures as high as 54 degrees Celsius. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, reported that the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada experienced record highs in late June.​​The extremely high temperature is part of the change that has made North America warmer and drier in the past 30 years leading to more wildfires...​​Stefan Rahmstorf teaches ocean physics at the University of Potsdam in Germany. He said *the recent heat records set in the U.S. and Canada “are so extreme that they would be virtually impossible without global warming.”*​​[Scientists: Floods, Wildfires Are Signs of Global Warming]​​


_"Oh, yeah! _​_Well, it's antifa and BLM that's doin' it!"_​


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Ideological dogmatists being pissy about climatologists does not alter the scientific consensus, nor does it in any way invalidate the predicted, continually-accumulating confirmatory data.
> 
> Massive flooding killed at least 195 people in northern Europe last week. Massive wildfires are burning across much of the western United States. These extreme weather events, scientists warn, are clear signs of global warming. And they say more is needed to be done to fight climate change...​​Wim Thiery, a professor at Brussels University, spoke to the Associated Press Friday. He said of the flooding, “There is a clear link between extreme precipitation occurring and climate change.”...​​Across the Atlantic, a different kind of extreme weather is happening in Canada and the western United States.​​For the second straight year, Death Valley in California has recorded temperatures as high as 54 degrees Celsius. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, reported that the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada experienced record highs in late June.​​The extremely high temperature is part of the change that has made North America warmer and drier in the past 30 years leading to more wildfires...​​Stefan Rahmstorf teaches ocean physics at the University of Potsdam in Germany. He said *the recent heat records set in the U.S. and Canada “are so extreme that they would be virtually impossible without global warming.”*​​[Scientists: Floods, Wildfires Are Signs of Global Warming]​​​View attachment 514820​_"Oh, yeah! _​_Well, it's antifa and BLM that's doin' it!"_​



*[Wim Thiery] said of the flooding, “There is a clear link between extreme precipitation occurring and climate change.”
*
... and this link is? ... it rains in Germany ... better correlation between levee-building and flooding than with temperatures ...

*[Stefan Rahmstorf] said* *the recent heat records set in the U.S. and Canada “are so extreme that they would be virtually impossible without global warming.”*

global warming ≠ climate change ... "climate change" is New Speak and specifically designed to cause fear in people when there's nothing to be feared ... global warming means warmer and wetter conditions; longer, more productive growing seasons ... Primary Production increases which ripples through the environment ... "climate change" is just fearmongering ... 

You yourself admitted up-thread that these predictions of catastrophe are bullshit ... why do you persist with this ignorance? ...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.
> 
> Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.
> 
> Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


nope, you have no scientific evidence to make such a statement, so you are just a jim joneser.  Hi Jim


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> *[Wim Thiery] said of the flooding, “There is a clear link between extreme precipitation occurring and climate change.”*
> 
> ... and this link is? ... it rains in Germany ... better correlation between levee-building and flooding than with temperatures ...
> 
> ...


they don't know that when you put concrete on top of dirt the dirt no longer absorbs the water and it floods.  Such scientists.


----------



## schmidlap (Jul 20, 2021)

jc456 said:


> nope, you have no scientific evidence to make such a statement, so you are just a jim joneser.  Hi Jim


Fringe dogmatists can pleasure themselves with their science denial, but normal folks must confront the scientific reality.

The U.K.’s national weather service declared its first-ever extreme heat warning on Monday. The alert now sits alongside age-old ones, such as thunderstorms, fog and lightning. In explaining why a new category was needed, the Met Office was unequivocal: _“Research shows that, as a result of climate change, we are now much more likely to see prolonged spells of hot weather.”..._​​Global warming has heated the planet about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. That’s having all kinds of impacts, and perhaps on the worse end of the predicted spectrum... _“It’s no longer a vague concern about things happening in the future.” _Jennifer Atkinson, professor of environmental humanities at the University of Washington...​​The record-breaking heatwave on the west coast of North America got worldwide attention, especially after scientists found it was _“virtually impossible”_ without human-caused climate change, but the heatwaves that followed did not.​​[How to Talk About Climate Change as Catastrophes Pile Up]​​


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Fringe dogmatists can pleasure themselves with their science denial, but normal folks must confront the scientific reality.
> 
> The U.K.’s national weather service declared its first-ever extreme heat warning on Monday. The alert now sits alongside age-old ones, such as thunderstorms, fog and lightning. In explaining why a new category was needed, the Met Office was unequivocal: “Research shows that, as a result of climate change, we are now much more likely to see prolonged spells of hot weather.”...​​Global warming has heated the planet about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. That’s having all kinds of impacts, and perhaps on the worse end of the predicted spectrum... _“It’s no longer a vague concern about things happening in the future.” _Jennifer Atkinson, professor of environmental humanities at the University of Washington...​​The record-breaking heatwave on the west coast of North America got worldwide attention, especially after scientists found it was “virtually impossible” without human-caused climate change, but the heatwaves that followed did not.​​[How to Talk About Climate Change as Catastrophes Pile Up]​​


son, you can post nonsense from any fking paper in the world, the fact I made still remains the same.  Hi Jim!!!


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West,​ exacerbating drought and wildfires​Much of the western USA is enduring a punishing and unforgiving summer of heat, drought and wildfires. Hundreds of heat records have been shattered, and drought encompasses a whopping 94% of the West. Wildfires have scorched nearly 4,000 square miles, an area larger than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island put together...​​This cauldron of misery has been exacerbated by a sprawling heat dome that's wandered around the West this summer, sending temperatures skyrocketing. A heat dome occurs when the atmosphere traps hot air like a lid or cap...​​Nearly 60 million people in the West are enduring a drought, all the way from Washington to New Mexico. Nearly 95% of the region is in a drought, the highest percentage in at least the past 20 years, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor...​​"Extreme, record-breaking heat leading up to this week has resulted in rapid deteriorations in drought conditions across the Pacific Northwest, northern Great Basin and Northern Rockies," the most recent Drought Monitor said. ...​​In Oregon, where drought has intensified and expanded from severe to exceptional levels, soil moisture, stream flow and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (a drought-monitoring indicator that includes the effects of precipitation and temperature) show conditions are among the driest going back to 1895, the Drought Monitor said this month.​​Montana recorded less than 25% of its normal precipitation in June, which is historically its highest precipitation month. Impacts there included infestations of grasshoppers...​​Extreme conditions like what the West is enduring this summer are often from a combination of unusual random, short-term and natural weather patterns heightened by long-term, human-caused climate change.​​Scientists have long warned that the weather will get wilder as the world warms. Climate change has made the West much warmer and drier in the past 30 years...​​"With regard to climate change, it is expected that the jet stream will become more wavy in the future as average temperatures continue to climb, making these large deviations, and subsequently extreme heat events, more common," AccuWeather senior meteorologist Randy Adkins said.​​[Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West, exacerbating drought and wildfires]​​​View attachment 514812​
> _"Oh, yeah!_
> _"Well, Ah aksed the Petroleum Institute, 'Did you do it?'
> And they said 'No! We did not. Absolutely not!'
> ...






Yeah?  So?  It's nothing strange.  Once again you post hyperbolic opinion and no science.

Are you so fundamentally stupid that you don't understand the difference between opinion and data?


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> ... but that doesn't mean you couldn't school a climatologist in math ... geology is rich with gradients ... something the typical climatologist avoids like Black Death ...





Yup.  That is true.  Climatologists have completely stopped making predictions of any kind.  They have been wrong so many times that now every "prediction" is preceded by "suggests", or "could", but never a "will happen".


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2021)

Dude doesn't even realize he's the dogmatic zealot worshiping at the altar of fake science.

Am I smarter than all of the world's climatologists?

If they say the science is settled I am.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Fringe dogmatists can pleasure themselves with their science denial, but normal folks must confront the scientific reality.
> 
> The U.K.’s national weather service declared its first-ever extreme heat warning on Monday. The alert now sits alongside age-old ones, such as thunderstorms, fog and lightning. In explaining why a new category was needed, the Met Office was unequivocal: _“Research shows that, as a result of climate change, we are now much more likely to see prolonged spells of hot weather.”..._​​Global warming has heated the planet about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. That’s having all kinds of impacts, and perhaps on the worse end of the predicted spectrum... _“It’s no longer a vague concern about things happening in the future.” _Jennifer Atkinson, professor of environmental humanities at the University of Washington...​​The record-breaking heatwave on the west coast of North America got worldwide attention, especially after scientists found it was _“virtually impossible”_ without human-caused climate change, but the heatwaves that followed did not.​​[How to Talk About Climate Change as Catastrophes Pile Up]​​


Is the reality that the science is settled?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Heat dome brings record-breaking high temperatures to the West,​ exacerbating drought and wildfires​



Would it be hotter or colder without Mike's Nature Trick?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yup.  That is true.  Climatologists have completely stopped making predictions of any kind.  They have been wrong so many times that now every "prediction" is preceded by "suggests", or "could", but never a "will happen".



Climatologists use ∆t ... everyone else uses _dt_ ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... (inside joke) ...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 20, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Fringe dogmatists can pleasure themselves with their science denial, but normal folks must confront the scientific reality.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or a woman?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Fringe dogmatists can pleasure themselves with their science denial, but normal folks must confront the scientific reality.
> 
> The U.K.’s national weather service declared its first-ever extreme heat warning on Monday. The alert now sits alongside age-old ones, such as thunderstorms, fog and lightning. In explaining why a new category was needed, the Met Office was unequivocal: _“Research shows that, as a result of climate change, we are now much more likely to see prolonged spells of hot weather.”..._​​Global warming has heated the planet about 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels. That’s having all kinds of impacts, and perhaps on the worse end of the predicted spectrum... _“It’s no longer a vague concern about things happening in the future.” _Jennifer Atkinson, professor of environmental humanities at the University of Washington...​​The record-breaking heatwave on the west coast of North America got worldwide attention, especially after scientists found it was _“virtually impossible”_ without human-caused climate change, but the heatwaves that followed did not.​​[How to Talk About Climate Change as Catastrophes Pile Up]​​





> Main findings​
> Based on observations and modeling, the occurrence of a heatwave with maximum daily temperatures (TXx) as observed in the area 45–52 ºN, 119–123 ºW, was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.
> The observed temperatures were so extreme that they lie far outside the range of historically observed temperatures. This makes it hard to quantify with confidence how rare the event was. In the most realistic statistical analysis the event is estimated to be about a 1 in 1000 year event in today’s climate.
> There are two possible sources of this extreme jump in peak temperatures. The first is that this is a very low probability event, even in the current climate which already includes about 1.2°C of global warming — the statistical equivalent of really bad luck, albeit aggravated by climate change. The second option is that nonlinear interactions in the climate have substantially increased the probability of such extreme heat, much beyond the gradual increase in heat extremes that has been observed up to now. We need to investigate the second possibility further, although we note the climate models do not show it.


Ralph Nader continues to recommend calling climate change "climate catastrophe" or something equivalent. I've seen it argued (somewhat convincingly) that the term "climate change" was in wide use among climatologists before "global warming," well before that damned Republican wordsmith recommended using "climate change" instead simply for political advantage. But I think Ralph is spot on. It can't be taken seriously until its actual seriousness is reflected in the mainstream media. Far too easy for political hacks and deniers like those assembled here to poo poo it all to death with their incessant "alarmist" crap. Getting the terminology right would make a huge difference.


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ralph Nader continues to recommend calling climate change "climate catastrophe" or something equivalent. I've seen it argued (somewhat convincingly) that the term "climate change" was in wide use among climatologists before "global warming," well before that damned Republican wordsmith recommended using "climate change" instead simply for political advantage. But I think Ralph is spot on. It can't be taken seriously until its actual seriousness is reflected in the mainstream media. Far too easy for political hacks and deniers like those assembled here to poo poo it all to death with their incessant "alarmist" crap. Getting the terminology right would make a huge difference


At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.

Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.

Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.
> 
> Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.
> 
> Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?



You have a point, Schitlapper, now that the Himalayas are completely snow free as your religion predicted, with New York City underwater and uninhabitable as Pope Algore the Prevaricator told us, now that children in England have never seen snow, well we have no choice but acknowledge that you serve the one true religion....




Fucking retard...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.
> 
> Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.
> 
> Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?


yo dude, name one climate claim that has come true.  just one.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.
> 
> Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.
> 
> Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?


Well said and great question. Indeed, seems like a rude awakening for these short-term, shameless profiteers is long overdue.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.
> 
> Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.
> 
> Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?






What "science has been validated".

Not one of the predictions has ever come to pass.  Well known charlatans like the famous clairvoyant sylvia brown has a better track record than climatologists do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well said and great question. Indeed, seems like a rude awakening for these short-term, shameless profiteers is long overdue.


So the people who provide you with natural gas, electricity and gasoline are criminals?  Why do you continue to heat your home and drive to work?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well said and great question. Indeed, seems like a rude awakening for these short-term, shameless profiteers is long overdue.


such as?  name one thing a climate nut job claimed was gonna happen, happened.  one.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well said and great question. Indeed, seems like a rude awakening for these short-term, shameless profiteers is long overdue.




GEEEEEZZZZUSS GUNNA RETURN TAMAWWA



You're such a fucking clown.

What is your accuracy rate clown?

Of 10,000 predictions, a total of 0 have come to pass - it just proves how right your mindless cult is....


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Well said and great question. Indeed, seems like a rude awakening for these short-term, shameless profiteers is long overdue.


As bleak as the prospects are, there _are_ encouraging signs that the private sector is coming in line with the planet's governments who are heeding the scientific reality and its blatant symptoms.

There is a growing consensus that the private sector must be involved if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming.​​A group of over 450 major financial institutions announced that they are aligning their investments with the 2015 Paris climate accord — which calls for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.​​The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero — launched this year by former Bank of England chief Mark Carney — promised to follow scientific guidelines for cutting carbon emissions to “net zero” by 2050.​​That goal — which means limiting greenhouse gas emissions to the amount that can be absorbed again through natural or artificial ways — is increasingly being embraced by companies and governments around the world.​​








						Investors bet big on climate fight but activists warn the same people profit from fossil fuels
					

Some social justice activists called for scrutiny of investors' motives, warning that the same financial institutions that profited from funding fossil fuel firms were now being presented as green champions.




					www.nola.com
				



​
There is _profit_ in responsible, scientifically-savvy policy. 

The alternative, besides being financially irresponsible, is an unacceptable abandonment of national security:



Pentagon warns of climate change 'threat multipliers'​The effects of climate change are "threat multipliers" that will force the Pentagon to rethink how it engages in training, missions and humanitarian aid around the world, the Defense Department said Tuesday in its Quadrennial Defense Review .​​The review, released every four years, steps up calls made to address climate change in the last version. It noted climate change would "aggravate stressors" such as "poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."​


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> As bleak as the prospects are, there _are_ encouraging signs that the private sector is coming in line with the planet's governments who are heeding the scientific reality and its blatant symptoms.
> 
> There is a growing consensus that the private sector must be involved if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming.​​A group of over 450 major financial institutions announced that they are aligning their investments with the 2015 Paris climate accord — which calls for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.​​The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero — launched this year by former Bank of England chief Mark Carney — promised to follow scientific guidelines for cutting carbon emissions to “net zero” by 2050.​​That goal — which means limiting greenhouse gas emissions to the amount that can be absorbed again through natural or artificial ways — is increasingly being embraced by companies and governments around the world.​​
> 
> ...


so which one of the climate change predictions have come true?  Still waiting on you to support your posts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> As bleak as the prospects are, there _are_ encouraging signs that the private sector is coming in line with the planet's governments who are heeding the scientific reality and its blatant symptoms.
> 
> There is a growing consensus that the private sector must be involved if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming.​​A group of over 450 major financial institutions announced that they are aligning their investments with the 2015 Paris climate accord — which calls for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.​​The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero — launched this year by former Bank of England chief Mark Carney — promised to follow scientific guidelines for cutting carbon emissions to “net zero” by 2050.​​That goal — which means limiting greenhouse gas emissions to the amount that can be absorbed again through natural or artificial ways — is increasingly being embraced by companies and governments around the world.​​
> 
> ...




Maybe if you sacrifice an infant to Moloch each morning it will appease Gaia and absolve your carbon sins?

Planned Parenthood temples are open now....


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Dude doesn't even realize he's the dogmatic zealot worshiping at the altar of fake science.
> 
> Am I smarter than all of the world's climatologists?
> 
> If they say the science is settled I am.


I'm convinced they all would have drank jim jones koolaid.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Maybe if you sacrifice an infant to Moloch each morning it will appease Gaia and absolve your carbon sins?
> 
> Planned Parenthood temples are open now....


censored, the local news here in Chicago tried to play one of those climate warming games this week.  Weather dude made the statement that the first frost of the year was later than normal due to global warming.  Then after making that statement reported the latest date for first frost was November 22 back in 1931.  Dude, can't make it up.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> censored, the local news here in Chicago tried to play one of those climate warming games this week.  Weather dude made the statement that the first frost of the year was later than normal due to global warming.  Then after making that statement reported the latest date for first frost was November 22 back in 1931.  Dude, can't make it up.




That's just like TODAY is the hottest day in all of recorded history, even though yesterday had a higher temperature.

Gaia be praised - blessed be.


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

With the scientific consensus now accepted by all nations, the military, and the private sector coming aboard, being joined by an increasingly-enlightened populace is an index of how the ideologically-hamstrung denialists are increasingly marginalized.

*Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing 
the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.*

*Majorities of Americans think the U.S. and global community
is doing too little to address climate change.*

_*Nov. 1, 2021









						Surprising new poll finds half of Americans say US should do more on climate crisis
					

Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.




					thehill.com
				



*_​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> With the scientific consensus now accepted by all nations and the private sector coming aboard, being joined by an increasingly-enlightened populace is an index of how the ideologically-hamstrung denialists are increasingly marginalized.
> 
> *Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing
> the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.*
> ...












						John Jonah Jameson Lol GIF - John Jonah Jameson Lol Laughing Hysterically - Discover & Share GIFs
					

Click to view the GIF




					tenor.com


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> That's just like TODAY is the hottest day in all of recorded history, even though yesterday had a higher temperature.
> 
> Gaia be praised - blessed be.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> With the scientific consensus now accepted by all nations, the military, and the private sector coming aboard, being joined by an increasingly-enlightened populace is an index of how the ideologically-hamstrung denialists are increasingly marginalized.
> 
> *Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing
> the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.*
> ...


so you haven't answered my question on the climate predictions, why?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> With the scientific consensus now accepted by all nations, the military, and the private sector coming aboard, being joined by an increasingly-enlightened populace is an index of how the ideologically-hamstrung denialists are increasingly marginalized.
> 
> *Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing
> the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.*
> ...


Are you saying out of all these fkers you support, not one can give you one prediction to post up for the class to see?


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> so you haven't answered my question on the climate predictions, why?


It is necessary that one first acknowledge the scientific reality before any remedies to it can be understood and embraced.

There is an induced_ ideological_-derangement that results in climatologists, scientists in general, the community of nations, the Pentagon, and, increasingly, the private sector, all being mindlessly rejected.

 Just 10 publishers account for the vast majority of climate denial content on the most popular social media platforms. These publishers include the far-right outlet Breitbart, cable news channel Newsmax, and conservative personality Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire.​


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> Are you saying out of all these fkers you support, not one can give you one prediction to post up for the class to see?


I'm saying that I find the global community of nations, climatological and scientific bodies, the Pentagon, and, increasingly, private sector financiers, _far_ more apt to have a grasp of reality that a faction of ideologues in denial.

Some may differ.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I'm saying that I find the global community of nations, climatological and scientific bodies, the Pentagon, and, increasingly, private sector financiers, _far_ more apt to have a grasp of reality that a faction of ideologues in denial.
> 
> Some may differ.


so you have nothing to present to the class to support the global predictions of doom and gloom?  And you still support it.  Well good for you.  See, I need proof before my life changes.  It would be appreciated if one of your so called scientists could prove their story.  It's fiction right now.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is necessary that one first acknowledge the scientific reality before any remedies to it can be understood and embraced.
> 
> There is an induced_ ideological_-derangement that results in climatologists, scientists in general, the community of nations, the Pentagon, and, increasingly, the private sector, all being mindlessly rejected.
> 
> Just 10 publishers account for the vast majority of climate denial content on the most popular social media platforms. These publishers include the far-right outlet Breitbart, cable news channel Newsmax, and conservative personality Ben Shapiro's The Daily Wire.​


nope, not necessary at all.  I call all of them liars.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.
> 
> Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.
> 
> Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


LOL!

Hilarious!!


----------



## Mac-7 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


Trump was sort of right but not very precise

The climate does change and it always has

NY City used to be under 100 feet of ice but over time the climate changed to what it is now

The scam is liberals giving us the bums rush that we are facing environmental armageddon if we dont turn over control of our lives to the crazy freaked greenies


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> At this point, the crackpots who still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese can be ignored. The science has been validated, and the bullshit exposed. It is the short-term profiteers that constitute the impediment.
> 
> Since the predicted and predictable consequences are unfolding, an ongoing comprehensive compilation of the costs might capture the astronomical price some are willing to pay. Maybe, a Times Square display of the ever-expanding price tag for disaster relief from fires and floods, coastal inundations, infrastructure destruction, crop failures, famine, mass migrations, political instabilities triggering warfare, etc., etc.etc.
> 
> Exploiting living things has a formidable price tag. Who's liable?




Well. .  it seems to me, since the same folks pushing this bullshit, are the same folks making all the money, and are the same folks in control of the entire system, why don't YOU figure it out genius?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.
> 
> Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.
> 
> Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


you put a plug in your butthole?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Trump was sort of right but not very precise
> 
> The climate does change and it always has
> 
> ...


I would like to know what changes?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> yo dude, name one climate claim that has come true.  just one.



That's easy.
There had not been a NorthWest Passsage through the Arctic, (except for a coastal zigzag that took years, until 2009,

{...Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable for ice navigation. 
...
 In 2016, a Chinese shipping line expressed a desire to make regular voyages of cargo ships using the passage to the eastern United States and Europe, after a successful passage by _Nordic Orion_ of 73,500 tonnes deadweight tonnage in September 2013.[14][15][_needs update_] Fully loaded, _Nordic Orion_ sat too deep in the water to sail through the Panama Canal....}








						Northwest Passage - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




And the problem is not that this slow rate of warming is continuing, but that slight warming releases billions of tons of now frozen methane hydrate, which along with increasing water vapor in the warmer air, will accelerate global warming by over a factor of 20, at some point.
We do not know when it will happen, but consider an increase of 30 degrees instead of just 1.5 degrees.
The danger is not just the carbon, but the methane and water vapor the carbon will initiate.
It will not happen slowly.
Once it gets to the point of melting methane and adding water vapor, it will then happen way too fast to react to it.
It will then be too late.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Maybe if you sacrifice an infant to Moloch each morning it will appease Gaia and absolve your carbon sins?
> 
> Planned Parenthood temples are open now....



Unfortunately birth control is too late.
We already have over 3 times the viable world population that can be sustained.
We could talk about food, water, etc., but when it comes down to it, there is not even enough oxygen.
Sure we have about a 200 year reserve of free oxygen in the atmosphere, but if there are not enough trees and ocean plankton to keep it replenished, our future generations will run out.
And we already have deforested way too much, and polluted the coastal banks that used to supply oxygen from the oceans.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> censored, the local news here in Chicago tried to play one of those climate warming games this week.  Weather dude made the statement that the first frost of the year was later than normal due to global warming.  Then after making that statement reported the latest date for first frost was November 22 back in 1931.  Dude, can't make it up.



Depends.
A weatherman can tell if an event 90 years ago was a freak condition and the current event is due to normal seasonal conditions.
I don't know, and likely either do you, but a weatherman should be able to tell.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> That's just like TODAY is the hottest day in all of recorded history, even though yesterday had a higher temperature.
> 
> Gaia be praised - blessed be.



Oh come on,
If you have the hottest week in recorded history, then each day would be the hottest day in recorded history, for that day.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> you put a plug in your butthole?



Eating less beef is one solution, since cows produce a lot of methane.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> I would like to know what changes?



Very simple.
We have always known there is a 110,000 year long ice age/warming cycle.
The plants do well, remove carbon, the planet gets colder, the plants die, they rot and release the carbon again, so it warms back up.
Happened over 12 times.

But we are adding a new warming cycle on top of the previous high, in 40 years instead of 55,000 years.
An additional artificial warming on top of an existing warm period, will reach temperature highs that have not been seen on earth since the dinosaur swamps of over 200 million years ago.   For example, they predict perpetual cloud cover and fog, so no more star gazing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Dude doesn't even realize he's the dogmatic zealot worshiping at the altar of fake science.
> 
> Am I smarter than all of the world's climatologists?
> 
> If they say the science is settled I am.



He's a CCP shill, probably a genuine Chinese soldier


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2021)

Have you accepted Anthropogenic Climate Change as your Lord and Savior?

Do you Believe?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 4, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Have you accepted Anthropogenic Climate Change as your Lord and Savior?
> 
> Do you Believe?



That is silly.
Fossil fuel is concentrated hundreds of millions of years worth of sunlight energy, stored in trillions of tons of carbon we release into the atmosphere every year.
How could such massive releases not have some sort of dramatic global effect.
You do realize that carbon in the atmosphere makes the planet 70 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise?
Water vapor does the same thing, which is why nights are always warmer if it is cloudy than if clear.
We all know this stuff already.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing
> the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.



Well, there is some science for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is necessary that one first acknowledge the scientific reality before any remedies to it can be understood and embraced.



I agree.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build? 100? 150? More?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There had not been a NorthWest Passsage through the Arctic, (except for a coastal zigzag that took years, until 2009,



Never ever? That's a mighty long time. Are you sure?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Fossil fuel is concentrated hundreds of millions of years worth of sunlight energy, stored in trillions of tons of carbon we release into the atmosphere every year.
> How could such massive releases not have some sort of dramatic global effect.
> You do realize that carbon in the atmosphere makes the planet 70 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise?
> ...


I posted millions of times that:

Fuel doesn't come from fossils
CO2 at those levels does NOTHING  to raise temperature 
Mankind did not move the CO2 dial by shutting the economy in 2020
AGW is a cult because it's not science


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> How could such massive releases not have some sort of dramatic global effect.


such as?


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Fossil fuel is concentrated hundreds of millions of years worth of sunlight energy, stored in trillions of tons of carbon we release into the atmosphere every year.



I'm not sure you are up to date on the latest POV on both sides of the arguments on this. . . 

Thomas Gold
The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth
Thomas Gold
U.S.G.S. Professional Paper 1570, The Future of Energy Gases, 1993

*


			https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Origin-of-oil/The%20Origin%20of%20Methane%20(and%20Oil)%20in%20the%20Crust%20of%20the%20Earth.pdf
		

*
(From the conclusion

". . . Drilling to below 5 or 6 kilometers is still expensive and not much exploration to these levels will be done so long as the
good prospects there are not recognized. But despite the expense of drilling, which would no doubt greatly decrease if more
of it were done, the productivity from deep levels has frequently shown itself to be very high. Gas at depth below the critical
layer tends to have a pressure approaching the lithostatic value, which may be on the order of 2,000 bar. The density is thus
hundreds of times higher than it is in shallow wells, and may be as high as half the density of oils; therefore the content of
gas in a given volume of pore spaces is hundreds of times greater than in shallow wells. The high pressure differentials into
the well bore mean that very high flow rates can be obtained, even from rock which at shallower levels would be regarded as
of insufficient permeability for production. The ultimate production from a given well is greater, because a greater pressure
gradient drives gas to the wellbore, and the expansion of the gas will allow a large proportion of the initial gas in place to be
produced. It is therefore by no means true that gas production from the deep horizons must be expensive, and many
examples exist already that show that deep gas production can be quite competitive with shallow gas. The initial investment
in an area will be higher, but so will be the returns.

Because deep gas does not have many of the special requirements for its accumulation that oil has, one may expect it to be
in many more locations than oil. Many countries in all parts of the world will benefit from a more widely distributed fuel
source.

Prospecting by the search for surface seepage of gas is a rational procedure, since large quantities of gas must constantly be
escaping. Oil was found mainly by the attention that oil seeps drew to an area; gas seeps require instruments to be found,
but, with more gas than oil coming up and escaping more readily, gas seeps are good indicators of the presence of gas
underneath. The quality of available prospecting methods is a major economic item, especially for the deep horizons where
exploratory drilling is expensive.

A flow of hydrocarbon fluids through the crust will have affected much of its chemical development. The concentration of
many types of mineral deposits, especially of metal ores, has not had adequate explanations. The leaching out of particular
components from the rocks requires fluids that can dissolve these components, and it requires large pressure differentials to
drive these fluids through the pores of a sufficient quantity of rock to gain access to the materials. Hydrocarbons ascending
from depth may provide these requirements. They will be present at a high temperature and pressure, where organo-metallic
compounds can readily form. Such compounds are largely soluble in hydrocarbons, and may thus be transported upwards by
them. These metals may include some that have quite inadequate solubilities to have been transported by aqueous fluids, but
that can form organo-metallics. Silver, gold, and the platinum group are in that category, but many others may come under
consideration for such processes. It is interesting to note that particularly gold has been found in many locations together
with elemental carbon. Vanadium and nickel have shown a strong association with petroleum, both by the presence of
compounds in the petroleum, and the deposition in or near oilfields. Several of the elements that would have a high vapor
pressure at mantle temperatures have been found associated with hydrocarbons, not only helium but also mercury, and all
the halides. A range of new processes will have to be investigated for the understanding of mineralization in the crust, and
the search for hydrocarbons may become associated with the search for certain minerals. The microbiology in the ground
which is fed by hydrocarbons may have contributed to highly selective processes; just as we saw concentrated magnetite in
the boreholes in Sweden, apparently concentrated by microbial action, so perhaps all the large magnetite deposits of Sweden
have a similar origin. Judging from the quantities of microbial material that have been identified in hydrocarbon regions
(Ourisson and others, 1984), microbial processing may have been of major importance in the evolution of the crust."


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

Grumblenuts said:


> Ralph Nader continues to recommend calling climate change "climate catastrophe" or something equivalent.



  Is that cretin still alive?

  I though he'd used up his fifteen minutes of fame a very, very, very long time ago.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Is that cretin still alive?
> 
> I though he'd used up his fifteen minutes of fame a very, very, very long time ago.


he did


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

westwall said:


> What "science has been validated".



  Don't let it be forgotten that the one [Shitlap]  with whom you're trying to argue science, believes that _“science”_ supports the claim that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> I'm convinced they all would have drank jim jones koolaid.



  See also:  mRNA-based COVID _“vaccines”_


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> so you haven't answered my question on the climate predictions, why?



  Probably because he's full of schmidlap, and he knows it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> It is necessary that one first *acknowledge the scientific reality* before any remedies to it can be understood and embraced.



  Says someone who believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Don't let it be forgotten that the one [Shitlap]  with whom you're trying to argue science, believes that _“science”_ supports the claim that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


well there you go.  I stand corrected. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> See also:  mRNA-based COVID _“vaccines”_


same difference for me.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I'm saying that I find the global community of nations, climatological and scientific bodies, the Pentagon, and, increasingly, private sector financiers, _far_ more apt to *have a grasp of reality* that a faction of ideologues in denial.
> 
> Some may differ.



  How is your grasp on reality?

  Is Bruce Jenner a man or is he a woman?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Unfortunately birth control is too late.
> We already have over 3 times the viable world population that can be sustained.
> We could talk about food, water, etc., but when it comes down to it, there is not even enough oxygen.
> Sure we have about a 200 year reserve of free oxygen in the atmosphere, but if there are not enough trees and ocean plankton to keep it replenished, our future generations will run out.
> And we already have deforested way too much, and polluted the coastal banks that used to supply oxygen from the oceans.


well removing CO2 will remove trees.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Eating less beef is one solution, since cows produce a lot of methane.



  I suppose, then, the answer, is for your kind, at least, to eat much more quiche.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I suppose, then, the answer, is for your kind, at least, to eat much more quiche.


the earth is 75% water, and the cows are the reason to fear CO2.


----------



## schmidlap (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Says someone who believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman.


I do not share your fixation with Jenner's sexuality, but_ this_ should titillate you bigly:

Caitlyn Jenner Takes Trump Up on His Offer, Uses Bathroom at Trump Tower​_*“Donald Trump said I could take a pee anywhere at a Trump facility, 
so I am gonna go take a pee in the ladies room.”*_​
_* Trump was pressed to share his position on HB2, the controversial North Carolina bill that, among other things, prohibits trans people for using the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity. In a move that riled some conservatives, Trump came out against law, saying it was unnecessary. Then he said that if Jenner visited one of his properties, she could use whatever bathroom she wanted. A week later, Jenner took him up on the offer.*_​









						Caitlyn Jenner Takes Trump Up on His Bathroom Offer
					

“Donald Trump said I could take a pee anywhere at a Trump facility, so I am gonna go take a pee in the ladies room,” Jenner said.




					www.nbcnews.com
				



​


----------



## Mac-7 (Nov 4, 2021)

jc456 said:


> I would like to know what changes?


It gets warmer or cooler

Wetter or drier


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I do not share your fixation with Jenner's sexuality…



  It goes directly to every claim that you make to _“science”_, and to your grasp on reality.

  If you cannot simply come out and admit that he's a man, in spite of his delusions and the quasi-medical Frankensteinery that he has had done to himself, then you have no claim whatsoever to genuine science, and you have no grasp on reality.

  And with that, every argument that you have tried to make, in this thread or elsewhere, falls.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> It gets warmer or cooler
> 
> Wetter or drier


well I learned climate is based on years and years of weather.  Rain is not climate,  A rainy area is climate, and when and if rain stopped, then climate changed, like a desert.  Pressure systems moving across country are not signs of climate change.  

Now if we were riding waterboards on the Arctic, then climate changed.


----------



## westwall (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I suppose, then, the answer, is for your kind, at least, to eat much more quiche.





No, only let them eat veggies.  Makes them weak and stupid.  Of course this moron is already stupid, but I prefer stupid people be weak too.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 4, 2021)

Climate change is not the only treat coming our way----
*Summary Table as of 2017
Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
Oil Consumption
35,442,913,090
barrels per year
97,103,871 barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption
47 (years left)*
World Oil Statistics - Worldometer

The above data is when it is "all" gone. Turmoil is going to rampage us way before it is "all gone"!!!!!
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 4, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> The above data is when it is "all" gone.



Wrong.


----------



## ding (Nov 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Fossil fuel is concentrated hundreds of millions of years worth of sunlight energy, stored in trillions of tons of carbon we release into the atmosphere every year.
> How could such massive releases not have some sort of dramatic global effect.
> You do realize that carbon in the atmosphere makes the planet 70 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise?
> ...


Because it’s a minor greenhouse gas and has never driven the earth’s climate. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature with atmospheric CO2 lagging temperature by 800 years.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 4, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Climate change is not the only treat coming our way----
> *Summary Table as of 2017
> Oil Reserves
> 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
> ...


The earth is done if the oil runs out! It comes from the core of the planet!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> With the scientific consensus now accepted by all nations, the military, and the private sector coming aboard, being joined by an increasingly-enlightened populace is an index of how the ideologically-hamstrung denialists are increasingly marginalized.
> 
> *Half of Americans feel the current U.S. policies aimed at reducing
> the impact of climate change don’t go far enough.*
> ...



Really Sciency Consensus.. 

Uh Schitlapper, Dogma is pretty much the opposite of science, you fucking retard.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Have you accepted Anthropogenic Climate Change as your Lord and Savior?
> 
> Do you Believe?



Brother Rigby DOES, blessed be....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> I do not share your fixation with Jenner's sexuality, but_ this_ should titillate you bigly:
> 
> Caitlyn Jenner Takes Trump Up on His Offer, Uses Bathroom at Trump Tower​_*“Donald Trump said I could take a pee anywhere at a Trump facility,
> so I am gonna go take a pee in the ladies room.”*_​
> ...



What the fuck retard...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Climate change is not the only treat coming our way----
> *Summary Table as of 2017
> Oil Reserves
> 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
> ...



Oh, we're running out of oil again....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 5, 2021)

Remember,  Chinese CO2,  which is double the US output does NOT cause climate change because it acts on a per capita basis, err, or something.  

Look, this isn't my explanation. The AGW Cult does backflips to protect their CCP Masters. They came up with this "per capita" BS and it sound completely fucking stupid, right?


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 5, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Climate change is not the only treat coming our way----
> *Summary Table as of 2017
> Oil Reserves
> 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
> ...


Being a 71-year-old male; if I were asked, I would reply, “_don’t remember_”

In a side note, I find women God’s greatest creation on the face or our planet.
_So, help me God_

For me, the riddle is solved
*The egg came first*

-

Just to keep things in prospective,


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 5, 2021)

The below article states that oil reserves will be totally consumed within 47 years.
*"Summary Table as of 2017
Oil Reserves
1,650,585,140,000 barrels
Oil Consumption
35,442,913,090
barrels per year
97,103,871 barrels per day
Reserves/Consumption
47 (years left)"

The article was written in 2017.
2017+47= *_*2064*_*ad*

As I see it
am i wrong? -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 5, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> The below article states that oil reserves will be totally consumed within 47 years.
> *"Summary Table as of 2017
> Oil Reserves
> 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
> ...



As you see it.....you're right.

In the real world, you're wrong.
You didn't even understand your own link..........to be fair, neither did the idiots who created it.

_There are *1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world as of 2016*._

It was right there.

_This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)._

I wonder if they added this later?


----------



## elektra (Nov 6, 2021)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhah

And the solution, is to build build build, to increase the use of heavy manufacturing, we must take all our natural resources and manufacture them into windmills and solar panels using heavy industry. We must spend the next 50 years covering the entire earth with wind turbines and solar panels. Then after we have exhausted and polluted everything, we will have saved ourselves, or a few of ourselves for we will have nothing left to grow food on or to grow food with, but we will have built more stuff than the world has ever known and our leaders will get rich for generations.

We must build and manufacture, we must destroy the Earth to save it.


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

kaz said:


> Democrats are the anti-science party, Chief.
> 
> There are two things we could do today that would have a dramatic impact on global warming.   Nuclear Power and fracking for natural gas.  Democrats oppose them both for your political ideology.
> 
> Your calling believing your political ideology over actual science being pro-science is what a racist moron you are



In the 1920s conservative Americans reacted to science and modernity by rejecting both.

Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s (article) | Khan ...









						Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s (article) | Khan Academy
					

In the 1920s, a backlash against immigrants and modernism led to the original culture wars.




					www.khanacademy.org
				




Transformation and backlash in the 1920s. While prosperous, middle-class Americans found much to celebrate about a new era of leisure and consumption, many Americans—often those in rural areas—disagreed on the meaning of a “good life” and how to achieve it. They reacted to the rapid social changes of modern urban society with a vigorous ...


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As you see it.....you're right.
> 
> In the real world, you're wrong.
> You didn't even understand your own link..........to be fair, neither did the idiots who created it.
> ...



An oil reserve is not a measurement of gallons or barrels of oil. Its an educated guess based on quality, cost of refining, cost of extraction...


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

In its own way, this new movement — fundamentalism — was every bit as important as the modernity it seemingly resisted, with remarkable determination. Beginning on May 25, 1919. 

Fundamentalism - The 1920s









						Fundamentalism
					

Fundamentalism vs. Modernism The twenties were a time of great divide between rural and urban areas in America. Both groups differed in viewpoints on almost every topic. One of the main disputes...



					thetwentiesushistory.weebly.com
				




Fundamentalism vs. Modernism . The twenties were a time of great divide between rural and urban areas in America. Both groups differed in viewpoints on almost every topic. One of the main disputes between both groups was born from the idea of modernism, and fundamentalism. As a brief synopsis, initially, urban Americans believed in modernism....


----------



## ding (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> An oil reserve is not a measurement of gallons or barrels of oil. Its an educated guess based on quality, cost of refining, cost of extraction...


No, dear. It’s based upon volumetric calculations to determine original oil in place and recovery factors based upon drive mechanism.


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

ding said:


> No, dear. It’s based upon volumetric calculations to determine original oil in place and recovery factors based upon drive mechanism.




Oil reserves - Wikipedia








						Oil reserves - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



Oil reserves denote the amount of crude oil that can be technically recovered at a cost that is financially feasible at the present price of oil. Hence reserves will change with the price, unlike oil resources, which include all oil that can be technically recovered at any price. Reserves may be for a well, a reservoir, a field, a nation, or the world. Different classifications of reserves are related to their degree of certainty. The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, …


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> In the 1920s conservative Americans reacted to science and modernity by rejecting both.
> 
> Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s (article) | Khan ...
> 
> ...



Not everyone can be as forward thinking as you of Hezbollah are, Hannah..


----------



## ding (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> Oil reserves - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was a reservoir engineer for the first ten years of my career in the oil industry.  Yes, reserves must be economic per SEC reporting rules for publically traded companies.  But it begins with OOIP estimates and recovery factors. Then economics are run to determine commerciality.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 6, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)._


If you are relying on “unproven oil reserves” to save the day, the chance that they will find 5% more than what has already discovered only postpones the end by a few years or maybe just maybe a decade.
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> An oil reserve is not a measurement of gallons or barrels of oil. Its an educated guess based on quality, cost of refining, cost of extraction...


If you are relying on “unproven oil reserves” to save the day, the chance that they will find 5% more than what has already discovered only postpones the end by a few years or maybe just maybe a decade.

That guess is always exaggerated because the net worth is based on estimated reserves. That is common economics.
-


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> If you are relying on “unproven oil reserves” to save the day, the chance that they will find 5% more than what has already discovered only postpones the end by a few years or maybe just maybe a decade.
> 
> That guess is always exaggerated because the net worth is based on estimated reserves. That is common economics.
> -



I am not relying on unproven oil reserves.. Follow the thread. Are you aware that Shaybah is in its infancy?

Shaybah oil field can pump 750,000 bpd ‘for 70 years ...








						Shaybah oil field can pump 750,000 bpd ‘for 70 years’
					

The Shaybah oil field in the Empty Quarter desert can pump 750,000 barrels per day for the next 70 years because of the innovative management of the site by Saudi Aramco, according to recent reports.The oil field, 800 kilometers southeast of Dhahran, is one of the most prominent landmarks in the...




					www.arabnews.com
				



May 20, 2014 · The Shaybah oil field in the Empty Quarter desert can pump 750,000 barrels per day for the next 70 years because of the innovative management of the site by Saudi Aramco, according to …


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> In the 1920s conservative Americans reacted to science and modernity by rejecting both.
> 
> Nativism and fundamentalism in the 1920s (article) | Khan ...
> 
> ...



The 1920s. LOL.  That's great, honey


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

Manifa Oil Field Redevelopment, Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia




__





						Manifa Oil Field Redevelopment, Arabian Gulf, Saudi Arabia
					

The Manifa shallow water oil field, located off the northern Arabian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia, is one of the world’s biggest producing oil fields.




					www.nsenergybusiness.com
				




Located in 15m-deep waters, approximately 200km north-west of Dhahran, the Manifa oil field is 45km-long and 18km-wide. It comprises six identified heavy crude reservoirs that are stacked one over another. The production wells at Manifa are drilled up to 32,000ft-deep to access the oil resources.

The Manifa oil field was discovered in 1957, while crude oil production started at a rate of 40,000bpd in 1964. It was Saudi Aramco’s second heavy oil field to commence production. The crude output from Manifa was increased to 113,000bopd in 1966, which latter peaked at 140,00bopd, with a total of 17 offshore platforms and the completion of water injection system in 1977.


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

kaz said:


> The 1920s. LOL.  That's great, honey



Referencing the move towards fundmentalism as backlash to science and modernity. What did you do in the oil business?


----------



## kaz (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> Referencing the move towards fundmentalism as backlash to science and modernity. What did you do in the oil business?



You don't grasp transportation costs are part of oil cost today, of course you want to talk about the 1920s


----------



## surada (Nov 6, 2021)

kaz said:


> You don't grasp transportation costs are part of oil cost today, of course you want to talk about the 1920s



Everybody knows about transportation costs.. What were Chinese tar sands selling for????  $29.00 a barrel?

This thread is also about antiscience religious zealots. They were spurred on and organized in Philadelphia in May of 1919 as a backlash to science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> An oil reserve is not a measurement of gallons or barrels of oil. Its an educated guess based on quality, cost of refining, cost of extraction...



You need to explain that to the other guy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 6, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> If you are relying on “unproven oil reserves” to save the day,



If you think that new reserves aren't discovered every year or new methods to 
increase production of already discovered reserves, you're dumber than you first appeared.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 6, 2021)

surada said:


> This thread is also about antiscience religious zealots.



Who said you had to be religious or anti-science to mock the AGW doomers?


----------



## elektra (Nov 6, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Climate change is not the only treat coming our way----
> *Summary Table as of 2017
> Oil Reserves
> 1,650,585,140,000 barrels
> ...


if true, then why use the reserves faster, why use billions of tons of oil to make something that will last no more than ten years?


----------



## Death Angel (Nov 6, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who said you had to be religious or anti-science to mock the AGW doomers?


Apparently, only God Deniers are "pro science" in the idiot OP's view.  This shit gets old


----------



## Lastamender (Nov 6, 2021)

schmidlap said:


> The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.
> 
> Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.
> 
> Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


Thanks Mr. I'll shill for anything that will hurt this country.


----------



## kaz (Nov 8, 2021)

surada said:


> Everybody knows about transportation costs.. What were Chinese tar sands selling for????  $29.00 a barrel?
> 
> This thread is also about antiscience religious zealots. They were spurred on and organized in Philadelphia in May of 1919 as a backlash to science.



And yet you don't know why your argument of using imports for energy independence was a bogus argument.  The answer is transportation costs, dumb ass.  You're arguing that everyone knows about transportation costs, except ... you ....


----------



## HikerGuy83 (Jul 20, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 21, 2022)

HikerGuy83 said:


> View attachment 672619


We should have listened


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

HikerGuy83 said:


> View attachment 672619



That was before Game 3 of the 1989 World Series ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> We should have listened


Because entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth....


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Because entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth....



Yes ... these islands are made of guano and have been mined out, removing about everything above sea level ... and inch or two sea level rise and the nation is wiped off the face of the Earth ... what does the Bible say about building nations on guano? ... or sand ... or tidal marshland ...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> …what does the Bible say about *building nations on guano*?



  That would be *batshit* crazy, wouldn't it?


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 21, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Because entire nations have been wiped off the face of the earth....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That would be *batshit* crazy, wouldn't it?



Making fun of those lost nations?

You've got a lot of _gull_.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

That certainly took a strange tern ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2022)

Smells fishy to me......


----------



## BackAgain (Jul 21, 2022)

Pro-science AGW deniers are not buying the AGW faithers’ claims about that nonsense.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 21, 2022)




----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 29, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> As bleak as the prospects are, there _are_ encouraging signs that the private sector is coming in line with the planet's governments who are heeding the scientific reality and its blatant symptoms.
> 
> There is a growing consensus that the private sector must be involved if the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming.​​A group of over 450 major financial institutions announced that they are aligning their investments with the 2015 Paris climate accord — which calls for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.​​The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero — launched this year by former Bank of England chief Mark Carney — promised to follow scientific guidelines for cutting carbon emissions to “net zero” by 2050.​​That goal — which means limiting greenhouse gas emissions to the amount that can be absorbed again through natural or artificial ways — is increasingly being embraced by companies and governments around the world.​​
> 
> ...


Major U.S. banks threaten to leave Mark Carney's climate alliance - FT​


			https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/major-u.s.-banks-threaten-to-leave-mark-carneys-climate-alliance-ft-0
		






See Story #3 for details.

False Flag Planted In Nord Stream Pipeline - #NewWorldNextWeek​Interview 1750 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato​Corbett • 09/29/2022








						Interview 1750 - New World Next Week with James Evan Pilato - The Corbett Report
					

This week on the New World Next Week: Nord Stream blows up after Biden and Nuland threaten it; the Canadian government scraps their ArriveCAN app tyranny...for now; and the GFANZ alliance is failing forward into global governmental regulation.




					www.corbettreport.com
				



This week on the New World Next Week: Nord Stream blows up after Biden and Nuland threaten it; the Canadian government scraps their ArriveCAN app tyranny...for now; and the GFANZ alliance is failing forward into global governmental regulation.

*Story #1: EU Chief Calls Nord Stream Attack "Sabotage," Warns Of "Strongest Possible Response"

Story #2: ArriveCan App Finally Scrapped In Canada

Story #3: Former Bank of England Governor Carney’s Net Zero Asset Alliance Crumbling*


----------



## schmidlap (Sep 30, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> Major U.S. banks threaten to leave Mark Carney's climate alliance - FT​
> 
> 
> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/major-u.s.-banks-threaten-to-leave-mark-carneys-climate-alliance-ft-0
> ...


Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​
Self-interest is vanquishing irrational, dogmatic scientific denialism.

The monumental costs of ideologues perpetuating ignorance in the face of the unprecedented frequency of severe weather is inevitably, forcefully, confirming the irrefutable reality and dire consequences of global warming as predictions are realized.
The Rising Costs of Global Warming​_*E.g.,*_ ​*How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​


----------



## Oddball (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The monumental costs of ideologues perpetuating ignorance in the face of the unprecedented frequency of severe weather is inevitably, forcefully, confirming the irrefutable reality and dire consequences of global warming as predictions are realized.
> ​


Low grade demagoguery, with no basis in demonstrable fact.


----------



## two_iron (Sep 30, 2022)




----------



## schmidlap (Sep 30, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Low grade demagoguery, with no basis in demonstrable fact.



Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.

*Yes, Climate Change Is Making Storms Like Hurricane Ian Worse*
*How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​How Climate Change May Be Impacting Storms​ _*“Within the scientific community it’s a relatively well-accepted fact that *__*as global temperatures increase,*_
* extreme precipitation will very likely increase as well.”*
Joao Teixeira, co-director of the Center for Climate Sciences at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory​


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The monumental costs of ideologues perpetuating ignorance in the face of the unprecedented frequency of severe weather is inevitably, forcefully, confirming the irrefutable reality and dire consequences of global warming as predictions are realized.




Where?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.
> 
> *Yes, Climate Change Is Making Storms Like Hurricane Ian Worse*
> *How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​How Climate Change May Be Impacting Storms​ _*“Within the scientific community it’s a relatively well-accepted fact that *__*as global temperatures increase,*_
> ...


how was Ian worse?


----------



## schmidlap (Sep 30, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how was Ian worse?


Worsening extreme weather events attributable to climate change is consistent with climatological predictions, but denied by ideologues.

*Why Ian will rank among worst hurricanes in Florida History*​

Over less than 22 hours, from Monday to Tuesday, Ian got 67% stronger, the National Hurricane Center said. That dramatic escalation fits the pattern of one of the characteristics of hurricanes that scientists have shown is linked to climate change.

In fact, the number of intensifying storms in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific over the last 40 years has increased by 25%, according to data from the NHC analyzed by the Associated Press.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or is he a woman?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.
> 
> *Yes, Climate Change Is Making Storms Like Hurricane Ian Worse*
> *How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​How Climate Change May Be Impacting Storms​ _*“Within the scientific community it’s a relatively well-accepted fact that *__*as global temperatures increase,*_
> ...



How much worse was Ian because of AGW?
Percentage wise?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Worsening extreme weather events attributable to climate change is consistent with climatological predictions, but denied by ideologues.
> 
> *Why Ian will rank among worst hurricanes in Florida History*​
> 
> ...



*Over less than 22 hours, from Monday to Tuesday, Ian got 67% stronger, the National Hurricane Center said. *

How much stronger should it have gotten, without "climate change"?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.
> 
> *Yes, Climate Change Is Making Storms Like Hurricane Ian Worse*
> *How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​How Climate Change May Be Impacting Storms​ _*“Within the scientific community it’s a relatively well-accepted fact that *__*as global temperatures increase,*_
> ...


Pseudo-scientific, anecdotal, swill...."May" and "very likely" are speculation, not science.

You have absolutely _*ZERO*_  testable and repeatable physical evidence for any of that, doomsday cultist.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Worsening extreme weather events attributable to climate change is consistent with climatological predictions, but denied by ideologues.
> 
> *Why Ian will rank among worst hurricanes in Florida History*​
> 
> ...


you get conned every time.  holy shit.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Pseudo-scientific, anecdotal, swill...."May" and "very likely" are speculation, not science.
> 
> You have absolutely _*ZERO*_  testable and repeatable physical evidence for any of that, doomsday cultist.


"May" and "very likely" ARE terms of science and that you disagree simply shows you're unfamiliar with even the basics of the topic.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> "May" and "very likely" ARE terms of science and that you disagree simply shows you're unfamiliar with even the basics of the topic.


Warm moist air rising into cooler air _*WILL *_form cumulus clouds....There's no "may" or "likely" about it.

Testable, repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable.....That's how science works, doomsayer.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Warm moist air rising into cooler air _*WILL *_form cumulus clouds....There's no "may" or "likely" about it.
> 
> Testable, repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable.....That's how science works, doomsayer.


As I have stated here repeatedly, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.  Therefore conclusions can only be stated as matters of probability.

I have no problem imagining a scenario in which warm moist air rising into cooler air will not form cumulus clouds.  My refrigerator provides a handy demonstration of just that.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> As I have stated here repeatedly, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.  Therefore conclusions can only be stated as matters of probability.
> 
> I have not problem imagining a scenario in which warm moist air rising into cooler air will not form cumulus clouds.  My refrigerator provides a handy demonstration of just that.


It wiill, though, form condensation every singe time, which is what a cloud is....Beside that, your refrigerator isn't the atmosphere, numbnutz.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​
> Self-interest is vanquishing irrational, dogmatic scientific denialism.
> 
> The monumental costs of ideologues perpetuating ignorance in the face of the unprecedented frequency of severe weather is inevitably, forcefully, confirming the irrefutable reality and dire consequences of global warming as predictions are realized.
> The Rising Costs of Global Warming​_*E.g.,*_ ​*How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​


So you have no intention of addressing the fact that the the Net Zero (GFANZ) seems to be falling apart?  That the banks and institutional investors are not seeing a way to maintain their fiduciary responsibility, while at the same time adhering to these whacked out artificially created ESG metrics?

The only way around it, of course, is the same as it has historically been, authoritarianism.  And we KNOW where that leads, genocide. 

THAT IS, of course what you are pushing, MASS STARVATION, and MASS MURDER.

No, in fact, the person that is the ideologue, who wants to trash freedom and liberty, and destroy civilization here, is in fact, YOU.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​
> Self-interest is vanquishing irrational, dogmatic scientific denialism.
> 
> The monumental costs of ideologues perpetuating ignorance in the face of the unprecedented frequency of severe weather is inevitably, forcefully, confirming the irrefutable reality and dire consequences of global warming as predictions are realized.
> The Rising Costs of Global Warming​_*E.g.,*_ ​*How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​




There hasn't been an increase in hurricanes or their strength.....Ian is the first in about 15 years.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Denying science when ignorance exacts such a high cost is no way to go through life.
> 
> *Yes, Climate Change Is Making Storms Like Hurricane Ian Worse*
> *How climate change is rapidly fueling super hurricanes*​How Climate Change May Be Impacting Storms​ _*“Within the scientific community it’s a relatively well-accepted fact that *__*as global temperatures increase,*_
> ...





Yes, you clods deny science all the time.

Stop it.


----------



## themirrorthief (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


unfortunately for liberals who are desperate to deflect from the horrible Biden chaos no scientist living or dead had ever discovered any proof that climate change is man made


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Oddball said:


> It wiill, though, form condensation every singe time, which is what a cloud is....Beside that, your refrigerator isn't the atmosphere, numbnutz.


Your statement only said "cooler air", Numbnutz.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> As I have stated here repeatedly, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.  Therefore conclusions can only be stated as matters of probability.
> 
> I have no problem imagining a scenario in which warm moist air rising into cooler air will not form cumulus clouds.  My refrigerator provides a handy demonstration of just that.





Tell that to J. Tuzo Wilson.  What there isn't is evidentiary support for the theory of AGW.

There is evidentiary support for most of the other theories that are brought forth in science.


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> Tell that to J. Tuzo Wilson.  What there isn't is evidentiary support for the theory of AGW.
> 
> There is evidentiary support for most of the other theories that are brought forth in science.


There is enough evidence that almost every scientist on the planet accepts it.  Or do you believe they are lying?  And if so, I would ask: where is the evidence for THAT?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> unfortunately for liberals who are desperate to deflect from the horrible Biden chaos no scientist living or dead had ever discovered any proof that climate change is man made



Lets put it this way…

No Scientist living or dead has ever provided proof that flat earth conservative deniers are willing to accept


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> There is enough evidence that almost every scientist on the planet accepts it.  Or do you believe they are lying?  And if so, I would ask: where is the evidence for THAT?





No, there isn't.   There are computer models only.

Models are not data.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> There is enough evidence that almost every scientist on the planet accepts it.  Or do you believe they are lying?  And if so, I would ask: where is the evidence for THAT?


Again, my apologies, what evidence?


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Lets put it this way…
> 
> No Scientist living or dead has ever provided proof that flat earth conservative deniers are willing to accept





And you clods have never left your anti science religious dogma that claims only climatologists can understand their holy scriptures.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

Oddball said:


> Testable, repeatable, quantifiable, and falsifiable.....That's how science works, doomsayer.


Testy, repetitive, unqualified, false claims? How alarmodenieristas like you work? 
_OMG , no major hurricanes have hit the U.S. this year!_
WHAM! Fiona
WHAM! Ian
_OMG, only two major hurricanes have hit the U.S. this year!_


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Testy, repetitive, unqualified, false claims? How alarmodenieristas like you work?
> _OMG , no major hurricanes have hit the U.S. this year!_
> WHAM! Fiona
> WHAM! Ian
> _OMG, only two major hurricanes have hit the U.S. this year!_





Compared to years when five, or six, or shit even 10 have.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> Compared to years when five, or six, or shit even 10 have.
> 
> DURRRRRR


Alrighty then. Sending 8 warm, moist clouds in your general direction..
Looks like you've sensed them already.. 




_Hmm?
Elderberries?
Dingleberries?_


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Alrighty then. Sending 8 warm, moist clouds in your general direction..
> Looks like you've sensed them already..
> 
> 
> ...





You implied that two hurricanes was somehow significant.   Historical fact says it isn’t. 

DURRRRRR


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> And you clods have never left your anti science religious dogma that claims only climatologists can understand their holy scriptures.


Why would the people who present the fictitious documents turn against each other! Isn’t it natural they would all stay consistent?  No one with a different view would be a part of such stupid


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, there isn't.   There are computer models only.
> 
> Models are not data.


That is a falsehood.  There are billions and billions of empirical observations that provide overwhelming evidentiary support.  I remind you that the theory predates computers or their models.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> That is a falsehood.  There are billions and billions of empirical observations that provide overwhelming evidentiary support.  I remind you that the theory predates computers or their models.


So respectfully, why can’t you ever post one?


----------



## ding (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> That is a falsehood.  There are billions and billions of empirical observations that provide overwhelming evidentiary support.  I remind you that the theory predates computers or their models.


The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> The planet is one tough son of a bitch piece of rock
> 
> We can reduce our chances of surviving on this planet though


Or if libs have their way, we can reduce our standard of living


----------



## Crick (Sep 30, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Or if libs have their way, we can reduce our standard of living


How much do you think a ten foot rise in sea level will reduce our standard of living?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> How much do you think a ten foot rise in sea level will reduce our standard of living?



If we cut our CO2 to zero and China keeps increasing their CO2, how many years will that ten foot rise be delayed? 10 years? 20? 

How much lower will our GDP be after cutting CO2 to zero?


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> How much do you think a ten foot rise in sea level will reduce our standard of living?


I have not seen such a rise

Its always 25 years in the future

And has been since the first eco scientist got his first government grant


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> You implied that two hurricanes was somehow significant.   Historical fact says it isn’t.
> 
> DURRRRRR


Try not to infer stupid things, DURP, but.. Historical fact says hurricane season here runs from June _through_ _November_. And:


> This year’s Atlantic Ocean hurricane season has had a distinct whiplash vibe.
> 
> It started in May with predictions of an above-average Atlantic hurricane season. June through August passed with barely a peep from the tropics, and then *wham! — two significant, potentially devastating storms* formed and struck parts of the U.S. within a week of one another. First, Hurricane Fiona dropped 30 inches of rain on Puerto Rico and knocked power out to the entire island, and now Hurricane Ian is barreling toward the west coast of Florida, threatening a dangerous storm surge in Tampa, Fort Myers and elsewhere.
> 
> “It has been an unusual year,” said Phil Klotzbach, a senior research scientist and hurricane expert at Colorado State University. “We had no named storms in August for the first time since 1997, and since then we’ve had six named storms, four hurricanes and two major hurricanes.”





> Bigger, stronger, faster​The total number of Atlantic tropical cyclones has not increased dramatically over the last few decades.
> 
> 
> But they do seem to be getting more damaging: Of the 15 costliest storms to hit the U.S., all but one have arrived this century. (Hurricane Andrew, in 1992, is the exception.)
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Try not to infer stupid things, DURP, but.. Historical fact says hurricane season here runs from June _through_ _November_. And:



_But they do seem to be getting more damaging: Of the 15 costliest storms to hit the U.S., all but one have arrived this century. (Hurricane Andrew, in 1992, is the exception.)

Why is that? For one, climate change appears to be helping them get stronger, faster._

More houses, more built in risky areas, more expensive houses.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Sep 30, 2022)

Crick said:


> How much do you think a ten foot rise in sea level will reduce our standard of living?


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> Or if libs have their way, we can reduce our standard of living


Yes we can

If you are more concerned with short term standard of living over long term survival, you are one sick SOB


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> 
> If you are more concerned with short term standard of living over long term survival, you are one sick SOB



Exactly!!!

We must all be poorer....to save the planet!

Mail your checks to DC, they'll spend better than you.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exactly!!!
> 
> We must all be poorer....to save the planet!
> 
> Mail your checks to DC, they'll spend better than you.



Yea…looks like we may need to make certain sacrifices to save future generations

Why do conservatives oppose it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yea…looks like we may need to make certain sacrifices to save future generations
> 
> Why do conservatives oppose it?



How many trillions should we waste...err...invest so that China can emit more than our reduction?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yea…looks like we may need to make certain sacrifices to save future generations
> 
> Why do conservatives oppose it?


They "conserve" only short term profits. "_Hell, The Rapture is coming soon anyway.. Save the fetus! Screw the grandchildren!"_


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Try not to infer stupid things, DURP, but.. Historical fact says hurricane season here runs from June _through_ _November_. And:






Your claim is the fact that two storms hit is significant.  It isn't.  Furthermore they are not more powerful than storms from the past.  If a hurricane with the power of the 1935 Labor Day, or Camille were to hit today, you would see unequalled destruction.

The climate fraudsters ignore the past because it PROVES they are lying swine.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> 
> If you are more concerned with short term standard of living over long term survival, you are one sick SOB






You don't care that millions will die for the possibility that the global temperature will be lowered *ONE DEGREE*, in 100 years.....maybe.  That is the STATED goal.  Talk about a clueless moron.

YOU are it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> Your claim is the fact that two storms hit is significant. It isn't.


That was in fact _your assumption_, not my claim. Nevertheless, those two storms were "significant" according to the source I later provided. You, otoh, just spout shit pulled straight from your ass and expect everyone to take you seriously, time and again.. Grow up.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> You don't care that millions will die for the possibility that the global temperature will be lowered *ONE DEGREE*, in 100 years.....maybe.  That is the STATED goal.  Talk about a clueless moron.
> 
> YOU are it.



You don’t care if millions are dying globally from famine

As long as you protect the profits of Big Oil


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many trillions should we waste...err...invest so that China can emit more than our reduction?


China is suffering more from air pollution than any nation on the planet


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> You don’t care if millions are dying globally from famine
> 
> As long as you protect the profits of Big Oil






Sure I do.  Globalist "green" policies are making it worse.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> China is suffering more from air pollution than any nation on the planet





Indeed.  And you don't care that their pollution wafts across the Pacific and poisons us.  In fact you SUPPORT that.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> You don’t care if millions are dying globally from famine
> 
> As long as you protect the profits of Big Oil



How many fewer gallons of gasoline should I use.....to end all the famines?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> China is suffering more from air pollution than any nation on the planet



But their CO2 is what's gonna kill us.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> they are not more powerful than storms from the past.  If a hurricane with the power of the 1935 Labor Day, or Camille were to hit today, you would see unequalled destruction.
> 
> The climate fraudsters ignore the past because it PROVES they are lying swine.


Some FOX news for ya, child:








						Hurricane Ian may be among top 5 most powerful hurricanes to make US landfall
					

With top sustained winds of 155 mph, Hurricane Ian is a strong Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, but only four hurricanes have ever struck the U.S. with stronger winds.




					www.fox5dc.com
				



_What? You mean such costs are regularly compared in terms of today's $?!_ _That 1935 Labor Day one actually ended up costing like nothing?!_ 
Quick, deny it! Deny it all like crazy!


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But their CO2 is what's gonna kill us.


China has a LONG way to go
But they are embracing alternative fuels

No excuse for us to do as much as we can


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> China has a LONG way to go
> But they are embracing alternative fuels
> 
> No excuse for us to do as much as we can



In the mean time, they're killing the planet for profit.

Meanwhile, who has reduced their CO2 as much as us since 2007?


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> 
> If you are more concerned with short term standard of living over long term survival, you are one sick SOB


Your end-of-world fears never come true

I know libs say they have to take proactive steps now because next year, or tomorrow will be too late

But I aint buying it


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yea…looks like we may need to make certain sacrifices to save future generations
> 
> Why do conservatives oppose it?



  It might have something to do with the fact that those who are demanding that us _“little people”_ make all kinds of sacrifices seem unwilling to make any sacrifices themselves.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> Sure I do.  Globalist "green" policies are making it worse.
> 
> DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


Actually, they aren’t 

Resistance to measures to stop climate change continually make it worse


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 30, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It might have something to do with the fact that those who are demanding that us _“little people”_ make all kinds of sacrifices seem unwilling to make any sacrifices themselves.


EVERYONE must make sacrifices

Especially those who profit off of BIG OIL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Actually, they aren’t
> 
> Resistance to measures to stop climate change continually make it worse



I agree, China is the worst.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> EVERYONE must make sacrifices
> 
> Especially those who profit off of BIG OIL



  When I see the big politicians who tell us _“little people”_ how much of our standard of living we must sacrifice, show any willingness to lower their standards of living, even to the level that we _“little people”_ now enjoy, then maybe we can begin to have this conversation.

  As long as they continue to live higher than any of us, while telling us we must sacrifice and live even lower, then they can just go fuck themselves.  And you too.


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Some FOX news for ya, child:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Yeah, look at the population densities dumbass.  the only reason why the 1935 storm did less damage is because THERE WAS NOTHING THERE!



DURRRRRR


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> EVERYONE must make sacrifices
> 
> Especially those who profit off of BIG OIL






Except for the ruling elite, right.  They still get their mega yachts, their multiple homes, their gas powered vehicles, their private jets,  because they are somehow better than us peons....right?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Sep 30, 2022)

westwall said:


> the only reason why the 1935 storm did less damage is because THERE WAS NOTHING THERE!


"the only reason"? Final answer?.. 'Cause earlier you said it was "the power"..


westwall said:


> If a hurricane with the power of the 1935 Labor Day, or Camille were to hit today, you would see unequalled destruction.


I have family who survived Camille. They were definitely "THERE!" Both Puerto Rico and Florida just experienced your "unequalled destruction."


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> "the only reason"? Final answer?.. 'Cause earlier you said it was "the power"..
> 
> I have family who survived Camille. They were definitely "THERE!" Both Puerto Rico and Florida just experienced your "unequalled destruction."





We know the 1935 storm is the most powerful recorded on the east coast.  Followed by Camille.  These are facts.

Ian caused more monetary damage because there was more there.

Back in 1862 there was a storm so powerful it turned the entire Central Valley of California into a lake.

Yet again, historical fact gets in the way of climate change bullshit.


----------



## MisterBeale (Sep 30, 2022)




----------



## badbob85037 (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


Let me see if I get the logic of this. Because LA has some hot weather that is proof of global warming. None of the clowns know what hot is and neither do I because it's been at least 8 years since I have seen a day reaching anywhere near 126 degrees. When I do I remember them working construction. I have seen people fall over dead from the heat so suck it up and try coming back to reality. Before Joe takes you out behind the gym and slobbers your member.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 1, 2022)




----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 1, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> More accurate than predictions from Conservatives saying there is no climate change


Natural or Anthropogenic?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 1, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Natural or Anthropogenic?



Both


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> Let me see if I get the logic of this. Because LA has some hot weather that is proof of global warming. None of the clowns know what hot is and neither do I because it's been at least 8 years since I have seen a day reaching anywhere near 126 degrees. When I do I remember them working construction. I have seen people fall over dead from the heat so suck it up and try coming back to reality. Before Joe takes you out behind the gym and slobbers your member.


Do you conjure up a vast, nefarious global conspiracy by all the world's climatological authorities, academies, and organizations along with all the world's nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) that respect their scientific findings, or do you simply fancy that you know more about climatology than all of them?


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> We know the 1935 storm is the most powerful recorded on the east coast.  Followed by Camille.  These are facts.
> 
> Ian caused more monetary damage because there was more there.
> 
> ...


I think I'll go with the global consensus of nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) informed by the world's climatologists backed up by the enormous amount of data they have accrued and analyzed, over an ideologue with his dogma and  his anecdotes.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> We know the 1935 storm is the most powerful recorded on the east coast. Followed by Camille. These are facts.


Final answer? Sure you've considered every possible distraction?


> 1 Tropical cyclogenesis
> 1.1Most active / least active Atlantic hurricane seasons
> 1.2Earliest / latest formations for each category
> 1.3Most tropical / subtropical storms formed in each month
> ...


And that's just "east coast" or "Atlantic" related. Then there's the Gulf, Camille. There's also that Left Coast flooding you just poured in. How about worldwide volcanic activity? Farting butterflies? Hell, the list of possibilities is virtually endless when all you're really doing is trolling!


----------



## ding (Oct 1, 2022)

I can’t wait for colder temperatures to end all of this nonsense.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

ding said:


> I can’t wait for colder temperatures to end all of this nonsense.


Neither can I.


----------



## ding (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Neither can I.


It’s only a matter of time. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of the bipolar glaciated world we live in.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s only a matter of time. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of the bipolar glaciated world we live in.


I hope you know that neither of us will live to see it.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Final answer? Sure you've considered every possible distraction?
> 
> And that's just "east coast" or "Atlantic" related. Then there's the Gulf, Camille. There's also that Left Coast flooding you just poured in. How about worldwide volcanic activity? Farting butterflies? Hell, the list of possibilities is virtually endless when all you're really doing is trolling!






*"The rectum has its reasons that reason knows not of."*​


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I think I'll go with the global consensus of nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) informed by the world's climatologists backed up by the enormous amount of data they have accrued and analyzed, over an ideologue with his dogma and  his anecdotes.





So you adopt the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" that ALL religious nutters resort to.

In other words, you are an anti science denier.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> I hope you know that neither of us will live to see it.





You are wrong in that.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> So you adopt the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"


Do you believe that the world's climatologists have contrived a vast, dastardly conspiracy by compiling vast amounts of fake data, so diabolical that they have duped all nations, except for the most astute - _Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan_ - or that the experts in their field's combined acumen is inferior to yours regarding climatology?


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Do you believe that the world's climatologists have contrived a vast, dastardly conspiracy by compiling vast amounts of fake data, so diabolical that they have duped all nations, except for the most astute - _Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan_ - or that the experts in their field's combined acumen is inferior to yours regarding climatology?





No, just 74 or so of them.  Aided by politicians and bureaucrats who never say no to more power.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, just 74 or so of them.  Aided by politicians and bureaucrats who never say no to more power.
> 
> DURRRRRR


Do you realize that when you try to claim that only 74 climatologist's opinions make up the consensus we all love to talk about, when it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out that later studies, polls and surveys involved thousands of published scientists, that you look like a complete idiot and a liar?


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you realize that when you try to claim that only 74 climatologist's opinions make up the consensus we all love to talk about, when it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out that later studies, polls and surveys involved thousands of published scientists, that you look like a complete idiot and a liar?





The same clowns, over and over, and over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Do you conjure up a vast, nefarious global conspiracy by all the world's climatological authorities, academies, and organizations along with all the world's nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) that respect their scientific findings, or do you simply fancy that you know more about climatology than all of them?



Money for nothing and chicks for free.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> The same clowns, over and over, and over.


Well, yes... and surprisingly honest of you.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 1, 2022)




----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, just 74 or so of them.  Aided by politicians and bureaucrats who never say no to more power.
> 
> DURRRRRR


It sounds like you fancy a global conspiracy by a vast cabal of disingenuous climatologists and complicit progressive politicians in cahoots - as well as considering yourself more knowledgeable in climatology than climatologists.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Money for nothing and chicks for free.


If that is what  Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan are offering to you for denying science, I would not trust them if I were you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> If that is what  Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan are offering to you for denying science, I would not trust them if I were you.



Green idiots are throwing trillions of tax dollars around the globe.
All the third worlders are lining up with their hands out for their "share".


----------



## Correll (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> It sounds like you fancy a global conspiracy by a vast cabal of disingenuous climatologists and complicit progressive politicians in cahoots - as well as considering yourself more knowledgeable in climatology than climatologists.




Hey, remember when the experts all agreed that population growth would lead to famine in first world countries by the 1970s and they were calling for immediate and draconian population control as the only possible solution?


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> It sounds like you fancy a global conspiracy by a vast cabal of disingenuous climatologists and complicit progressive politicians in cahoots - as well as considering yourself more knowledgeable in climatology than climatologists.






Congrats.  You finally figured it out.....


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Congrats.  You finally figured it out.....


Why do you need to pretend that ideologues with no expertise in climatology know more about climatology than climatologists?

Do you fancy that arachnologists know more about economics than economists?


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Correll said:


> Hey, remember when the experts all agreed that population growth would lead to famine in first world countries by the 1970s and they were calling for immediate and draconian population control as the only possible solution?


Certainly, malthusians once feared such a catastrophe. The consequences of human overpopulation have not been as dire.

How does that nullify the reality of anthropogenic climate change for which we are already witnessing the predicted consequences?


----------



## Correll (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Certainly, malthusians once feared such a catastrophe. The consequences of human overpopulation have not been as dire.
> 
> How does that nullify the reality of anthropogenic climate change for which we are already witnessing the predicted consequences?




Shows a pattern of similar behavior, all proving groundless in the fullness of time.


Hey, remember when the next big problem was the supposed coming Ice Age? I don't recall what the supposed solutions were. I would bet money that they involved massive government control, probably international.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Green idiots are throwing trillions of tax dollars around the globe.
> All the third worlders are lining up with their hands out for their "share".


You are upset by the overwhelming evidence that industrial emissions into the atmosphere are impacting the atmosphere.

That obvious reality is just the way it is.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Correll said:


> Shows a pattern of similar behavior, all proving groundless in the fullness of time.


If you presume all science that doesn't accommodate your ideological dogma must be wrong, you are wrong.

If you are waiting for the cumulative data regarding climate change to reverse direction, don't hold your breath  - unless you find yourself underwater due to rising sea level, of course.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Why do you need to pretend that ideologues with no expertise in climatology know more about climatology than climatologists?
> 
> Do you fancy that arachnologists know more about economics than economists?



Exactly!

They didn't win the Nobel Prize like Michael Mann.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> You are upset by the overwhelming evidence that industrial emissions into the atmosphere are impacting the atmosphere.
> 
> That obvious reality is just the way it is.



How many trillions should we give to third world shitholes because of US CO2?


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many trillions should we give to third world shitholes because of US CO2?


Are there other scientific disciplines in which you deny the science?


----------



## Correll (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> If you presume all science that doesn't accommodate your ideological dogma must be wrong, you are wrong.
> 
> If you are waiting for the cumulative data regarding climate change to reverse direction, don't hold your breath  - unless you find yourself underwater due to rising sea level, of course.




Just think if we had done the "sensible" thing  and listed to the experts and instituted draconic population control to avoid the famines of the 70s?

Crushing the rights of vast numbers of people, using massive government force to make them do what the "experts" wanted, 


and for what? For a fear that never came true.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Why do you need to pretend that ideologues with no expertise in climatology know more about climatology than climatologists?
> 
> Do you fancy that arachnologists know more about economics than economists?







Ahhh, there is that famous anti science appeal to authority.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Certainly, malthusians once feared such a catastrophe. The consequences of human overpopulation have not been as dire.
> 
> How does that nullify the reality of anthropogenic climate change for which we are already witnessing the predicted consequences?






No, we aren't.  The facts are the storms of the past were far worse than ANYTHING we have experienced this century.

"The *Great Flood of 1862* was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862. It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains and snows in the very high elevations that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862. This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12, and contributed to a flood that extended from the Columbia River southward in western Oregon, and through California to San Diego, and extended as far inland as Idaho in the Washington Territory, Nevada and Utah in the Utah Territory, and Arizona in the western New Mexico Territory. The event dumped an equivalent of 10 feet (3.0 m) of water in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days.[3][4] Immense snowfalls in the mountains of far western North America caused more flooding in Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, as well as in Baja California and Sonora, Mexico the following spring and summer, as the snow melted.

The event was capped by a warm intense storm that melted the high snow load. The resulting snow-melt flooded valleys, inundated or swept away towns, mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, and domestic animals, and ruined fields. It has been described as the worst disaster ever to strike California.[5] The storms caused approximately $100 million 1861 USD in damage, approximately equal to $3.117 billion (2021 USD). The governor, state legislature, and state employees were not paid for a year and a half.[2] At least 4,000 people were estimated to have been killed in the floods in California, which was roughly 1% of the state population at the time.[1]"









						Great Flood of 1862 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> You are upset by the overwhelming evidence that industrial emissions into the atmosphere are impacting the atmosphere.
> 
> That obvious reality is just the way it is.







What evidence is that.  Specifically.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 1, 2022)

Correll said:


> Just think if we had done the "sensible" thing  and listed to the experts and instituted draconic population control to avoid the famines of the 70s?
> 
> Crushing the rights of vast numbers of people, using massive government force to make them do what the "experts" wanted,
> 
> ...


Can you cite any credible sources that refute the preponderance of climatologists' concurrence and the recognition of that concurrence by all nations (except for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan)?

A bunch of pissy ideologues yammering that they don't like science is hard to take seriously.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Congrats.  You finally figured it out.....


Figure this one out:


> "*Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position."*


-- Ottmar Edenhoffer --


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Are there other scientific disciplines in which you deny the science?



Science? 
I thought we were talking about big dollar handouts?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 1, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> A bunch of pissy ideologues yammering that they don't like *science* is hard to take seriously.





schmidlap said:


> Are there other scientific disciplines in which you deny the science?



  Is Bruce Jenner a man, or is he a woman?


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Green idiots are throwing trillions of tax dollars around the globe.
> All the third worlders are lining up with their hands out for their "share".


What trillions are being thrown around?  All I see are industrial countries undertaking mitigation measures and trying with varying levels of sincerity and intensity to reduce their GHG emissions.  How much money has the US actually given to your third world countries to help them with the effects of global warming?  Do you even know?  Here:








						The broken $100-billion promise of climate finance — and how to fix it
					

At Glasgow’s COP26 summit, countries will argue for more money to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.




					www.nature.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> What trillions are being thrown around?  All I see are industrial countries undertaking mitigation measures and trying with varying levels of sincerity and intensity to reduce their GHG emissions.  How much money has the US actually given to your third world countries to help them with the effects of global warming?  Do you even know?  Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*All I see are industrial countries undertaking mitigation measures and trying with varying levels of sincerity and intensity to reduce their GHG emissions.*

And how much are they spending?

*How much money has the US actually given to your third world countries to help them with the effects of global warming?*

Too much.

Thanks for the link.

_Compared with the investment required to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the $100-billion pledge is minuscule. Trillions of dollars will be needed each year to meet the 2015 Paris agreement goal of restricting global warming to “well below” 2 °C, if not 1.5 °C, above pre-industrial temperatures._

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> What trillions are being thrown around?  All I see are industrial countries undertaking mitigation measures and trying with varying levels of sincerity and intensity to reduce their GHG emissions.  How much money has the US actually given to your third world countries to help them with the effects of global warming?  Do you even know?  Here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						African nations demand climate change financing ahead of COP27
					

The African continent emits an estimated 3 percent of global CO2 emissions, yet is among most exposed to climate change.




					www.aljazeera.com


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *All I see are industrial countries undertaking mitigation measures and trying with varying levels of sincerity and intensity to reduce their GHG emissions.*
> 
> And how much are they spending?
> 
> ...


You were complaining of money being given to third world nations.  You claimed it was trillions of dollars.  I still don't see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2022)

Crick said:


> You were complaining of money being given to third world nations.  You claimed it was trillions of dollars.  I still don't see it.



No, I said green idiots are throwing trillions of tax dollars around the globe and third worlders have their hands out.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I said green idiots are throwing trillions of tax dollars around the globe and third worlders have their hands out.


Money spent domestically to mitigate emissions is not money being thrown around the globe.  Don't try to change the subject.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Money spent domestically to mitigate emissions is not money being thrown around the globe.  Don't try to change the subject.



Idiots around the world are wasting tax dollars.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> I can’t wait for colder temperatures to end all of this nonsense.


Yup!
Talk of gorebal warming tappers off quite a bit during freezing January and February in northern hemisphere.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:
			
		

>



Do you believe that the world's climatologists have contrived a vast, dastardly conspiracy by compiling vast amounts of fake data, so diabolical that they have duped all nations, except for your most scientifically astute _Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan_ - or that the experts in their field's combined acumen is inferior to yours regarding climatology?


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Can you cite any credible sources that refute the preponderance of climatologists' concurrence and the recognition of that concurrence by all nations (except for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan)?
> 
> A bunch of pissy ideologues yammering that they don't like science is hard to take seriously....
> ​



No more than I could have done so, back in hte 70s. 

How do I know that the situation is the same, presented with a compelling case that the experts have made of a medium term threat that requires massive centralization of control and massive transfer of wealth and massive sacrifce of standard of living and human rights to prevent, years down the line.


I've learned over the many times you people have done this, not to take your claims seriously, no matter how well you control the herd to bleat out in chorus. 


Hey, remember when AIDS was going to be a massive pandemic in the STRAIGHT community the same way it was in the gay population? What happened to that? Turned out to be a lie.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> No more than I could have done so, back in hte 70s.
> 
> How do I know that the situation is the same, presented with a compelling case that the experts have made of a medium term threat that requires massive centralization of control and massive transfer of wealth and massive sacrifce of standard of living and human rights to prevent, years down the line.
> 
> ...





The concurrence of the world's climatologists based upon dispassionate analysis of the ever-accruing data, and the acceptance of the reality that data exposes, is eliciting support for responsible government action at national, regional, municipal, and local levels.

Ideologue opposed to the science rave, but sensible folks cannot afford to indulge them and their dogma. Their insistence that they can poop into the heavens with impunity is discredited by the facts.

Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan refusing to ratify the Paris Accord that recognizes the climatological reality is not about to trigger a reactionary assault on science.

Even the most adamantine denialists cannot afford the consequences, and must not be allowed to impose them on others.


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> View attachment 704407​
> The concurrence of the world's climatologists based upon dispassionate analysis of the ever-accruing data, and the acceptance of the reality that data exposes, is eliciting support for responsible government action at national, regional, municipal, and local levels.
> 
> Ideologue opposed to the science rave, but sensible folks cannot afford to indulge them and their dogma. Their insistence that they can poop into the heavens with impunity is discredited by the facts.
> ...




Cool. So, you ask me if I could have refuted teh claims of ICE AGE in the 70s, and when I said no, you post a graph that was clearly made decades later than  that. 


Did I, as a regular guy on the street, with no internet at the time, because it did not exist, without that graph at the time, because it did not exist, how did I know not to believe the ice age and population bomb people and support turning the world into a totalitarian hell hole for no real reason, since their fears proved to be groundless?



I think the lesson to be learned, is, anytime someone, anyone, tries to tell you that you need to turn the world into a totalitarian hellhole, that the answer is no. 


It will be sad if THIS TIME, we really do need to turn the world into a totalitarian hellhole, because it is the only way to survive, becasue I am not open to any such arguments. Just not. 


You will have to use force to get me to give up my rights and/or standard of living and the rights and prosperity of my descendents.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


>



  If that chart is to be believed, then we're now at approximately a degree and a half warmer now than we were a century a half ago, with that slight warming trend going back quite a bit further than any for the modern causes for which you want to blame that trend.

  On a shorter scale, in any one place, the temperature varies much more than that in the course of a day.  That's the way it has always been, long before mankind even existed.

  The sky is not falling.





schmidlap said:


> Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan refusing to ratify the Paris Accord that recognizes the climatological reality is not about to trigger a reactionary assault on science.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man or is he a woman?

  If you cannot say, without reservation, that he's a man, then you have no credibility whatsoever in presuming to say anything about science.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> I hope you know that neither of us will live to see it.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Do you believe that the world's climatologists


No


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> Cool. So, you ask me if I could have refuted teh claims of ICE AGE in the 70s, and when I said no, you post a graph that was clearly made decades later than  that.
> 
> 
> Did I, as a regular guy on the street, with no internet at the time, because it did not exist, without that graph at the time, because it did not exist, how did I know not to believe the ice age and population bomb people and support turning the world into a totalitarian hell hole for no real reason, since their fears proved to be groundless?
> ...


I don't pretend that responsible mitigation of the consequences of global warming requires that we "turn the world into a totalitarian hell hole for no real reason."

It is actually the authoritarian _denial _of science that augers such consequences.





*Trump Endorses Brazil's Bolsonaro*​Brazil's Bolsonaro echoes Trump's election fraud claims​*Bolsonaro and the Amazon*​


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I don't pretend that responsible mitigation of the consequences of global warming requires that we "turn the world into a totalitarian hell hole for no real reason."
> 
> It is actually the authoritarian _denial _of science that augers such consequences.
> 
> ...


We’re in an interglacial cycle. Relax.


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I don't pretend that responsible mitigation of the consequences of global warming requires that we "turn the world into a totalitarian hell hole for no real reason."
> 
> It is actually the authoritarian _denial _of science that augers such consequences.
> 
> ...




THe supposed scientists of the 70s wanted at best zero population growth, FAST. That would have required totalitarian hellhole. 

The current generation of supposed scientists, now want zero carbon growth. Which will require a poorer world. So we need to pick and choose who gets to have a decent standard of living and who has to live in abject poverty.

You think that's going to be done democratically? Cause evne if all the billion  people in china vote that I should give up all my shit and my family needs to live in squallor and die young, my answer will be let's have a war instead.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> We’re in an interglacial cycle. Relax.


Like nearly 200 nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan, but including all advanced democracies) I respect the consensus of the world's climatologists regarding climatology.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> It is actually the authoritarian _*denial *_*of science* that augers such consequences.



  Is Bruce Jenner a man, or is he a woman?


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Like nearly 200 nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan, but including all advanced democracies) I respect the consensus of the world's climatologists regarding climatology.


Your so called consensus is a politically motivated straw man.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Dissenting scientific opinions in the literature are not reflected in the various IPCC statements.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> THe supposed scientists of the 70s wanted at best zero population growth, FAST.


Whoever the unidentified folks are whom you reference, their data must have been of insufficient merit for nearly 200 nations ((excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) to take them seriously enough to undertake such measures.

Is there poverty and starvation driving many of the planet's burgeoning human populace to migrate? Clearly.

Climate change is a major contributory factor.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Your so called consensus is a politically motivated straw man.


Such paranoia regarding all the world's advanced nations based upon respect for science confirms that the ideologues in denial are not going to be taken seriously, certainly not as the scientific forecasts are being realized.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Such paranoia regarding all the world's advanced nations based upon respect for science confirms that the ideologues in denial are not going to be taken seriously, certainly not as the scientific forecasts are being realized.


Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Do you believe that the world's climatologists have contrived a vast, dastardly conspiracy by compiling vast amounts of fake data, so diabolical that they have duped all nations, except for your most scientifically astute _Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan_ - or that the experts in their field's combined acumen is inferior to yours regarding climatology?


Um, no. Do you? I don't even know how you created and misquoted me giving that double thumbs down image, LOL


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> Climate change and solar variability are both multifaceted concepts. As Pittock (1983) noted, historically, many of the studies of Sun/climate relationships have provided results that are ambiguous and open to interpretation in either way (Pittock 1983).


Do you fancy that the world's climatologists are ignorant of their dated data that you cherry pick to prop up your ideological denialism? Their data is continually being compiled, integrated, analyzed, and refined.

Despite the propaganda of the dirty fuel cartel and ideologues, folks are increasingly recognizing the reality;

Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat ​Aug 31, 2022​​A survey across 19 countries found that a median of 75% consider climate change as a major threat, according to the Pew Research Center. Europeans were most alarmed by climate change, with 54% of people in the U.S. labeling it the top threat. The opinion reflected the sharp political differences on the subject in America, with 78% of Democrats and those leaning that way terming it a major threat and only 23% of Republicans saying so.​


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Do you fancy that the world's climatologists are ignorant of their dated data that you cherry pick to prop up your ideological denialism? Their data is continually being compiled, integrated, analyzed, and refined.
> 
> Despite the propaganda of the dirty fuel cartel and ideologues, folks are increasingly recognizing the reality;
> 
> Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat ​Aug 31, 2022​​A survey across 19 countries found that a median of 75% consider climate change as a major threat, according to the Pew Research Center. Europeans were most alarmed by climate change, with 54% of people in the U.S. labeling it the top threat. The opinion reflected the sharp political differences on the subject in America, with 78% of Democrats and those leaning that way terming it a major threat and only 23% of Republicans saying so.​


The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.


In recent years, the ideologues in denial have been failing to make their case in their assault upon science and against the world's climatologists. _(Well, maybe they succeeded in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan.)_

A federal climate report published in late 2017, for example, found that there is no natural explanation for recent global warming. ​​_"This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,"_ the report said. _"For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."_​


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.


Your failing here is your implication that there exists some sort of significant plurality of scientific opinions on this topic.  The number of scientists who reject the idea that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 represent less than 1% of the world's climate scientists.  That is not a plurality.  That is a gnat floating in a 2-liter jug.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> View attachment 704407​







OMG! That's awful!

The global average temperature has never increased that much in the planet's history.
Ever!

Right?


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 704492
> 
> OMG! That's awful!
> 
> ...


I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.

Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.
> 
> Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.



Global average temperature has increased that much in the planet's history?
Without our help?
Everything didn't die?

Does that make you sad?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Global average temperature has increased that much in the planet's history?
> Without our help?
> Everything didn't die?
> 
> Does that make you sad?


Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​Sadly, no.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Your failing here is your implication that there exists some sort of significant plurality of scientific opinions on this topic.  The number of scientists who reject the idea that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 represent less than 1% of the world's climate scientists.  That is not a plurality.  That is a gnat floating in a 2-liter jug.


It’s not a popularity contest. 

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011)


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> In recent years, the ideologues in denial have been failing to make their case in their assault upon science and against the world's climatologists. _(Well, maybe they succeeded in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan.)_
> 
> A federal climate report published in late 2017, for example, found that there is no natural explanation for recent global warming. ​​_"This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,"_ the report said. _"For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."_​


There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.
> 
> Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.


And indeed some/Many of the climate deniers ARE evolution deniers too... and anti-Vaxxers, etc.
Discrediting science in general makes more room for their god/designer and a myriad of other conspiracy theories.. like MAGA.
Flacaltenn, Meister, CrusaderFrank, Rev PoliticalChic, ding, westwall, toadster, etc.
`


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s not a popularity contest.


It is a contest to find the theory that best explains natural phenomena.  When such a theory is found and withstands all challenges its acceptance among the scientific community grows.



ding said:


> The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011)



Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> It is a contest to find the theory that best explains natural phenomena.  When such a theory is found and withstands all challenges its acceptance among the scientific community grows.
> 
> 
> 
> Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.


Except they didn’t do that. They only present what confirms their bias. They tune natural variation out of their models. They play games with water vapor. It’s very dishonest how they lump feedback in with CO2 and report it as CO2. They are corrupt as hell.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.


You’ll see your house of cards argument collapse in your lifetime.  Mark my word.


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

ding said:


> You’ll see your house of cards argument collapse in your lifetime.  Mark my word.


Mark your word?  I'd rather have a look at some data.  Got any that isn't 50 million years old?


----------



## boedicca (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And indeed some/Many of the climate deniers ARE evolution deniers too... and anti-Vaxxers, etc.
> Discrediting science in general makes more room for their god/designer and a myriad of other conspiracy theories.. like MAGA.
> Flacaltenn, Meister, CrusaderFrank, Rev PoliticalChic, ding, westwall, toadster, etc.
> `



You are boring and banal.  Bye bye!


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Worsening extreme weather events attributable to climate change is consistent with climatological predictions, but denied by ideologues.
> 
> *Why Ian will rank among worst hurricanes in Florida History*​
> 
> ...




No, they haven’t… but thanks for playing.


----------



## ding (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> Mark your word?  I'd rather have a look at some data.  Got any that isn't 50 million years old?


It’s 50 million years worth of data, not 50 year old data.


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Whoever the unidentified folks are whom you reference, their data must have been of insufficient merit for nearly 200 nations ((excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) to take them seriously enough to undertake such measures.
> 
> Is there poverty and starvation driving many of the planet's burgeoning human populace to migrate? Clearly.
> 
> Climate change is a major contributory factor.




So, are you arguing that the panic mongers of the 70s were correct or are you arguing that they were not? Becuase you seem to be tryihng to have it both ways.

Also, they were clearly wrong. If we had listened to them, we would have wrecked the world economy and greatly curtailed human rights and society, for no reason.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> So, are you arguing that the panic mongers of the 70s were correct or are you arguing that they were not? Becuase you seem to be tryihng to have it both ways.
> 
> Also, they were clearly wrong. If we had listened to them, we would have wrecked the world economy and greatly curtailed human rights and society, for no reason.


You know NOTHING.
You only have RW politics.
Do you post on any other Science topic? In that section?
NO.
Post any data here?

BTW, the most famous of the predictors (Hanssen) is right in range with his 30 year old calls as the last 10 years have shown him right.
(posting old newspaper articles with bad predictions is Fallacious/ldiotic.)

Now go back to politics MAGAt.

`


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You know NOTHING.
> You only have RW politics.
> Do you post on any other Science topic? In that section?
> NO.
> ...


If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.


"people" are not climate scientists and you are just repeating the Fallacious trash you've seen here or from other Trumpees.
Again, the most expert of the predictors, Hanssen was/is in range.

Why don't you give us Your opinion of warming/not, Why/or not, and sources or rationales for Your opinions.
LOL.
You are NOT Conversant on this topic, just a Partisan Hack.

Back to politics MAGAt.
`


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.



  Just as we will do if we listen to those fools today.


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> "people" are not climate scientists and you are just repeating the Fallacious trash you've seen here or from other Trumpees.
> Again, the most expert of the predictors, Hanssen was/is in range.
> 
> ,,,,
> `




I was there in the 70s. I was young, but politically aware. I grew up, concerned about the Population Bomb and the coming Ice Age because that was, or seemed to be, according to the media, the consensus among the experts.

Thank god we didn't base policy on what you people said back then. We would have wrecked the world, for no reason.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> I was there in the 70s. I was young, but politically aware. I grew up, concerned about the Population Bomb and the coming Ice Age because that was, or seemed to be, according to the media, the consensus among the experts.
> 
> Thank god we didn't base policy on what you people said back then. We would have wrecked the world, for no reason.


On the contrary. We could have greatly mitigated the damage that is happening and will happen if we listened even to Al; Gore in 2000.
He had it right.

*IAC, if YOU Personally had a grasp of the science and the actual temp record you would understand.*
But you do NOT.
You are NOT conversant xcept to shallowly cite to me vague predictions for the 70s.
There's a lot we know now and understand and this has been born out by the Rising temps.
ie, we have extensive satellite tech and climate records now.

The first people who noted CO2 was a "greenhouse gas" were late 19th Century.

*There is not a single scientific org on the planet that denies AGW any more. The last to fold being the American Petroleum Geologists 15 years ago.
Exxon Mobil acknowledges AGW.*

Again you are non-conversant and and undebatably too Ignorant to debate the meat of the issue.
You can't deny even current predictions because you are clueLESS and FactLESS.
You just have what you hear before we had satellite readings etc.

AND you don't  care.
It's not warming because some people were wrong in 1970.. RIGHT?
That;'s your debate? (WITHOUT KNOWING ANY SCIENCE/DATA NOW)

You Stupid uneducated/incurious MFer.
It's so easy to find fact on the net these days, but you stick with what you heard in 1970.
MFer you are Stupid!!!
`


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> On the contrary. We could have greatly mitigated the damage that is happening and will happen if we listened even to Al; Gore in 2000.
> He had it right.
> .....



Question: if global warming was magically solved tomorrow, would you still support massives centralization of control and massive wealth transfer, and massive controls, for other, very good, in your opinion reasons?


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> Like nearly 200 nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan, but including all advanced democracies) I respect the consensus of the world's climatologists regarding climatology.





Who cares what they say.  All they want is power and money.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yes 200 countries are in on the conspiracy you brain damaged clown
> 
> 
> EVERY Sci org on the planet accepts AGW.
> ...




Yeah,  they are.  No actual draconian measures to "control" climate change.  Just less individual rights, and the bankers take all of our money.

In other words, for you stupid people,  it's okay to pollute  you just have to pay them for the privilege.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yes 200 countries are in on the conspiracy you brain damaged clown.
> 
> EVERY Sci org on the planet accepts AGW.
> The last to fold was the American Petroleum Geologists 15 years ago and who got paid BY big oil.
> ...




If it were not for AGW, would you support fossil fuel burning cars?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah,  they are.  *No actual draconian measures to "control" climate change. * Just less individual rights, and the bankers take all of our money.
> 
> In other words, for you stupid people,  it's okay to pollute  you just have to pay them for the privilege.
> 
> DURRRRRR


You IDIOT you were refuted 100%.

New? "Draconian"?
85% of the new power generation last year was renewable. 2/3 or more since 2016.
An AOC wet dream.
The GND IS happening without the need for any legislation.
*Incentive is it's cheaper, not 'anti-capitalist.'
`*


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You IDIOT you were refuted 100%.
> 
> New? "Draconian"?
> 85% of the new power generation last year was renewable. 2/3 or more since 2016
> ...




Bullshit. THey are bowing to political and econcomic pressure. THey fear that if they invest sensibly, that some power mad green asshole will get elected and fuck the shit out of them. 


That is what is driving the decisions. Assuming that there aren't hundreds of billions in subsidies that you forgot to mention.


----------



## BackAgain (Oct 2, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Is Bruce Jenner a man or is he a woman?


Wait. Don’t argue. He’s both. And so is she.


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You IDIOT you were refuted 100%.
> 
> New? "Draconian"?
> 85% of the new power generation last year was renewable. 2/3 or more since 2016.
> ...




So, how old were you  when you decided you were anti-capitalistic and anti-western?


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak 

What is the vision of the future you have, that you are emotionally invested in and why.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> So, how old were you  when you decided you were anti-capitalistic and anti-western?


*So you gave up on ANY FACTS of the debate. (you can't debate) Just what you heard when you were 10!!!
so Go F*** off dope.*

I've been smart and a researcher/reader of Scientific American since i was young.
I am not anti-capitalist and I post two other places.
I'm a financial professional and My Home page is the Wall Street Journal (many thread starts here from it), and also post in two different high-IQ groups.
And you have an IQ well down in the two digits.. down near Westwall's.

`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Who cares what they say.  All they want is power and money.


Yes 200 countries are in on the conspiracy you brain damaged clown.

EVERY Sci org on the planet accepts AGW.
The last to fold was the American Petroleum Geologists 15 years ago and who got paid BY big oil.
*In fact, Exxon Mobil itself acknowledges AGW you demented Fact-hating Dum F***.*
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You IDIOT you were refuted 100%.
> 
> New? "Draconian"?
> 85% of the new power generation last year was renewable. 2/3 or more since 2016.
> ...





Yeah?  So what.  Draconian would be an IMMEDIATE shutdown of all fossil fuel powered energy production.

That ain't happening now is it.

DURRRRRR


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah?  So what.  Draconian would be an IMMEDIATE shutdown of all fossil fuel powered energy production.
> 
> That ain't happening now is it.
> 
> DURRRRRR


No that would be stupid... like you.
One doesn't put people in the dark unless one has an alternate source.
As I said. The current state is just what AOC/et al called the GND.
Ev's exploding too.

Bye you demented old ****.
Hold on to the last 3% of your gray matter so you can make it to the bathroom at night.

`


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Yes 200 countries are in on the conspiracy you brain damaged clown.
> 
> EVERY Sci org on the planet accepts AGW.
> The last to fold was the American Petroleum Geologists 15 years ago and who got paid BY big oil.
> ...




Yes, theh pressure to conform, is very, very high.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 2, 2022)

Correll said:


> Yes, theh pressure to conform, is very, very high.


[Another] Stupid baseLESS statement
It's happening because it's cheaper. No one is throwing away hundred of billions to be nice.
*You're a F_**** idiot whose never posted any data/numbers.*
`


----------



## Correll (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> [Another] Stupid baseLESS statement
> It's happening because it's cheaper. No one is throwing away hundred of billions to be nice.
> *You're a F_**** idiot whose never posted any data/numbers.*
> `




To be nice? Nice strawman.

No, they are throwing away billions out of fear. Fear of being destroyed  by people like you.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> No that would be stupid... like you.
> One doesn't put people in the dark unless one has an alternate source.
> As I said. The current state is just what AOC/et al called the GND.
> Ev's exploding too.
> ...




Stupid?  If the situation were as dire as your experts claim, then draconian measures would be called for.

But they don't. 

DERP!


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2022)

westwall said:


> Stupid?  If the situation were as dire as your experts claim, then draconian measures would be called for.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> DERP!


But they do.

Your onomatopoeic sound effects do nothing but raise my bile and make me think of Eeyore.


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> But they do.
> 
> Your onomatopoeic sound effects do nothing but raise my bile and make me think of Eeyore.





Quite the opposite.   No draconian measures at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Exxon Mobil acknowledges AGW.


While doing nothing to stop it.








						Criticism intensifies after big oil admits ‘gaslighting’ public over green aims
					

Fury as ‘explosive’ documents reveal largest oil companies contradicted public statements and wished bedbugs upon critical activists




					www.theguardian.com
				





abu afak said:


> The first people who noted CO2 was a "greenhouse gas" were late 19th Century.











						Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
					

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



And why wouldn't they know about it already?


> Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah,  they are.  No actual draconian measures to "control" climate change.  Just less individual rights, and the bankers take all of our money.
> 
> In other words, for you stupid people,  it's okay to pollute  you just have to pay them for the privilege.
> 
> DURRRRRR


False a always.
Cars have been forced to get better mileage now for more than 20 years.
The "bankers" have made nothing off of that, and they make no money off the 'electric' movement.
The Big Money, oil and traditional Car engine makers, have been displaced by ie Tesla to retool.
$200 Bil sits in Musk's pocket despite the Fact he's no match for Big Oil and the Big 3 automaker's political influence.

Displaying you dementia here doesn't help your cause.
Quite the contrary. You're in the No Info/Troll dept which discredits the Right Wing. You jc456, toddster, Corell, oddball, and all the other one line trolls who never post anything to refute AGW.
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> False a always.
> Cars have been forced to get better mileage now for more than 20 years.
> The "bankers" have made nothing off of that, and they make no money off the 'electric' movement.
> The Big Money, oil and traditional Car engine makers, have been displaced by ie Tesla to retool.
> ...





Nothing about that is draconian you idiot.  Cars get better gas mileage because the customers want it.

DURRRRRR


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

And they've been buying more cars/EVs than Tesla can make.
ALL the auto cos are moving electric.


`


----------



## beautress (Oct 3, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


Climate change has occurred every single day for the past 1 billion years. Why get excited about it now?


----------



## beautress (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And they've been buying more cars/EVs than Tesla can make.
> ALL the auto cos are moving electric.
> 
> 
> `


When California cannot produce enough electricity to run all its automobiles and homes, then and only then will the Democrat party blame all its errors on the Republicans.

See how that works? The Democrats need to wake up to reality. For every electric car they force the no-longer-free-American-citizens to buy, they are going to have to spend four times the amount of fossil fuels at the electric generation plants per auto than the alleged gas-guzzlers use (of fossil fuels). IOW, 1/4 of the fossil fuel cost for cars is enjoyed by those who use gasoline.

So when California kicks itself in the butt with electric generation plants that cannot possibly fulfill the population demands for their all-electric car usage, I told them so. I lived in the state back in the mid sixties for five years. If it weren't for the horrible smog, it would have been one of the prettiest states I'd ever seen. Perfect beaches, Ortega Mountains, Capistrano, will no longer have birds because with all the bird-killing wind fans and more bird-killing solar panels, the state will lose its birds. That will end the free fertilizer the forests used to get, and the forests will die down to the last tree so you can produce enough solar and wind dodads not to mention the fleet of nuclear power plants it would be necessary to build while you generate a simple way for California enemies to wipe out a few hundred square miles that surrounds each of the plants, so you will be afraid of North Korea, China, and Russia, and any other hangers-on they take over by weak Democrat Presidents like Joe the Extortionist Biden, and his elderly successors you can push around by greedy-for-money-and-power oligarchs who will turn the masses into pisanos with lies and obfuscation. 

Today I am voting all Republican because Democrats have pledged themselves to de debil of picking pockets out of easy money they get from investing in the environment-gone-mad. Ugh!

As for me, if I get rich, I'm gonna buy a gas-powered boat and go pick plastic out of the ocean so we can get the fish back to feed the masses who live on the shore. I'm not made fearful by the doom-and-gloom boom the Democrats are so skilled out of cheating the masses fooled into shades of misspent belief in their Marxist-birthed mischief.


----------



## beautress (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nothing about that is draconian you idiot.  Cars get better gas mileage because the customers want it.
> 
> DURRRRRR


Not only that, but the electricity at the power plant level will increase four-fold use of fossil fuels because electricity is that way. It takes more fossil fuel from plant to homesite to produce than if people had to burn wood, coal, propane, or other forms of gasoline. Democrats are taking the public for a bumpy ride when they have to increase fossil fuel four-fold so they can profit from investing in electric cars. It's so easy to create a false narrative. It's not so easy for regular people to understand the ride the Democrats are putting them on that leads to having no fossil fuel to use at all after a few years of quadrupling its present day usage if the population does not increase. It will, because the Democrats in one administration's time have increased by 6,000,000 immigrants crossing at the border states that people in Martha's Vineyard want the border to accept full responsibility for while they indulge themselves in paying maximum prices for British maids and butlers who speak perfect English.

The Democrat Party no longer favors the American common man. They favor only their own pocketbooks expropriated from the United States Treasury when they win an election.

Thanks for trying to educate a few idiots. They, unfortunately, are immersed in party penny-ante, who get special treatment from the DOJ which concentrates on Democrat enemies lately, and ignores equal rights. It's a national disgrace.


----------



## Correll (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Stupid?  If the situation were as dire as your experts claim, then draconian measures would be called for.
> 
> But they don't.
> 
> DERP!


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And they've been buying more cars/EVs than Tesla can make.
> ALL the auto cos are moving electric.
> 
> 
> `





Thanks to government mandates for the most part.   That and hefty government handouts that are paid for by families who could never afford an EV.

It takes a special kind of stupid to constantly repeat the same crapola, over and over and over again.

Hello stupid....


----------



## beautress (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Thanks to government mandates for the most part.   That and hefty government handouts that are paid for by families who could never afford an EV.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to constantly repeat the same crapola, over and over and over again.
> 
> Hello stupid....


Next thing you know, the Democrats will be handing out $80,000 electric cars to illegal immigrants on crossing the border. This will give the comers a good excuse for going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; going back to Mexico, crossing the border again, get free stuff: going back to Mexico, crossing the border again, get free stuff;  going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff; Oh, and did I mention? Going back to Mexico, crossing the border, get free stuff!
And the Democrats will blame the Republicans for the whole megatrillion dollar border kerfluffle they created.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Who cares what they say.  All they want is power and money.


The ideologues who fantasize that they can poop into the heavens with impunity have witnessed even their fellow propaganda-spewing dirty fuel cartel conspirators grudgingly acknowledging the irrefutable reality as they desperately try to perpetuate their obscene profiteering:

Chevron supports the Paris Agreement and is committed to addressing climate change while continuing to deliver energy that supports society. Climate policy should achieve emissions reductions as efficiently and effectively as possible, at the least cost to economies. We support well-designed climate policies and believe a price on carbon is the most efficient mechanism to harness market forces to reduce emissions.​


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

beautress said:


> Climate change has occurred every single day for the past 1 billion years. Why get excited about it now?





westwall said:


> It takes a special kind of stupid to constantly repeat the same crapola, over and over and over again.
> 
> Hello stupid....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The ideologues who fantasize that they can poop into the heavens with impunity have witnessed even their fellow propaganda-spewing dirty fuel cartel conspirators grudgingly acknowledging the irrefutable reality as they desperately try to perpetuate their obscene profiteering:
> 
> Chevron supports the Paris Agreement and is committed to addressing climate change while continuing to deliver energy that supports society. Climate policy should achieve emissions reductions as efficiently and effectively as possible, at the least cost to economies. We support well-designed climate policies and believe a price on carbon is the most efficient mechanism to harness market forces to reduce emissions.​​View attachment 704870​



As long as you're not helping them perpetuate their obscene profiteering, eh?
When did you use your last bit of evil, planet-killing carbon fuel?


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As long as you're not helping them perpetuate their obscene profiteering, eh?
> When did you use your last bit of evil, planet-killing carbon fuel?


The applicable standard is not the total abstinence you require.

They are only token gestures toward acknowledging reality, but I have incorporated solar generation into my household requirements, replaced all electrical appliances with more efficient ones, and entirely abandoned gasoline-fueled vehicles for travel.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nothing about that is draconian you idiot.  Cars get better gas mileage because the customers want it.
> 
> DURRRRRR





beautress said:


> When California cannot produce enough electricity to run all its automobiles and homes, then and only then will the Democrat party blame all its errors on the Republicans.
> 
> See how that works? The Democrats need to wake up to reality. For every electric car they force the no-longer-free-American-citizens to buy, they are going to have to spend four times the amount of fossil fuels at the electric generation plants per auto than the alleged gas-guzzlers use (of fossil fuels). IOW, 1/4 of the fossil fuel cost for cars is enjoyed by those who use gasoline.
> 
> ...


_""...For every electric car they force the no-longer-free-American-citizens to buy, they are going to have to spend four times the amount of fossil fuels at the electric generation plants per auto than the alleged gas-guzzlers use (of fossil fuels). IOW, 1/4 of the fossil fuel cost for cars is enjoyed by those who use gasoline.".."_

Renewables are as net plus and now cheaper and more efficient than burning FFs.
And they get better every year.
85% of new energy generation spending was renewable last year.
Wind especially hot in the Farm states where they get paid for dotting their fields with wind turbines. *Texas #1 in adding new renewable power, TRIPLING California in 2021.*
Abbot just signed a bill protecting NG from renewables.

So no matter how you do the equation the economy comes out better for all.
Your idiotic rant was a waste of space.
People WANT EVs and everyone is in the game. Tesla can't keep up: Record sales again in September.
See my other threads in this section.
Shove your Marxism up your low IQ.... navel.

On the International arena/scale it means the world is less beholden to OPEC+Ru.
(in case you've missed the last 50 years or 6 months)

`
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The applicable standard is not the total abstinence you require.
> 
> They are only token gestures toward acknowledging reality, but I have incorporated solar generation into my household requirements, replaced all electrical appliances with more efficient ones, and entirely abandoned gasoline-fueled vehicles for travel.
> 
> View attachment 704905​



CO2 is going to end our civilization but using fossil fuels is still okay?

*They are only token gestures toward acknowledging reality, *

Token gestures will save us?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CO2 is going to end our civilization but using fossil fuels is still okay?
> 
> *They are only token gestures toward acknowledging reality, *
> 
> Token gestures will save us?


So you practice fossil fuel abstinence? Do tell what powers your high (Trojan) horse, El Demando? Fart gas, from the smell of it.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nothing about that is draconian you idiot.  Cars get better gas mileage because the customers want it.


And that's the same reason they want and are buying EVs much faster than they can be produced Dementia boy.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> So you practice fossil fuel abstinence? Do tell what powers your high (Trojan) horse, El Demando? Fart gas, from the smell of it.



Why would I? Fossil fuels allow our high tech economy to function.

If I wanted more expensive, less reliable "green" energy, I'd buy it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And that's the same reason they want and are buying EVs much faster than they can be produced Dementia boy.
> `



EVs, so awesome they should be mandatory.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> And that's the same reason they want and are buying EVs much faster than they can be produced Dementia boy.
> `




Government orders, moron.


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You are a demented crackpot conspiracist with no real answer
> Thus the above.
> 
> How's your senior diaper holding up?
> `





Better than your drool cup.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Government orders, moron.


You are a demented crackpot conspiracist with no real answer.
Thus the above.

How's your senior diaper holding up?
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You are a demented crackpot conspiracist with no real answer.
> Thus the above.
> 
> How's your senior diaper holding up?
> `





Like I said, better than your drool cup.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Opposing *(The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies.  The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.

They did it for self preservation,  nothing more.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies.  The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.
> 
> They did it for self preservation,  nothing more.


Actually "preservation" is WHY they gave him an award in the first place.
LOL
'PETROLEUM Geologists' are naturally Biased and PAID by 'PETROLEUM/OIL COMPANIES.'
DOH!
They had become a Laughing stock, like you.
*Like the Tobacco Growers Assn finally admitting Cigarettes cause lung cancer. *

Crighton is an MD who writes Novels, not peer reviewed papers, and not a Scientist, much less climate scientist.
So this is a classic 'Appeal to Authority' FALLACY because the 'authority' is not an expert in the field.. or even close.

It's time for your Nap now Elvis.
`


----------



## Lastamender (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Actually "preservation" is WHY they gave him an award in the first place.
> LOL
> PETROLEUM Geologists are naturally Biased and PAID by PETROLEUM/OIL COMPANIES.
> DOH!
> ...


Wow, they sound like fact checkers.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Government orders, moron.


WHEN EVS
ARE BANNED
ONLY THE RICH
WILL HAVE EVS


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> EVs, so awesome they should be mandatory.


^Your buddy says they are^
Best fall in line, little "patriot"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> ^Your buddy says they are^
> Best fall in line, little "patriot"



Which buddy said what? Where?


----------



## BackAgain (Oct 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *So you gave up on ANY FACTS of the debate. (you can't debate) Just what you heard when you were 10!!!
> so Go F*** off dope.*
> 
> I've been smart and a researcher/reader of Scientific American since i was young.
> ...


Why do so many of you dumb people pretend to have high IQ’s?


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which buddy said what? Where?





westwall said:


> Government orders, moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2022)

Several states want to outlaw I.C.E. cars at some future date.
And?


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, they did so under extreme pressure from government agencies.  The year before they gave an award to Crighton for his novel "State of Fear" which highlighted the AGW fear mongering.
> 
> They did it for self preservation,  nothing more.


What extreme pressure from what government agencies?  I'd like to see something more than just you saying it's so.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> WHEN EVS
> ARE BANNED
> ONLY THE RICH
> WILL HAVE EVS


Why does abu afak never mention his EV?


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2022)

james bond said:


> Why does abu afak never mention his EV?


Why should he.  It has no relevance.  Have you noticed how often AGW deniers take this tack?  Rather than attempting to argue the SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, they choose to make ad hominem attacks and commit hosts of logic and reasoning flaws.  This is one of them.  So, as the OP asks, have you accepted AGW yet?


----------



## westwall (Oct 15, 2022)

Have you





Crick said:


> Why should he.  It has no relevance.  Have you noticed how often AGW deniers take this tack?  Rather than attempting to argue the SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, they choose to make ad hominem attacks and commit hosts of logic and reasoning flaws.  This is one of them.  So, as the OP asks, have you accepted AGW yet?


 


Have you noticed how not one of the people preaching to us about climate change has a carbon footprint less than 5 normal people?

And not one of them makes the slightest effort to reduce it.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2022)

westwall said:


> Have you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I rest my case.


----------



## westwall (Oct 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> I rest my case.





What case.  You have nothing but opinion and fantasy.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2022)

My case was that folks like you would attack me rather than address the subject and its science.  Then you came out and attacked me and made no attempt to address any science.  That worked so well I'd be surprised if some of your comrades didn't suspect a little collusion a-twixt us.


----------



## westwall (Oct 15, 2022)

Crick said:


> My case was that folks like you would attack me rather than address the subject and its science.  Then you came out and attacked me and made no attempt to address any science.  That worked so well I'd be surprised if some of your comrades didn't suspect a little collusion a-twixt us.





That's because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2022)

westwall said:


> That's because there IS NO SCIENCE TO SUPPORT IT.


www.ipcc.ch.  Help yourself.  No thanks necessary.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 16, 2022)

Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> www.ipcc.ch.  Help yourself.  No thanks necessary.




Opinions aren't science.

Never have been, never will be.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Opinions aren't science.
> 
> Never have been, never will be.


He posted the world's largest Climate org.
You posted you.
You're a demente Peanut gallery rooting Troll.

You want to contradict him, put up some data of your own in this section TROLL.
You're a total wipe out/harassment Troll like jc456, ding, and ToasterPatiot.
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> He posted the world's largest Climate org.
> You posted you.
> You're a demente Peanut gallery rooting Troll.
> 
> ...





Yeah, and all they present is opinion.  Try taking a science class sometime so you can understand the difference between opinion and data.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, and all they present is opinion.  Try taking a science class sometime so you can understand the difference between opinion and data.


*I have posted 100x the data/hard info you have 1/16th as many posts.* Check the OPs on this page alone.
You are a one line TROLL.
You must be joking
`


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *I have posted 100x the data/hard info you have 1/16th as many posts.* Check the OPs on this page alone.
> You are a one line TROLL.
> You must be joking
> `





No, you haven't.   You have posted opinions, and computer derived fiction.

That's it.

Makes a person wonder just how intellectually challenged you truly are.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, you haven't.   You have posted opinions, and computer derived fiction.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Makes a person wonder just how intellectually challenged you truly are.


False
*My OPs are Not opinion pieces.*
Read em again. *They are hard industry data or reporting such by EIA, WSJ, IRENA, NASA, NOAA, etc.*
You just Lied because you are a pathetic little troll/Right Wing cheerleader/hack with ZERO info.
`


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, you haven't.   You have posted opinions, and computer derived fiction.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Makes a person wonder just how intellectually challenged you truly are.


*AGREED!*


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, you haven't.   You have posted opinions, and computer derived fiction.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Makes a person wonder just how intellectually challenged you truly are.


It amazes me that someone as afraid of computers as you are, should be able to work up the nerve to put their fingers to the keyboard of whatever you're using to post here.  You know, the OP's title treats two things as independent.  For many of the posters here, they are strongly related.  For folks like you, it is your rejection of AGW that shows us you're nothing but an anti-science zealot who should be given just as much attention as such a person truly deserves.  None.


----------



## james bond (Oct 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> Why should he.  It has no relevance.  Have you noticed how often AGW deniers take this tack?  Rather than attempting to argue the SCIENCE of a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, they choose to make ad hominem attacks and commit hosts of logic and reasoning flaws.  This is one of them.  So, as the OP asks, have you accepted AGW yet?


I believe in AGW and got an EV.  It means abu afak is a hypocrite or one who just complains and expect other people to fix the problem.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2022)

james bond said:


> I believe in AGW and got an EV.  It means abu afak is a hypocrite or one who just complains and expect other people to fix the problem.


No one individually - not even you James - can solve this problem by themselves.  It is perfectly reasonable for anyone concerned about AGW to ask others to help.  As far as the EVs go, I have not seen Abu say anything critical about people who don't drive EVs.  He has simply supported them as a valuable new technology that we should all try to adopt when we can.  And, of course, this is in response to the hordes of deniers here who scathingly condemn them and tell us they will end life on this planet with lithium fires from here to kingdom come.  I don't drive an EV.  I'm retired.  I can't afford one and I wouldn't be surprised if Abu can't either.  If I live long enough I'm sure I'll get one.  But they're bloody expensive.  So, lighten up.  Address the science if you can.


----------



## westwall (Oct 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> No one individually - not even you James - can solve this problem by themselves.  It is perfectly reasonable for anyone concerned about AGW to ask others to help.  As far as the EVs go, I have not seen Abu say anything critical about people who don't drive EVs.  He has simply supported them as a valuable new technology that we should all try to adopt when we can.  And, of course, this is in response to the hordes of deniers here who scathingly condemn them and tell us they will end life on this planet with lithium fires from here to kingdom come.  I don't drive an EV.  I'm retired.  I can't afford one and I wouldn't be surprised if Abu can't either.  If I live long enough I'm sure I'll get one.  But they're bloody expensive.  So, lighten up.  Address the science if you can.





Present some science we can address that isn't generated from computer derived fiction.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> Present some science we can address that isn't generated from computer derived fiction.


 You can't "address" anything. Never do.
He has scores of meaty posts, You NOTHING.
Why don't you write more than ONE line in a post.

Crick's last post had more info than any Twenty of your ldiotic contentLess partisan drools.
You're not here to post/"address" any info just Harass and Cheerlead.
You Pitiful POS.
Put your teeth in the glass.
`


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.
> 
> Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.


So when did you personally begin a zero personal carbon dioxide emission lifestyle?
Or are you like the majority of lemmings another hypocrite?


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You can't "address" anything. Never do.
> He has scores of meaty posts, You NOTHING.
> Why don't you write more than ONE line in a post.
> 
> ...


So when did you personally begin a zero personal carbon dioxide emission lifestyle?
Or are you like the majority of lemmings another hypocrite?


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?​Sadly, no.


So when did you personally begin a zero personal carbon dioxide emission lifestyle?
Or are you like the majority of lemmings another hypocrite?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 17, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> So when did you personally begin a zero personal carbon dioxide emission lifestyle?
> Or are you like the majority of lemmings another hypocrite?


The better question is
When will you be able to post On Topic re the debate over AGW or EVs instead of demanding personal info.
You little shlt.
Post on Topic.
`


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.
> 
> Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.


600 million years of data counters your 200 year "anomaly"(driven in pursuit of funding);


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The better question is
> When will you be able to post On Topic re the debate over AGW or EVs instead of demanding personal info.
> You little shlt.
> Post on Topic.
> `


Well big shit, until you live what you preach others should, you aren't on topic.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> He posted the world's largest Climate org.
> You posted you.
> You're a demente Peanut gallery rooting Troll.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *I have posted 100x the data/hard info you have 1/16th as many posts.* Check the OPs on this page alone.
> You are a one line TROLL.
> You must be joking
> `


















Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The better question is
> When will you be able to post On Topic re the debate over AGW or EVs instead of demanding personal info.
> You little shlt.
> Post on Topic.
> `


















Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> False
> *My OPs are Not opinion pieces.*
> Read em again. *They are hard industry data or reporting such by EIA, WSJ, IRENA, NASA, NOAA, etc.*
> You just Lied because you are a pathetic little troll/Right Wing cheerleader/hack with ZERO info.
> `




























Higher global temperatures in the past and not caused by human activity. Hmmm ???


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You can't "address" anything. Never do.
> He has scores of meaty posts, You NOTHING.
> Why don't you write more than ONE line in a post.
> 
> ...






Okey dokey, just insults, but as usual, no facts, no data, and especially no science from you,  the resident village idiot.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 17, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


>


LOL

*YOU REPEATED THIS CHART 5 TIMES IN A ROW YOU POOR INADEQUATE IDIOT. #837-#841
FRUSTRATED KNOW-NOTHING... KNOWING INADEQUACY.*
YOUR CHART BLITZ PROVES NOTHING.
(NOTHING IS STILL BETTER THAN WESTWALL'S NON-ATTEMPTS, OR TODDSTER' STUPID TROLLS)

*YOURS A 600 MILLION YEAR CHART IN 100 MILLION YEAR INCREMENTS.
USELESS!
YOU COULDN'T SEE THE TIME PERIOD/SCALE NEEDED TO SEE AGW OR NOT. (THE LAST 150 YEARS)
IT'S A WASTE, LIKE THE KEYBOARDS (AND EMPTY POSTS) OF WESTWALL AND TOADSTER.*

NO ONE HAS ARGUED IT HASN'T BEEN WARMER IN THE PAST!
*THE DEBATE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE LAST 150 YEARS OF HUMAN EXPLODED GHGs CAUSED THIS ONE WITHIN A NATURAL CYCLE.*


IE, MARCOTT, ETC.


Well known Marcott.
Which stops in 2000 or 2013, and since which the Temperature has set even new higher records, and Every Year Hotter than 2013.
(2016 and 2020 being highest)
*and with temperature catching up but following/lagging CO2.
SPIKING from -.4 to Marcot, to near +1 degree in 2016 etc in app 150 years.*
More representations showing the OBVIOUS available.
We were cooling before we turned on the engines.







*and the bottom one with 8 Different Temp records*






THAT SIMPLE.
GAME OVER.

*YOU DIDN'T/COULDN'T WRITE MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE (IF ANY) IN 6 CHART POSTS IN ROW!
THE SAME IRRELEVANT 600 MILLION YEAR CHART IN 5 IN A ROW! (#837-#841)
BECAUSE YOU ARE IN FACT NON-CONVERSANT/KNOWINGLY INADEQUATE ON THE TOPIC!
LOL *

`


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.


There are more factors involved than just CO2.

Ever heard of ocean currents and mountains? 
100,000,000 years ago the Indian plate had not collided with the Asian plate thereby creating the Himalayan mountains. Comparing climates over periods of tens of millions of years when differently shaped land masses forced changes in currents of fluid makes no sense.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 17, 2022)

The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.

Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.

After a decade of disputing the existence of climate change, many leading Republicans are shifting their posture amid deadly heat waves, devastating drought and ferocious wildfires that have bludgeoned their districts and unnerved their constituents back home.​


​*“I saved it! I put our miners back to work!”
As of August, 2020, 5,300 coal mining jobs had been lost under Trump.*​
Members of Congress who long insisted that the climate is changing due to natural cycles have notably adjusted that view, with many now acknowledging the solid science that emissions from burning oil, gas and coal have raised Earth’s temperature.​
But their growing acceptance of the reality of climate change has not translated into support for the one strategy that scientists said in a major United Nations report this week is imperative to avert an even more harrowing future: stop burning fossil fuels.​​Instead, Republicans want to spend billions to prepare communities to cope with extreme weather, but are trying to block efforts by Democrats to cut the emissions that are fueling the disasters in the first place.​
*

*​With the exception of young Republicans who have been agitating for their party to take climate change more seriously, conservative voters as a whole have not shifted much on the issue over the past 10 years. That skepticism may have reached a pinnacle with Trump, who famously derided climate science, loosened emissions rules and expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands.​​*[Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change (Published 2021)]*​​Even in the GOP, for better-educated younger Americans, dogma is, ineluctably, being replaced by data:
*'Light Years Ahead' Of Their Elders, Young Republicans*​*Young Republicans take up fight against climate change*​*Young Republicans push party to act on climate change*​
​


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Oct 17, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.
> 
> Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change are finally conceding the scientific validity, but want to surrender to it.
> 
> Submitting to the ravages of global warming is a very expensive proposition.
> 
> ...



$76 trillion!!!


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> $76 trillion!!!





All to lower global temperature by one degree in 100 years.....maybe.


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> All to lower global temperature by one degree in 100 years.....maybe.


Maybe is right.  It's probably far more likely that our decisions will be made by ignorant cowards like you and temperatures will go up 4C.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

Planned obsolescence and ignoring the depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik has not been expensive? 

There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994.
Where are those cars? What did the depreciation amount to?





Stryder50 said:


> Higher global temperatures in the past and not caused by human activity. Hmmm ???


How many of those changes occurred faster than 1 degree per 1000 years? Changes in the planet's orbit are slow. Big volcanic eruptions me cause sudden changes but the don't last more than 10 years. So where in the record is there fast lasting change?

The Younger Dryas might qualify but how fast was that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2022)

Crick said:


> Maybe is right.  It's probably far more likely that our decisions will be made by ignorant cowards like you and temperatures will go up 4C.



Maybe 10C?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe 10C?


4 C should be sufficient.


----------



## EMH (Oct 17, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Would seem no linkage in CO2 levels and temperature, other than CO2 sometimes rises after temperature does.




Ice age glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica trap a lot of co2.  The more ice age glacier, the more co2 gets trapped.  The amount of ice and correspondingly the water level are earth thermometers.  If the oceans are rising, the planet is warming.  "Global warming" does not have any ocean rise, and has to lie about South Pacific islands approaching the pacific ring of fire to produce "evidence."


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

EMH said:


> Ice age glaciers like Greenland and Antarctica trap a lot of co2.  The more ice age glacier, the more co2 gets trapped.


What is your source that there is a significant amount of of CO2 trapped in glacier ice? Yeah there is some which is how they determine the composition of ancient atmospheres. But why would there be enough to matter to climate today?


----------



## EMH (Oct 17, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> What is your source that there is a significant amount of of CO2 trapped in glacier ice? Yeah there is some which is how they determine the composition of ancient atmospheres. But why would there be enough to matter to climate today?



It is what the data suggests, that co2 rise happens after warming, 800-2000 years later per the British court ruling in 2008.  Data from ice cores.  

The simple truth all along is that co2 has either no effect or statistically negligible effect on temps.  The driver of earth climate change is ice.  Ice is on land near earth poles.  Land moves.  Time to get a clue....


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 17, 2022)

Let me check 






Still no 

Simply because it's still all bullshit

You b3tter be eating bugs and bicycling to work ...ya fucking brain dead watermelon


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 17, 2022)

Seems anti-science zealots are not accepting anthropogenic climate change yet.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

EMH said:


> It is what the data suggests, that co2 rise happens after warming, 800-2000 years later per the British court ruling in 2008.  Data from ice cores.
> 
> The simple truth all along is that co2 has either no effect or statistically negligible effect on temps.  The driver of earth climate change is ice.  Ice is on land near earth poles.  Land moves.  Time to get a clue....


Warmer oceans hold less co2 in relation to the atmospheric concentration.   The Milankovitch cycles starts the warming first. This causes the oceans to release CO2 thus temperature leads CO2. But this starts a feedback loop with CO2 caused greenhouse effect helping to raise temperatures. Thus the world comes out of glacier periods faster than it goes into them.

People who cannot handle multiple simultaneous variables but think they have clues are hilariously annoying.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2022)

B





Grumblenuts said:


> Seems anti-science zealots are not accepting anthropogenic climate change yet.


Because it doesn't exist


----------



## abu afak (Oct 17, 2022)

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
*Search Results
Web results*

*How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

*How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

*How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...*
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

*Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles*
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
*How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...*
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections*
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to *Natural* and human factors that influence the *climate* (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...



*Cobb: “What we see clearly is that the rate and the magnitude of current warming really dwarfs anything in this most recent geologic period.”*

Really? What are the three quickest and largest warming periods besides this one, "in this most recent geologic period”?

*She says that the current concentration of global warming pollution in the atmosphere is the only factor that explains it.*

Global warming pollution?  
Georgia Tech used to be more serious, now they'll let any idiot claim to be a climate scientist


----------



## EMH (Oct 17, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Warmer oceans hold less co2 in relation to the atmospheric concentration.   The Milankovitch cycles starts the warming first. This causes the oceans to release CO2 thus temperature leads CO2. But this starts a feedback loop with CO2 caused greenhouse effect helping to raise temperatures. Thus the world comes out of glacier periods faster than it goes into them.
> 
> People who cannot handle multiple simultaneous variables but think they have clues are hilariously annoying.




During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed.  The mcBULLSHIT cycles do not explain that truth.  How did co2 melt NA and freeze Greenland at the same time?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 17, 2022)

EMH said:


> During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed.  The mcBULLSHIT cycles do not explain that truth.  How did co2 melt NA and freeze Greenland at the same time?






During which of these cycles did this alleged phenomenon occur? Care to provide a link to the source where some scientist let you know about this?



Do you know where Greenland is?


----------



## EMH (Oct 17, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> View attachment 711689
> During which of these cycles did this alleged phenomenon occur? Care to provide a link to the source where some scientist let you know about this?




Color fudge charts and parroting only, please....


Or you could get a clue yourself by search for 


North American ice age 

(Notice a CONTINENT SPECIFIC ICE AGE too)

And

Ancient Greenland green


There is even a real explanation.

NA tectonic plate moving SW

Angle of fault in North Atlantic pushing Greenland NW


NA moved south and thawed

Greenland moved north and froze


But but but where is a climate "scientist" to parrot????


Bawk on, moron


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Seems anti-science zealots are not accepting anthropogenic climate change yet.




Like 911, it takes an IQ over 5 to see through the co2 fraud.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

EMH said:


> Like 911, it takes an IQ over 5 to see through the co2 fraud.


You must have put up over a dozen posts on this forum rejecting AGW.  But, despite the many opportunities and the requests from those with whom you 'debate'  you've yet to post a single link to an outside reference.  All we ever get from you is your unsupported opinions and your insults.  I believe that makes you a troll.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> They "conserve" only short term profits. "_Hell, The Rapture is coming soon anyway.. Save the fetus! Screw the grandchildren!"_


isn't the fetus a grandchild?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> You must have put up over a dozen posts on this forum rejecting AGW.  But, despite the many opportunities and the requests from those with whom you 'debate'  you've yet to post a single link to an outside reference.  All we ever get from you is your unsupported opinions and your insults.  I believe that makes you a troll.


Again, ole Crick, I'll ask you here since you still haven't answered, but it is relevant to your statement here, what is the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2?  

Where's your science?


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> You must have put up over a dozen posts on this forum rejecting AGW.  But, despite the many opportunities and the requests from those with whom you 'debate'  you've yet to post a single link to an outside reference.  All we ever get from you is your unsupported opinions and your insults.  I believe that makes you a troll.





How many cat 5 storms have hit Martha's Vineyard with 180 mph winds since 1938?

Answer ZERO


Your side has fudge, lies, and online parroting imbeciles like yourself.  It has no TRUTH.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

EMH said:


> How many cat 5 storms have hit Martha's Vineyard with 180 mph winds since 1938?
> 
> Answer ZERO
> 
> ...


How old are you?


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> How old are you?





Old enough to notice the following


Your side says oceans are warming
Raw data never showed that, your "warming" is all fudge
Warming oceans should produce more and bigger canes
Data shows no such breakout in cane activity
When asked whether any cat 5 has gotten as far north as the '38 cane did, you cowardly change the subject because the true answer refutes your

PARROTED BULLSHIT


----------



## ding (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> You must have put up over a dozen posts on this forum rejecting AGW.  But, despite the many opportunities and the requests from those with whom you 'debate'  you've yet to post a single link to an outside reference.  All we ever get from you is your unsupported opinions and your insults.  I believe that makes you a troll.


You need a link to know that warming naturally occurs during interglacial cycles?


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

ding said:


> You need a link to know that warming naturally occurs during interglacial cycles?


Perhaps you should try talking to poster EMH.  That's who I was addressing and he claims there's no warming going on from any cause.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Again, ole Crick, I'll ask you here since you still haven't answered, but it is relevant to your statement here, what is the temperature of 120 PPM of CO2?
> 
> Where's your science?


I am not aware of atmospheric CO2 getting that low in the last 50 million years. Before that land masses were in different locations resulting in different ocean and wind currents meaning the question is pointless. 

The variable you are asking about cannot be tested in isolation.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> The variable you are asking about cannot be tested in isolation.


A constant, more likely. As though one could convert concentration (parts per million of CO2) to temperature (degrees Centigrade, Kelvin, or whatever) with a silly fudge factor.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> I am not aware of atmospheric CO2 getting that low in the last 50 million years. Before that land masses were in different locations resulting in different ocean and wind currents meaning the question is pointless.
> 
> The variable you are asking about cannot be tested in isolation.


The point is, if you don’t know the temperature of the amount of CO2 being added, how do you know it affects temperature? 

That’s no science


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> The point is, if you don’t know the temperature of the amount of CO2 being added, how do you know it affects temperature?
> 
> That’s no science


The radiative forcing diagram from AR6's  Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" indicates that the CO2 added since 1750 - by itself - has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of warming.  See my last post in the radiative physics thread.

Happy?

Now what will you do?  I think you should spend a lot more time playing with your grandchildren.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Here you go.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> The radiative forcing diagram from AR6's  Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" indicates that the CO2 added since 1750 - by itself - has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of warming.  See my last post in the radiative physics thread.
> 
> Happy?
> 
> Now what will you do?  I think you should spend a lot more time playing with your grandchildren.


33.8 degrees f? Bull


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:

Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting* a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. *The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Perhaps you should try talking to poster EMH.  That's who I was addressing and he claims there's no warming going on from any cause.




There is warming... from the growth of urban areas known as

URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT

That is the only warming in any of the raw data.  

Hilariously enough, even with increasing UHSE heat, the atmosphere is not warming.  Co2 went up, atmospheric temps did not.

It is that UHSE heat that is the genesis of the Co2 fraud.  

The fraud of global warming - co2 based climate change - is the deliberate misinterpretation of the UHSE on the surface ground temp series, the only series showing warming in the raw data.


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> 33.8 degrees f? Bull




You are debating their fudge.

Debating their fudge is pointless.

Stick to raw data.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> There are more factors involved than just CO2.
> 
> Ever heard of ocean currents and mountains?
> 100,000,000 years ago the Indian plate had not collided with the Asian plate thereby creating the Himalayan mountains. Comparing climates over periods of tens of millions of years when differently shaped land masses forced changes in currents of fluid makes no sense.


Yes I have.
And I've tried to show how those play out and affect several times here, and on other threads.
My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.
BTW, how many know what the CO2 percent/content was about 4 billion years ago?
And what the O2 content was back then?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:
> 
> Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}







__





						Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD
					






					premium.weatherweb.net


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Planned obsolescence and ignoring the depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik has not been expensive?
> 
> There were 200,000,000 cars in the US in 1994.
> Where are those cars? What did the depreciation amount to?
> ...


Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
> Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
> BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.







__





						Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD
					






					premium.weatherweb.net


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

abu afak said:


> so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
> "it goes up, it goes down"
> but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.
> 
> ...


All satisfying the requirements to get funding and grants.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> The radiative forcing diagram from AR6's  Technical Summary of "The Physical Science Basis" indicates that the CO2 added since 1750 - by itself - has produced approximately 1 centigrade degree of warming.  See my last post in the radiative physics thread.
> 
> Happy?
> 
> Now what will you do?  I think you should spend a lot more time playing with your grandchildren.


Which is a qualitative factor not a quantitative.
I think you should walk the walk that matches your talk and reduce your personal CO2 emissions to ZERO!


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> The point is, if you *don’t know the temperature of the amount of CO2* being added, how do you know it affects temperature?
> 
> That’s no science


Temperature of the CO2!?

You are right, "that's no science"!

ROFL


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Which is a qualitative factor not a quantitative.
> I think you should walk the walk that matches your talk and reduce your personal CO2 emissions to ZERO!


I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage.  It's a great deal more beneficial to get an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg.  The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Temperature of the CO2!?
> 
> You are right, "that's no science"!
> 
> ROFL


So no need to worry adding CO2 to the atmosphere


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage.  It's a great deal more beneficial to an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg.  The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.


You’re still breathing


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Yes I have.
> And I've tried to show how those play out and affect several times here, and on other threads.
> My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.
> BTW, how many know what the CO2 percent/content was about 4 billion years ago?
> And what the O2 content was back then?


No!  The world was so different Milankovitch cycles were irrelevant and human beings could not survive under those conditions anyway. What matters is deviating out of relatively comfortable conditions that we had from the 60s through the 80s.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Point is those changes were not caused by anthropogenic climate change; warming or cooling.
> Point is there is a natural cycle of climate change~flux and it depends on major factors other than CO2 concentrations.
> BTW, current approximate 400ppm means CO2 has a ratio of 1/2,500 towards the more significant Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Water vapor is another "green house gas" at about 10% average above the "dry"atmosphere composition. About 250/2,750 ratio of ppm.


Water evaporates and precipitates and creates clouds that reflect energy.  Well, well, it's complicated. But the CO2 remains and builds up and gets pretty evenly distributed from the sources over time. But the sources put up more.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> So no need to worry adding CO2 to the atmosphere


Ever heard that song by the Doobie Brothers:

"What a Fool Believes" ?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> A handy text box just below the forcing factor diagram in the AR6 Technical Summary contained the following comments:
> 
> Since AR5, substantial quantitative progress has been made in combining new evidence of Earth’s climate sensitivity with improvements in the understanding and quantification of Earth’s energy imbalance, the instrumental record of global surface temperature change, paleoclimate change from proxy records, climate feedbacks and their dependence on time scale and climate state. A key advance is the broad agreement across these multiple lines of evidence, supporting* a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C, with a very likely range of 2°C to 5°C. *The likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C is narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. {7.4, 7.5}


And yet





__





						Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD
					






					premium.weatherweb.net


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> My main point in showing those graphs was to show that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on Global Climate, as shown in the geological records we have that go back to first formation of the planet's atmosphere.


There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions.  Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels.  Both these relationships are directly observed physical phenomena.  Your claim that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on global climate is demonstrably incorrect.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions.  Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels.


Except 





__





						Weather in History 1750 to 1799 AD
					






					premium.weatherweb.net


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Except
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've got some way better exceptions than that.
Here's the temperature and CO2 data from the Vostok ice cores.











						The Vostok Ice Core and the 14,000 Year CO2 Time Lag
					

A detailed analysis of temperature, CO2 and methane variations from the Vostok ice core is presented for the time interval 137,383 to 102,052 years ago. This captures the termination of the glaciat…



					euanmearns.com
				



There are MASSIVE deviations here.  One will lead the other by thousands of years.  One will go up while the other is going down.  One will be steady while the other is all over the place.  It's INSANITY.

It's also an extremely robust correlation.  Your "except" isn't shite.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> I've got some way better exceptions than that.
> Here's the temperature and CO2 data from the Vostok ice cores.
> View attachment 712015
> 
> ...


except it is recorded that severe weather existed in 1750.  The point you are trying to make is that didn't happen until today.  Point


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 18, 2022)

_Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!

Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah! _


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> _Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!
> 
> Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
> No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah! _




Your side has precisely no real evidence of planetary warming at all

And your side has hyped bs events

Sea ice
2005 hurricane season

Which have since turned your side's noise into the

WRONG AGAIN

Category


----------



## themirrorthief (Oct 18, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The ideological dogma that decrees one is free to poop into the heavens with impunity appears to be tenacious.
> 
> Housebreaking the obstinate is a challenge.
> 
> Spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere impacts the atmosphere.


whine to the chinese, they are the ones constructing hundreds of new coal plants to further whip the american labor force


----------



## psikeyhackr (Oct 18, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> whine to the chinese, they are the ones constructing hundreds of new coal plants to further whip the american labor force


The American labor force is whipped by going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete whether it is made in America or China is irrelevant. 

Adam Smith wrote about education and said, "read, write and account".

The U.S. could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. They weren't even talking about global warming back then. Ask an economist about demand side depreciation.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> I read an interesting point once in an article about vehicle fuel mileage.  It's a great deal more beneficial to get an 8 mpg truck to 15 mpg than to get a 40 mpg subcompact to 50 mpg.  The point here is that I think it very likely that it would be far more beneficial for YOU to work harder on your GHG emissions than for me to do so since I've been doing so for almost 20 years and you likely haven't ever given it a second thought.


I think you should work on your basic Math, Physics, and Chemistry.
You obviously fail to grasp concepts of scale and proportions.  Just for a start.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> No!  The world was so different Milankovitch cycles were irrelevant and human beings could not survive under those conditions anyway. What matters is deviating out of relatively comfortable conditions that we had from the 60s through the 80s.


Ocean and wind currents might have differed, but chemical composition and basic physics still applied. Also, fauna evolution was no where near to producing humans back then.

Point is "Earth didn't have a "fever." "; and CO2 though a larger percentage, still wasn't a driving force to average global climate. If anything, the average global climate helped drive the percentages of CO2.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 18, 2022)

EMH said:


> Your side has precisely no real evidence of planetary warming at all


Side? Those of us still not impressed with your little clique of fossil fuel invested die-hards? We're the norm. You're just weird. Many remain addicted to things like drinking and smoking. That never makes surrendering to bad habits smarter or better. There's no actual "side" favoring remaining stupid in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Keep trolling away if you feel so compelled, but get sick and die quickly.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

psikeyhackr said:


> Water evaporates and precipitates and creates clouds that reflect energy.  Well, well, it's complicated. But the CO2 remains and builds up and gets pretty evenly distributed from the sources over time. But the sources put up more.


Duh! On the water evaporation item.

CO2 will very for a number of reasons, factors, most having to do with the Flora amount and what they use to live off of.

Flora still amounts to about 99+% of life on this planet and has to get by on 400ppm of CO2 while Fauna get about 210,000ppm.

There are factors of scale, for just one example, you either aren't aware of or are neglecting.


----------



## Stryder50 (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> There is a VERY strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature and it works in both directions.  Increasing CO2 levels lead to increasing temperatures and increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 levels.  Both these relationships are directly observed physical phenomena.  Your claim that CO2 has no major or direct bearing on global climate is demonstrably incorrect.


BULLSHIT!

That correlation s more an occasional coincidence.

NO one has proven this in laboratory replication conditions.

Unless we engage atomic energy such as fission or fusion, no way can one molecule of CO2 transfer significant heat(any at all really) to 2,499 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen,  Argon, etc.

Again, you seem deficient in basic math, chemistry and physics.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> _Climate Change? Oh sure, but just have a look over here at this selection of weather events one more time!
> 
> Hey, what?! Stop that! I'm no troll! I'm not deliberately injecting oranges into a discussion of apples!
> No, that's what you always do! You stupid projectionists you! Waah! _


So, everyone can look at the weather map for the country and see the same climate as has been in my 66 years of life! Cold dipping out of Canada all the way to Florida like most every year. I’m still waiting for where climate change is


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 18, 2022)

themirrorthief said:


> whine to the chinese, they are the ones constructing hundreds of new coal plants to further whip the american labor force





_"Oh, yeah!
Well whaddabout...?"_​
Scapegoating is a time-honored pastime, to be sure.
​






​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> View attachment 712122
> _"Oh, yeah!
> Well whaddabout...?"_​
> Scapegoating is a time-honored pastime, to be sure.
> ...



Exactly!

Only American CO2 is bad.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 18, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> View attachment 712122
> _"Oh, yeah!
> Well whaddabout...?"_​
> Scapegoating is a time-honored pastime, to be sure.
> ...


So no global warming


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> That correlation s more an occasional coincidence.




Scholarly articles about the correlation between CO2 and temperature.









						On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
					

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
				





			https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370
		



			https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/climate/climate-05-00076/article_deploy/climate-05-00076.pdf
		


Graphs of CO2 and temperature over different time scales.








__





						Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)
					





					skepticalscience.com
				














						The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
					

Previously, we looked at the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 40 years. However, as I'm always saying, you need to look at the broader view, not just a single piece of the puzzle. The 40 year period was chosen to demonstrate that even during a period of long term warming...



					skepticalscience.com
				










__





						Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide | GlobalChange.gov
					

Global annual average temperature (as measured over both land and oceans) has increased by more than 1.5°F (0.8°C) since 1880 (through 2012). Red bars show temperatures above the long-term average, and blue bars indicate temperatures below the long-term average. The black line shows atmospheric...




					www.globalchange.gov
				








			https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i51/Comes-First-CO2-Heat.html
		




This is the closest to the original question. The answer seems to come from climate science rather than statistics. Even though the graph has an R-squared value of 0.752, showing a consistent linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, climate science seems to indicate that increases in CO2 have a logarithmic relation to changes in temperature. The best numbers that I could find are for every doubling of CO2 global temperature increases 3C.








						Does the high coefficient of determination in this graph predict a huge spike in global warming?
					

I have had three semesters of college statistics as part of my BSBA degree. From what I recall from regression analysis the graph seems to show a very high coefficient of determination between CO2 ...




					stats.stackexchange.com
				



And if you know some statistics this website provides:
*The average coefficient of determination (R-squared) turns out to be 0.752*
Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years
For the entire record, the 90% confidence ranges of the correlations (R-squared) of CO2 with δD, ΔTsite and ΔTsource are 0.68–0.73, 0.76–0.80 and 0.75–0.79, respectively.

And finally











						Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
					

<p>When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.</p>



					skepticalscience.com
				






Stryder50 said:


> NO one has proven this in laboratory replication conditions.


The absorption of IR by CO2 was demonstrated in the lab in 1856.  These days, the results of more accurate instrumentation in the lab provide us these data:






Stryder50 said:


> Unless we engage atomic energy such as fission or fusion, no way can one molecule of CO2 transfer significant heat(any at all really) to 2,499 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen,  Argon, etc.


"Engage atomic energy"???  Did you actually think that sounded like you knew what your were talking about?

Those laboratory experiments have shown that for the frequencies that CO2 absorbs, its concentrations in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb 100% of radiated energy in a column length of less than 10 meters.


Stryder50 said:


> Again, you seem deficient in basic math, chemistry and physics.


[Sadly shakes head]


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Side? Those of us still not impressed with your little clique of fossil fuel invested die-hards? We're the norm. You're just weird. Many remain addicted to things like drinking and smoking. That never makes surrendering to bad habits smarter or better. There's no actual "side" favoring remaining stupid in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Keep trolling away if you feel so compelled, but get sick and die quickly.





Your side has no evidence.

You parrot fudge and fraud


----------



## EMH (Oct 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Scholarly articles about the correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





IR is weak, weaker than visible light, and way weaker than uv.

All molecules in gas form absorb part of EM spectrum

Ozone absorbs uv, for example


IR into co2 does nothing, which is what the highly correlated satellite and balloon data show

Co2 up

Atmospheric temps not


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 19, 2022)

EMH said:


> IR into co2 does nothing, which is what the highly correlated satellite and balloon data show
> 
> Co2 up
> 
> Atmospheric temps not


Ruh roh.. another ass about to burn..


> Globally, the team of researchers found that as altitude rises, the rate of temperature change often accelerates. In the past 20 years, temperatures above 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) have warmed 75 percent faster than at altitudes below 2,000 meters (6,560 feet).


----------



## ding (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Perhaps you should try talking to poster EMH.  That's who I was addressing and he claims there's no warming going on from any cause.


Because the warming trend will turn into a cooling trend soon enough.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

EMH said:


> IR is weak, weaker than visible light, and way weaker than uv.
> 
> All molecules in gas form absorb part of EM spectrum
> 
> ...


You consistently post blatantly obvious falsehoods and have resisted all calls for supporting links.  That makes you a TROLL.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ding said:


> Because the warming trend will turn into a cooling trend soon enough.


No, he didn't say that.  I really think you need to engage the man.  I think you may have the needed touch to get through to him with some needed rationality.


----------



## ding (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> No, he didn't say that.  I really think you need to engage the man.  I think you may have the needed touch to get through to him with some needed rationality.


I couldn’t care less.


----------



## EMH (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> You consistently post blatantly obvious falsehoods and have resisted all calls for supporting links.  That makes you a TROLL.




There is nothing false about the post.

The post simply outs you and your fraud as laughable.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

EMH said:


> There is nothing false about the post.
> 
> The post simply outs you and your fraud as laughable.


TROLL


----------



## EMH (Oct 19, 2022)

ding said:


> Because the warming trend will turn into a cooling trend soon enough.




If oceans were warming, there would be more and bigger canes...

Not happening.

Accepting crick's parroted taxpayer funded fudge is your first error.  

Outside of the surface of growing urban area there is no warming.


Crick and his fraud used to endlessly bawk about melting arctic sea ice.  Since that ice grew back from undersea volcanic eruptions in 2005 and 2007, crick and his fraud can longer bawk lies about it.

Now, overfishing is because of the fraud....


Wake up.

They have NOTHING


----------



## EMH (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> TROLL




The post clearly documents that you

DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BASIC EM SPECTRUM


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 19, 2022)

Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again *Chick*? ...

One of your links regarding correlation says this: *"**Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T** proxies over the last 425 million years"* ...

You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again *Chick*? ...
> 
> One of your links regarding correlation says this: *"**Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T** proxies over the last 425 million years"* ...
> 
> You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...


"Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"???  Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation.  But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> "Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"???  Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation.  But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.



Stupid motherfucker ...

In the conclusion:

"The principal findings of this study are that neither the atmospheric concentration of CO2 nor
∆RFCO2 is correlated with T over most of the ancient (Phanerozoic) climate. Over all major climate
transitions of the Phanerozoic Eon, about three-quarters of 136 correlation coefficients computed here
between T and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and between T and ∆RFCO2, are non-discernible, and
about half of the discernible correlations are negative"

YOU'RE WRONG ... LIAR ... that's not correlation ... read the goddam paper asshole ... again, thank you for this link ... Davis 2017 ... you're going to be hearing a lot about this paper in the future ... you should definitely take the time to read it with comprehension ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Stupid motherfucker ...
> 
> In the conclusion:
> 
> ...


You're missing the most important term in your quote:  "discernible".  And you still haven't provided a link.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Scholarly articles about the correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


still looks like CO2 rise is after temperature rise.


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

jc456 said:


> still looks like CO2 rise is after temperature rise.
> 
> View attachment 712333


For most of history - but not all - it did.  So what?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> For most of history - but not all - it did.  So what?


because magic eight ball changed how it worked.  gotcha.


----------



## ding (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> "Linearly-detrended T-proxies over the last 425 million years"???  Do you actually think that obscure little line at the far extremes of the discussion (whose source you failed to identify) overwhelms the correlation data I displayed and to which I linked in post #915?
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is absolutely pathetic desperation.  But you feel free to call that back up every time we speak.


The correlation is broken because CO2 is no longer a proxy for temperature. If it were it wouldn’t be 2 C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> For most of history - but not all - it did.  So what?



So CO2 does NOT drive climate


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ding said:


> The correlation is broken because CO2 is no longer a proxy for temperature. If it were it wouldn’t be 2 C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.


So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:



and this:



and this:



and this:



and this:



and this



and this



and this:



eh?  Perhaps you want to suggest that CO2 has _changed_ over time...


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 19, 2022)

"Davis, W.J. The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years. _Climate_ *2017*, _5_, 76. The Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years"


> Abstract​Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity requires an understanding of the relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere and global temperature (T). Here I explore this relationship empirically using comprehensive, recently-compiled databases of stable-isotope proxies from the Phanerozoic Eon (~540 to 0 years before the present) and through complementary modeling using the atmospheric absorption/transmittance code MODTRAN. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years.


"Assessing human impacts on climate and biodiversity"? Words like "current" or "present" appear horribly absent. I really don't think we had much to do with it 540 million yrs ago. Correlation?


> Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors *between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago*.


"Here I explore _{..yada, yada..}_ linearly-detrended T proxies over the last 425 million years."
Detrended?


> Adjective. detrended (not comparable) (statistics, said of data) *having long-term trends removed in order to emphasise short-term changes*.


Ah, so we focus on the short-term trends while deliberately ignoring the longer ones way back when to better understand the longer ones now. And we say, "Look Mom, no correlation!" after removing all of the most obvious correlation. Hmm,..? Well,.. doesn't that defy all logic!


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Same arguments ... why do you never learn? ... Lying again *Chick*? ...
> 
> One of your links regarding correlation says this: *"**Atmospheric CO2 concentration is correlated weakly but negatively with linearly-detrended T** proxies over the last 425 million years"* ...
> 
> You didn't read this scientific paper ... because it completely confirms what all of us have been telling you all these years ... you just can't stop your lies, can you? ... but thank you for the link, I'll be rubbing your nose in it every time you say "correlation" ...


In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong *correlation* between CO2 and global temperature.:








						On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature - Scientific Reports
					

We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total...




					www.nature.com
				





			https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370
		





__





						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org
				











						CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models
					

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 19, 2022)

Difficult to find much of anything else published by this "Davis, W.J." (Professor William Jackson Davis - "Environmental Studies Institute, Boulder, CO 80301, USA") but apparently his most recent (of three publications total) theorizes that Antarctic winds cause all climate change, past, present, and future. All this seemingly deduced from collecting wind data taken from "drill sites" -- indicating oil drilling, not ice coring.  Seems like a real wacko, but the school continues receiving millions in grants from the NSF. Wonder which major oil companies are sliding money in as well?


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Difficult to find much of anything else published by this "Davis, W.J." (Professor William Jackson Davis - "Environmental Studies Institute, Boulder, CO 80301, USA") but apparently his most recent (of three publications total) theorizes that Antarctic winds cause all climate change, past, present, and future. All this seemingly deduced from collecting wind data taken from "drill sites" -- indicating oil drilling, not ice coring.  Seems like a real wacko, but the school continues receiving millions in grants from the NSF. Wonder which major oil companies are sliding money in as well?


He does not get published in major journals.  MDPI is not a well-regarded journal and Davis always seems to work alone.  He has a few citations and I could find no serious researchers discussing him at all.  His is not the only paper to suggest that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are a tiny fraction of the papers finding otherwise and all of them deal with trends hundreds of millions of years in the past.  All data 60 million years and newer show robust correlation.  I can't help but think that either some unrealized error is being introduced by the age of the proxies, that some other factor in the distant past dominated global temperatures: differences in the composition of the atmosphere, differences in the configuration of the continental masses, massive volcanism, who knows.  Two of the papers I linked noted that CO2 correlation weakened at high levels of CO2, which makes sense given the logarithmic relationship of the two parameters.  That is, going from, say, 800 ppm to 1,000 ppm would not produce a distinctive temperature increase because the effect of the change is reduced.  And CO2 did get very high in the early Phanerozoic.  Once you get past about 300 million years, it hits 2,000 ppm and climbs to about 4,500 ppm all the way back.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> He does not get published in major journals.  MDPI is not a well-regarded journal and Davis always seems to work alone.  He has a few citations and I could find no serious researchers discussing him at all.  His is not the only paper to suggest that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are a tiny fraction of the papers finding otherwise and all of them deal with trends hundreds of millions of years in the past.  All data 60 million years and newer show robust correlation.  I can't help but think that either some unrealized error is being introduced by the age of the proxies, that some other factor in the distant past dominated global temperatures: differences in the composition of the atmosphere, differences in the configuration of the continental masses, massive volcanism, who knows.  Two of the papers I linked noted that CO2 correlation weakened at high levels of CO2, which makes sense given the logarithmic relationship of the two parameters.  That is, going from, say, 800 ppm to 1,000 ppm would not produce a distinctive temperature increase because the effect of the change is reduced.  And CO2 did get very high in the early Phanerozoic.  Once you get past about 300 million years, it hits 2,000 ppm and climbs to about 4,500 ppm all the way back.


Upon more rigorous inspection it seems I judged the guy too quickly and harshly. The "drill sites" were for ice coring. There are two W Davises publishing from the same school now, most likely father and son. The elder has been around, sports impressive bona fides, and has published plenty. Even so, here's the full text of the recent paper I mentioned earlier which is authored by both Davises. Just reading the introduction had my eyes rolling and head shaking in no time.


----------



## EMH (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong *correlation* between CO2 and global temperature.:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They would not get taxpayer funding if they did not "find strong correlation."

They will fudge and lie and hide the decline to get those $$$$ climate study grants.  


Problem is, of course, they studies are fudge and fraud, and your side cannot explain how co2 melted NA while freezing Greenland at the same time, since co2 does NOTHING....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> In a response to the subject article I offer the following studies all finding a strong *correlation* between CO2 and global temperature.:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The correlation is that CO2 LAGS temperatures on both increases and decreases


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Upon more rigorous inspection it seems I judged the guy too quickly and harshly. The "drill sites" were for ice coring. There are two W Davises publishing from the same school now, most likely father and son. The elder has been around, sports impressive bona fides, and has published plenty. Even so, here's the full text of the recent paper I mentioned earlier which is authored by both Davises. Just reading the introduction had my eyes rolling and head shaking in no time.


Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.


I agree


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:
> View attachment 712381
> and this:
> View attachment 712383
> ...


^ posts charts showing CO2 lagging temperature for hundreds of thousands of years, then tries to tell us CO2 drives temperature

Hilarious!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> Wow... I guess the IPCC can dissolve itself and we can take down all those wind turbines and solar panels.


*"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC*


----------



## ding (Oct 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:
> View attachment 712381
> and this:
> View attachment 712383
> ...


I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2022)

ding said:


> I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.


I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature.  But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust.  That is simply irrefutable.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature.  But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust.  That is simply irrefutable.


but you have nothing showing CO2 drives temperature.  There is that.


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> but you have nothing showing CO2 drives temperature.  There is that.


TROLL


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 20, 2022)

> That CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> TROLL


You Climate Reality Deniers are a hoot but why are you money pits??

It rains
It stops raining

End of story.

We have a very wet October here now and frankly if the Gov hadn't believed the Catastrophists who said it wouldn't rain much again due to AGW/ACC then they would have built flood mitigation instead of ignoring it!!! Now? They're running a losing race to repair levee banks and stuff. 

Current strategy:









						Carpet Cleaning Adelaide | 0488 851 508 | #1 Adelaide Cleaners
					

Carpet Cleaning Adelaide - We have been leading the carpet cleaning team and provide professional carpet cleaning services across Adelaide.




					wedocarpetcleaning.com.au
				




I don't believe that is what comes up when I type in "Flood mitigation: Brisbane". 

Greg


----------



## EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

ding said:


> I think it shows that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.





Correct, the cause is how much ice, and how much ice depends on how much land is in the polar circles, which way it is moving, and how close is it to "flipping" in or out of continent specific ice age.


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2022)

gtopa1 said:


> You Climate Reality Deniers are a hoot but why are you money pits??
> 
> It rains
> It stops raining
> ...


I am not an AGW denier.  I fully accept the conclusions of the IPCC.  I have no idea what you mean by "why are you money pits?" or the particular relevance of your comments about rain and flood mitigation.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 21, 2022)

In Australia’s climate wars, delay and deception are the new denial | Ketan Joshi
					

Now that they can no longer pretend the climate crisis isn’t real, big emitters and their enablers are making all of the right noises – and taking none of the right actions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have never suggested that CO2 is the only factor in global temperature.  But the correlation between CO2 and temperature for the last 60 million years is extremely robust.  That is simply irrefutable.



Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...


I agree that I should have read Davis' study before posting it as it certainly doesn't support my contention but I'm willing to let it stand as a bit of a testament to my open mindedness.  ; - )   Neither you nor I are qualified to do a competent evaluation of his work, but as we both know, it stands in clear opposition to a great deal of published work by many authors - people who ARE qualified to evaluate his work.  Such as:


			http://droyer.wescreates.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
		

whose abstract states:
_The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests_​_that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene_​_with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my). For periods_​_with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is_​_suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due_​_to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below_​_1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature_​_is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong_​_control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic._​And http://[URL]https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdfwhose abstract states:
_Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale._​And http://[URL]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X18302818whose abstract states:
_Over geological timescales, CO2 levels are determined by the operation of the long term carbon cycle, and it is generally thought that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration have controlled variations in Earth's surface temperature over the Phanerozoic Eon. Here we compile independent estimates for global average surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, and compare these to the predictions of box models of the long term carbon cycle COPSE and GEOCARBSULF._​​_We find a strong relationship between CO2 forcing and temperature from the proxy data, for times where data is available, and we find that current published models reproduce many aspects of CO2 change, but compare poorly to temperature estimates. Models are then modified in line with recent advances in understanding the tectonic controls on carbon cycle source and sink processes, with these changes constrained by modelling 87Sr/86Sr ratios. We estimate CO2 degassing rates from the lengths of subduction zones and rifts, add differential effects of erosion rates on the weathering of silicates and carbonates, and revise the relationship between global average temperature changes and the temperature change in key weathering zones._​​_Under these modifications, models produce combined records of CO2 and temperature change that are reasonably in line with geological and geochemical proxies (e.g. central model predictions are within the proxy windows for >~75% of the time covered by data). However, whilst broad long-term changes are reconstructed, the models still do not adequately predict the timing of glacial periods. We show that the 87Sr/86Sr record is largely influenced by the weathering contributions of different lithologies, and is strongly controlled by erosion rates, rather than being a good indicator of overall silicate chemical weathering rates. We also confirm that a combination of increasing erosion rates and decreasing degassing rates over the Neogene can cause the observed cooling and Sr isotope changes without requiring an overall increase in silicate weathering rates._​​_On the question of a source or sink dominated carbon cycle, we find that neither alone can adequately reconstruct the combination of CO2, temperature and strontium isotope dynamics over Phanerozoic time, necessitating a combination of changes to sources and sinks. Further progress in this field relies on >108 year dynamic spatial reconstructions of ancient tectonics, paleogeography and hydrology. Whilst this is a significant challenge, the latest reconstruction techniques, proxy records and modelling advances make this an achievable target._​​The abstract includes this graphic:




So, somebody has made a mistake and given the numbers of scientists that say the two parameters are correlated through the entire Phanerozoic and the undeniable correlation already established for the last 60 million years (and the absolute nutcase "study" that Davis Jr and Sr put out blaming all the Earth's ills and the collapse of civilization on changes in the Arctic winds (see: Antarctic Winds: Pacemaker of Global Warming, Global Cooling, and the Collapse of Civilizations)), the odds point heavily towards Davis as the errant body.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Actually ... Davis (2017) refutes the correlation ... the math gives a negative correlation between CO2 and temperature ... please tell us where Davis makes his mistake ...
> 
> HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... you need to read your links before you post them ...


The abstract concludes with:


> This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.


Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding _today's _climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS. 


> Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between CO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 77.9% are non-discernible (p > 0.05) and 60.0% of discernible correlations are negative.


Translation: _We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor! _


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> The abstract concludes with:
> 
> Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding _today's _climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS.
> 
> Translation: _We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor! _



I guess you didn't understand the part about the logarithmic relationship between CO*2* concentration and temperature ... also known as quantum saturation ... your translation is hopelessly juvenile ... is this what's "hot" in middle school these days? ...

Physics hasn't changed over the past 500 million years ... there's nothing special about today's climate ... the science is the same ... you should learn about the science yourself, take a class, put all that calculus you learned to work ... 

*The abstract concludes with*

Hey stupid ... the conclusion comes at the end of the paper, not the beginning ... I quoted the first sentence above ... this is what the author means in clear language ... we don't need your translation ... God, that's so pre-teen ...


----------



## abu afak (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I guess you didn't understand the part about the logarithmic relationship between CO*2* concentration and temperature ... also known as quantum saturation ... your translation is hopelessly juvenile ... is this what's "hot" in middle school these days? ...
> 
> Physics hasn't changed over the past 500 million years ... there's nothing special about today's climate ... the science is the same ... you should learn about the science yourself, take a class, put all that calculus you learned to work ...
> 
> ...


Physics didn't change but other conditions did.
Past Warming periods were caused by Solar Forcing/change in earth's orbital tilt.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious deniers know/use, usually Lag that solar forcing... but this time led! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate compared to natural cycles.

`


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> I agree that I should have read Davis' study before posting it ...



Yes ... and you should still read it ... and understand there are different opinions in the scientific world ... 

This is why you're so easy to ignore ... save your links, you don't read them ... why should I? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 21, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Physics didn't change but other conditions did.
> Past Warming periods were caused by Solar Forcing/change in earth's orbital tilt.



Explain how the Earth's orbital tilt changes irradiation ... be care, that's a vector value ... 

The subject is correlation ... not your ignorance of basic astronomy ...


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... and you should still read it ... and understand there are different opinions in the scientific world ...
> 
> This is why you're so easy to ignore ... save your links, you don't read them ... why should I? ...


I have since read Davis' paper in full and, having learned my lesson with that faux pas, have fully read the additional papers to which I linked.

If you choose to ignore valid links posted by others, there is really no point in your presence here.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Explain how the Earth's orbital tilt changes irradiation ... be care, that's a vector value ...
> 
> The subject is correlation ... not your ignorance of basic astronomy ...


Solar forcing gets weaker as you move back in time.  You have to go back a great while for the difference to become significant, but you ARE looking back a great while as its the only place you've been able (pardon me, that I'VE been able) to find something that seems to support some of your position.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> *Explain how the Earth's orbital tilt changes irradiation ... be care, that's a vector value ...
> 
> The subject is correlation ... not your ignorance of basic astronomy ...*


​Earth’s spin, tilt and orbit​




Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit Affect the amount of *solar energy* received by any particular region of the globe, depending on latitude, time of day, and time of year. *Small changes in the angle of Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the Sun Cause Changes in Climate over a span of 10,000 to 100,000 years, and are Not Causing climate change today.*

Daily changes in light and temperature are caused by the rotation of the Earth, and seasonal changes are caused by the tilt of the Earth. As the Earth orbits the Sun, the Earth is pulled by the gravitational forces of the Sun, Moon, and large planets in the solar system, primarily Jupiter and Saturn. Over long periods of time, the gravitational pull of other members of our solar system slowly change Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit. *Over approximately 100,000 – 400,000 years, gravitational forces slowly change Earth’s orbit between more circular and elliptical shapes, as indicated by the blue and yellow dashed ovals in the figure to the right. 
Over 19,000 – 24,000 years, the direction of Earth’s tilt shifts (spins). Additionally, how much Earth’s axis is tilted towards or away from the Sun changes through time, over approximately 41,000 year cycles. Small changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit over these long periods of time can change the amount of sunlight received (and therefore absorbed and re-radiated) *by different parts of the Earth. Over 10s to 100s of thousands of years, these small changes in the position of the Earth in relationship to the Sun can change the amount of solar radiation, also known as insolation, received by different parts of the Earth. In turn, changes in insolation over these long periods of time can change regional climates and the length and intensity of the seasons. *The Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit continue to change today, but do Not explain the current Rapid climate change.*




Adapted from Universe Today.

Changes in insolation result in cycles of ice ages, during which ice sheets expand (glacial periods) and contract (interglacial periods). These patterns of ice ages, also called Milankovitch cycles, were predicted by the Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch. Milankovitch predicted that glacial periods occur during times of low summer insolation at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, which would allow ice sheets to remain from year to year without melting. Subsequently, scientists have found extensive evidence of Milankovitch cycles preserved in the geologic record, especially in layers of sediment and fossils in ocean basins that preserve chemical changes in the ocean and atmosphere during glacial and interglacial periods.  Although a major cause of change over long periods of time in the past, Earth’s spin, tilt and orbit changes so slowly that it is not a cause of global warming and climate change today.
Changes in Earth’s spin, tilt, and orbit have affected the Earth system in the past on various scales. Some of these ways include: 



Increasing or decreasing amount of sunlight that is *absorbed* by different areas of the surface of the Earth. This can affect Earth’s *temperature*.
Increasing or decreasing temperatures, which can alter the distribution of *snow and ice cover*. By increasing snow and ice cover, especially at high latitudes, the *reflection of sunlight* can increase, which in turn decreases the amount of light that is absorbed by Earth’s surface.
Changes in the Earth system that are affected by snow and ice cover, including the *carbon cycle*, and how much carbon (including the *greenhouse gas* carbon dioxide) is transferred between the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean.

'
Visit the *solar radiation* and *Earth’s energy budget* pages to learn more about how changes in the amount of energy in the Earth system can affect global processes and phenomena.










						Earth's spin, tilt and orbit - Understanding Global Change
					






					ugc.berkeley.edu
				




`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> So you think data from 425 million years ago refutes this:
> View attachment 712381
> and this:
> View attachment 712383
> ...



CO2 then = CO2.1 now? right? New and improved climate changing CO2


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 then = CO2.1 now? right? New and improved climate changing CO2


The fact that it hasn't changed and that we have loads more far more reliable data than the 400 million year old stuff Davis was working with, on top of a lot of other things, makes it extremely more likely that Davis is wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Oct 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Hey stupid ... the conclusion comes at the end of the paper, not the beginning ... I quoted the first sentence above ... this is what the author means in clear language ... we don't need your translation


Hey dopey, abstracts summarize whole papers and "we" (you, yourself, and your ridiculous ego) are obviously not the intended audience for my attempts at humor, however good or bad they may be. I presume you'll just try to pee all over my submissions as you do everyone else's (as in _Rainy Days_). Consider it mostly not about you when I respond to you at all. We continue discussing reality here despite all the jumping up and down and noise you hopeless deniers make. It's not personal. But thanks for the entertainment and laughable distractions. Does add a bit of needed spice sometimes.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> The fact that it hasn't changed and that we have loads more far more reliable data than the 400 million year old stuff Davis was working with, on top of a lot of other things, makes it extremely more likely that Davis is wrong.


But you don’t have the data point showing how much of a temperature increase is caused by an additional 140PPM of CO2 on planet Earth because that number is 0.0 degrees. You have to go out 3 or 4 decimal places - at least


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 22, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hey dopey, abstracts summarize whole papers and "we" (you, yourself, and your ridiculous ego) are obviously not the intended audience for my attempts at humor, however good or bad they may be. I presume you'll just try to pee all over my submissions as you do everyone else's (as in _Rainy Days_). Consider it mostly not about you when I respond to you at all. We continue discussing reality here despite all the jumping up and down and noise you hopeless deniers make. It's not personal. But thanks for the entertainment and laughable distractions. Does add a bit of needed spice sometimes.


Denier is a a cult word


----------



## EMH (Oct 22, 2022)

Earth's climate is dictated by how much ice it has.


How much ice earth has is 100% about where the land is.

Today, the three closest land masses to earth's poles and the amount of earth ice on each


Antarctica 90%
Greenland 7%
Ellesmere Island (Canada) 0.3%

97.3% of earth ice is on land closest to the poles.

And land moves.

During the past million years Greenland froze while North America thawed.

Search for

North American ice age (notice it is continent specific)

Ancient Greenland green


That is what earth climate change is all about.  Land moving.  Two polar oceans and earth has no ice.  Two polar continents, two antarcticas, and earth has 80% ++ more ice.

Solar cycle is junk.

Co2 does nothing.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 22, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> Hey dopey, abstracts summarize whole papers and "we" (you, yourself, and your ridiculous ego) are obviously not the intended audience for my attempts at humor, however good or bad they may be. I presume you'll just try to pee all over my submissions as you do everyone else's (as in _Rainy Days_). Consider it mostly not about you when I respond to you at all. We continue discussing reality here despite all the jumping up and down and noise you hopeless deniers make. It's not personal. But thanks for the entertainment and laughable distractions. Does add a bit of needed spice sometimes.


You must get paid by the word.


----------



## EMH (Oct 22, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> You must get paid by the word.




When endlessly manufacturing FUDGE, it is calories that matter....


----------



## miketx (Oct 22, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The resolution of the ideologues vs the climatologists squabble over who had a better grasp of climate was always silly.
> 
> View attachment 510995​View attachment 510997​_*"I don’t know about you guys, but I think climate change is...*_​*'BULLSHIT!’ *​* ...*_*‘By the way, it is!"*_​[Sen. Ron Johnson mouths to Republican luncheon that climate change is ‘bullsh—’]
> 
> ...


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 22, 2022)

miketx said:


> View attachment 713899


In scientific matters, respecting the preponderance of scientists in their various disciplines is far more prudent than swallowing the dogma of ideologues.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 22, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> In scientific matters, respecting the preponderance of scientists in their various disciplines is far more prudent than swallowing the dogma of ideologues.


----------



## schmidlap (Oct 22, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


>


The ideologues' perspective is duly noted.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Oct 22, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> The ideologues' perspective is duly noted.


Everyone is entitles to an opinion.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> There is nothing humans can do to harm the planet
> The planet is one tough son of a bitch piece of rock
> 
> We can reduce our chances of surviving on this planet though


how exactly did humans cause climate change millions of years ago when there were no humans?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 22, 2022)

Redfish said:


> how exactly did humans cause climate change millions of years ago when there were no humans?



Sorry. but your logic is faulty

Just because we didn’t cause climate change a million years ago, doesnt mean we are not influencing it now.

The earth itself is seeing continual climate change. There is nothing we can do about it. 
But we can do something about our contribution


----------



## miketx (Oct 22, 2022)

schmidlap said:


> In scientific matters, respecting the preponderance of scientists in their various disciplines is far more prudent than swallowing the dogma of ideologues.


Stop lying commie.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Sorry. but your logic is faulty
> 
> Just because we didn’t cause climate change a million years ago, doesnt mean we are not influencing it now.
> 
> ...


Do you understand the difference between pollution and climate?   Yes, we are polluting the planet, but there is no proven link between that pollution and climate change.   The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, variations in the tilt on its axis, and changes to ocean currents resulting from tilt changes and sun activity.   WE cannot control climate, we cannot stop any changes, and we cannot reverse any changes.   The climate of earth will be changing millions of years after the last human is gone,  and was changing millions of years before the first human appeared.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 22, 2022)

Redfish said:


> Do you understand the difference between pollution and climate?   Yes, we are polluting the planet, but there is no proven link between that pollution and climate change.   The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, variations in the tilt on its axis, and changes to ocean currents resulting from tilt changes and sun activity.   WE cannot control climate, we cannot stop any changes, and we cannot reverse any changes.   The climate of earth will be changing millions of years after the last human is gone,  and was changing millions of years before the first human appeared.


Our pollution is impacting the climate
It is an established fact, except among Conservatives


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

Redfish said:


> Do you understand the difference between pollution and climate?   Yes, we are polluting the planet, but there is no proven link between that pollution and climate change.   The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, variations in the tilt on its axis, and changes to ocean currents resulting from tilt changes and sun activity.   WE cannot control climate, we cannot stop any changes, and we cannot reverse any changes.   The climate of earth will be changing millions of years after the last human is gone,  and was changing millions of years before the first human appeared.


Without the Greenhouse Effect, the average temperature on this planet would fall by 32.7C (58.9F).  Would you consider that "climate change"?  Let me add, that the difference between the average temperature of the Earth at the height of our last ice age and today is only 5C (9F).  The Greenhouse Effect on global temperature easily overwhelms solar variations, changes in axial tilt, continental reconfiguration, changes in ocean currents and anything else you can think of.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 23, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Our pollution is impacting the climate
> It is an established fact, except among Conservatives


exactly how is it doing that?  By the way CO2 is not a pollutant.   Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.

and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with scientific facts.   Prove the claimed link between human created pollution and climate.   you can't and no one else can either, because its a hoax designed to turn unthinking morons like you into obedient sheep.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2022)

Redfish said:


> exactly how is it doing that?  By the way CO2 is not a pollutant.   Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.
> 
> and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with scientific facts.   Prove the claimed link between human created pollution and climate.   you can't and no one else can either, because its a hoax designed to turn unthinking morons like you into obedient sheep.



Its not?

How about I put a hood over your head and have you breathe pure CO2?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 23, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Its not?
> 
> How about I put a hood over your head and have you breathe pure CO2?


try that on any of your plants.   plants need CO2 to survive,  they take in CO2 and give off oxygen which all animals need to live. its a balance, and it has worked for millions of years.  There have been warming and cooling trends in all of the history of planet earth, humans have never had anything to do with it, and short of all out nuclear war, never will.   But we may see the end of our planet if your libtardian leaders have their way and start a nuclear conflict which no one will survive.   your side is crazy, they prove it every time they speak.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Without the Greenhouse Effect, the average temperature on this planet would fall by 32.7C (58.9F).  Would you consider that "climate change"?  Let me add, that the difference between the average temperature of the Earth at the height of our last ice age and today is only 5C (9F).  The Greenhouse Effect on global temperature easily overwhelms solar variations, changes in axial tilt, continental reconfiguration, changes in ocean currents and anything else you can think of.


He, idiot, without the greenhouse effect, the planet dies. You are literally stating, without an atmosphere the temperature drops. No shit.

The greenhouse effect does not overwhelm the sun. It is a result of the sun.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

AGW, the solution, to create the largest Heavy Industry in the World. Renewables. 

Pollute more, use more fossil fuels, and call it the solution to AGW, that is Renewables.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Its not?
> 
> How about I put a hood over your head and have you breathe pure CO2?


I know what you mean, but if you are going to argue from the party of science, how do you get pure CO2 from breathing? Where does the 78% of nitrogen go? What about the percentage of Argon, both Argon and Nitrogen vastly overwhelm CO2.

You can not get pure CO2, putting a hood over someone's head.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> He, idiot, without the greenhouse effect, the planet dies. You are literally stating, without an atmosphere the temperature drops. No shit.
> 
> The greenhouse effect does not overwhelm the sun. It is a result of the sun.



The planet will still be here
WE will die


----------



## miketx (Oct 23, 2022)

Redfish said:


> try that on any of your plants.   plants need CO2 to survive,  they take in CO2 and give off oxygen which all animals need to live. its a balance, and it has worked for millions of years.  There have been warming and cooling trends in all of the history of planet earth, humans have never had anything to do with it, and short of all out nuclear war, never will.   But we may see the end of our planet if your libtardian leaders have their way and start a nuclear conflict which no one will survive.   your side is crazy, they prove it every time they speak.


How dare you provide those liars with facts!


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> The greenhouse effect does not overwhelm the sun. It is a result of the sun.



I did not say it overwhelmed the sun.  I said it overwhelmed solar variation and it does.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> I did not say it overwhelmed the sun.  I said it overwhelmed solar variation and it does.


You are arguing semantics.

Solar variations are created by the sun.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> You are arguing semantics.
> 
> Solar variations are created by the sun.


Don't be stupid.  Everyone else here understands what I said.  I think you do too.  You're just without a good riposte.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Don't be stupid.  Everyone else here understands what I said.  I think you do too.  You're just without a good riposte.


I do not comment such as you do, cricket. I do not need a good riposte, when I have responded with a fact. Yet this comment suffices as a riposte.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> I do not comment such as you do, cricket. I do not need a good riposte, when I have responded with a fact. Yet this comment suffices as a riposte.


Wow, that cut me to the quick.  

So, can I now assume that you accept that the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect easily overwhelms solar variations, changes in axial tilt, continental reconfiguration, changes in ocean currents and anything else you can think of?


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Wow, that cut me to the quick.
> 
> So, can I now assume that you accept that the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect easily overwhelms solar variations, changes in axial tilt, continental reconfiguration, changes in ocean currents and anything else you can think of?


crick, it is a free world, all your ideology is based on assumptions, assume whatever you like, why would you ask such of me, I have no power allowing you to assume or not

crick has always assumed, never ever able to present facts


----------



## miketx (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> You are arguing semantics.
> 
> Solar variations are created by the sun.


Finally, something that's not trumps fault!


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> crick, it is a free world, all your ideology is based on assumptions, assume whatever you like, why would you ask such of me, I have no power allowing you to assume or not
> 
> crick has always assumed, never ever able to present facts


"30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary"?

So, then the greenhouse effect has the power to significantly affect the climate and CO2 has the power to significantly alter the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.  There is nothing irrational, illogical or unsupportable about the conclusion of the IPCC - that almost every scientist on the planet has accepted - that the primary cause of Earth's warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> "30 Days to a More Powerful Vocabulary"?
> 
> So, then the greenhouse effect has the power to significantly affect the climate and CO2 has the power to significantly alter the magnitude of the greenhouse effect.  There is nothing irrational, illogical or unsupportable about the conclusion of the IPCC - that almost every scientist on the planet has accepted - that the primary cause of Earth's warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.


There you go ahead, assuming, it is an assumption that scientists agree.

Prove your assumptions, crick.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

elektra said:


> There you go ahead, assuming, it is an assumption that scientists agree.
> 
> Prove your assumptions, crick.











						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> almost every scientist on the planet has accepted





Crick said:


> Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes, as I stated, you made an assumption, and provided us with a wikipedia page

Wikipedia, disagrees with you. 


> actively publishing climate scientists



So, it is not, "almost every scientist" It is a narrow field of scientists.

It is not almost every climate scientist, the study only offers an opinion of publishing climate scientists.

And it is not all publishing scientists, it is the actively publishing climate scientists.

There are over 6 million scientists. There are less than 20,000 actively publishing climate scientists. 

At best, using crick's source:

.3 % of scientists agree in AGW


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

yes, as I stated, you made an assumption, and provided us with a wikipedia page


elektra said:


> Wikipedia, disagrees with you.


It does not.  If it did, you'd have shown us the quote.


elektra said:


> So, it is not, "almost every scientist" It is a narrow field of scientists.


You should have looked at the full article a little more closely.  And I'm not talking about REAL closely.  You must have missed, like, ten pages of text here.  In there we find this listing, NOT limited to climate scientists, of scientific organizations stating their agreement with the conclusions of the IPCC.
Concurring​Academies of science (general science)​Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Joint national science academy statements​
2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal _Science_ on 18 May 2001,[56] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[57]
2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[58]
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[59]
2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change":


> A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.
> — The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences, [60]



2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and reaffirming "that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems". Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "[t]ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[61]
2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[52]
Polish Academy of Sciences​In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:[62]



> it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.
> Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.
> PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.


Additional national science academy and society statements​
American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:[63]


> The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. ... The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.



Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published _FASTS Statement on Climate Change_[64] which states:


> Global climate change is real and measurable. ... To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.



United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published _Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions_.[65] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:[65]


> The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. ... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.



Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":[66]


> The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.



The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[67] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[68] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[69][70] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[68] The introduction includes this statement:


> There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.



International science academies​
African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change". This joint statement of African science academies, was organized through the Network of African Science Academies. Its stated goal was "to convey information and spur action on the occasion of the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, in June 2007":[71]


> A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.



European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled _Let's Be Honest_:[72]


> Human activity is most _likely_ responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is _likely_ to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind's future.



European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper[73] states:


> There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change ... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.



InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[74][75] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled _Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future_.


> Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[76] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[77]



International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a _Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth_:[78]


> As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.



Physical and chemical sciences​
American Chemical Society[79]
American Institute of Physics[80]
American Physical Society[81]
Australian Institute of Physics[82]
European Physical Society[83]
Earth sciences​American Geophysical Union​The American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted a statement on _Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases_ in 1998.[84] A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[85] and revised and expanded in 2013,[86] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:



> Human activities are changing Earth's climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.


American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America​In May 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:[87]



> A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
> Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.
> Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world's food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.


European Federation of Geologists​In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[88] (EFG) issued the position paper _Carbon Capture and geological Storage_:[89]



> The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.
> It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
> CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.


European Geosciences Union​In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the Joint national science academy statements on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC:[90]



> represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere".[91] And, in 2018 the EGU issued a statement concurring with the findings of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, with Jonathan Bamber, president of the organisation, noting: "EGU concurs with, and supports, the findings of the SR15 that action to curb the most dangerous consequences of human-induced climate change is urgent, of the utmost importance and the window of opportunity extremely limited."[92]

Geological Society of America​In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on 20 April 2010, with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction:[93]



> Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.


Geological Society of London​In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement _Climate change: evidence from the geological record_:[94]



> The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. There is now widespread concern that the Earth's climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.


International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics​In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled "The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change". In it, the IUGG concurs with the "comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change". They state further that the "continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society".[95]

National Association of Geoscience Teachers​In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[96] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":[97]



> NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


Meteorology and oceanography​American Meteorological Society​The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:[98]



> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.


A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.[99]

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society​The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a _Statement on Climate Change_, wherein they conclude:[100]



> Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.


Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences​In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that:[101]



> We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada's natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.


Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society​In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:[102]



> Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.


Royal Meteorological Society (UK)​In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as "[the] world's best climate scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as "the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get."[103]

World Meteorological Organization​In its _Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change_ presented on 15 November 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The WMO concurs that "scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation". The WMO concurs that "the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years"; and that the IPCC "assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice". [104]

American Quaternary Association​The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated:[105]



> Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.


International Union for Quaternary Research​The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles:[106]



> Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide—to rise well above pre-industrial levels ... Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action ... Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.


Biology and life sciences​Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.


American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[107]
American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[108][109] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[110]
American Society for Microbiology[111]
Australian Coral Reef Society[112]
Institute of Biology (UK)[113]
Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[114] and the UNFCCC.[115]
The Wildlife Society (international)[116]
Human health​A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming:


American Academy of Pediatrics[117]
American College of Preventive Medicine[118]
American Medical Association[119]
American Public Health Association[120]
Australian Medical Association in 2004[121] and in 2008[122]
World Federation of Public Health Associations[123]
World Health Organization[124]



> There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.





> The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.


The _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ and "Doomsday clock"​In 1945, Albert Einstein and other scientists who created atomic weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki founded the "_Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_" and created the "Doomsday Clock". The goal of the clock is to convey threats to humanity and the planet, and to create public awareness that will lead to solutions. In the beginning, the Doomsday Clock focused on the dangers of nuclear war, but in the 21st century, it has begun to deal with other issues like climate change and disinformation on the internet.

On 23 January 2020 the organization moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, closer than ever. It explained that it did it because of three factors:


Increasing danger of nuclear war,
Increasing danger from climate change, and
Increasing danger from disinformation in the internet regarding the issues in points 1 and 2 and other "disruptive technologies".
The organization praised the climate movement of young people and called to citizens and governments to act to take greater action on climate change.[125]

Miscellaneous​A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:


American Astronomical Society[126]
American Statistical Association[127]
Canadian Council of Professional Engineers [128]
The Institution of Engineers Australia[129]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[130]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[131]
World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)
Non-committal​

American Association of Petroleum Geologists​As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:[132]



> the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.


Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[31] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:[133]



> Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.


AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:[134]



> Climate change is peripheral at best to our science ... AAPG does not have credibility in that field ... and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.


American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)​The official position statement from AIPG on the Environment states that "combustion of fossil fuel include and the generation of GHGs [greenhouse gases] including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Emissions of GHGs are perceived by some to be one of the largest, global environmental concerns related to energy production due to potential effects on the global energy system and possibly global climate. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs since industrialization".[135]

In March 2010, AIPG's Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG's news journal, _The Professional Geologist_.[136]

Opposing​Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]



elektra said:


> It is not almost every climate scientist, the study only offers an opinion of publishing climate scientists.
> 
> And it is not all publishing scientists, it is the actively publishing climate scientists.


As we have both now demonstrated, we should make certain we really know what we're linking to.


elektra said:


> There are over 6 million scientists. There are less than 20,000 actively publishing climate scientists.
> 
> At best, using crick's source:
> 
> .3 % of scientists agree in AGW



Only if you assume (and there you go...) that every scientists outside of climatology disagrees with AGW, which the LONG list above clearly indicates is NOT the case.  I stand resolutely by my statement:  ALMOST EVERY SCIENTIST ON THE PLANET AGREES WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE IPCC.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> The _Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_ and "Doomsday clock"​In 1945, Albert Einstein and other scientists who created atomic weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki founded the "_Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists_" and created the "Doomsday Clock". The goal of the clock is to convey threats to humanity and the planet, and to create public awareness that will lead to solutions. In the beginning, the Doomsday Clock focused on the dangers of nuclear war, but in the 21st century, it has begun to deal with other issues like climate change and disinformation on the internet.
> 
> On 23 January 2020 the organization moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, closer than ever. It explained that it did it because of three factors:
> 
> ...



What a bunch of whiny twats.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What a bunch of whiny twats.


Yeah, I know....


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> yes, as I stated, you made an assumption, and provided us with a wikipedia page
> 
> It does not.  If it did, you'd have shown us the quote.
> 
> ...


Yes, .3 % of all scientists have been studied under a loose set of parameters, where researchers extrapolated the result they sought.

Nothing you posted shows that all scientists have been asked or personally asserted their opinion. 

We all understand, that now, different organizations in various ways have stated an opinion that all scientists agree. But nobody has asked the scientists. I mean, there is that real fact.


----------



## elektra (Oct 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> yes, as I stated, you made an assumption, and provided us with a wikipedia page
> 
> It does not.  If it did, you'd have shown us the quote.
> 
> ...


Nothing here proves your assertion, that there 99% or 97% of scientists in agreement. 

And, to show your ignorance, you are stating Einstein created atomic weapons.


> _Albert Einstein and other scientists who created atomic weapons_


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

elektra said:


> Nothing here proves your assertion, that there 99% or 97% of scientists in agreement.


Here is the statement of mine you've been claiming was not just unsupported but that the Wikipedia article disputed:

*Crick said:*

There is nothing irrational, illogical or unsupportable about the conclusion of the IPCC - that *almost every scientist on the planet* has accepted - that the primary cause of Earth's warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.
*****************
Regarding which the Wikipedia article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change tells us that not only do better than 99% of publishing climate scientists accept the IPCC's conclusions but that *"since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change."*

You attempted to suggest [with "At best, using crick's source: .3 % of scientists agree in AGW"] that NO scientists outside active climatologists accepted the IPCC conclusions.  Given the above point, that is, of course, demonstrably false.



elektra said:


> And, to show your ignorance, you are stating Einstein created atomic weapons.


Are you taking cues from Todd now?  I fear he's led you astray.  That statement, directly from the Wikipedia article, was made by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.  We all know why you bring it up.  You've been badly pwned here.  And if you take Trump's strategy, just like Trump, you will continue to be badly pwned.

I still stand resolutely behind my statement: almost EVERY scientist on this planet support the conclusions of the IPCC.


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

elektra said:


> We all understand, that now, different organizations in various ways have stated an opinion that all scientists agree. But nobody has asked the scientists. I mean, there is that real fact.


I'm afraid that most of those organizations have had extensive internal dialogues and votes on whether or not to support the IPCC's conclusions.  At the very worst, a majority of the members of all those organizations (ie, ALL scientific organizations with national or international standing) agree with the IPCC.  What is unsupportable here is your now repeated 0.3% figure indicating that NO scientists outside those conducting and publishing climate research support the IPCC.  I think it's time for a retraction.  I was going to address that last comment personally but I'm still uncertain as to your gender.  I asked this of you a couple years ago but you declined to answer.  Elektra was the daughter of Agememnon and Clytemnestra.  Would you prefer he/she or they?

I still stand resolutely behind my statement: almost EVERY scientist on this planet support the conclusions of the IPCC


----------



## elektra (Oct 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> That statement, directly from the Wikipedia article, was made by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.  We all know why you bring it up.  You've been badly pwned here.  And if you take Trump's strategy, just like Trump, you will continue to be badly pwned.


uh, I did not bring that statement up, you did. Why ars posting stuff, unrelared?

You copy/paste, that means you brought it up, not me.

I commented on what you brought up, the fact that you cant keep that straight shows you really dont know what is going on, you dont even know what you posted.

And you believe? I see why


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

elektra said:


> uh, I did not bring that statement up, you did. Why ars posting stuff, unrelared?





elektra said:


> Nothing here proves your assertion, that there 99% or 97% of scientists in agreement.
> 
> And, to show your ignorance, you are stating Einstein created atomic weapons.



Don't be an idiot



elektra said:


> You copy/paste, that means you brought it up, not me.
> 
> I commented on what you brought up, the fact that you cant keep that straight shows you really dont know what is going on, you dont even know what you posted.
> 
> And you believe? I see why


So let's start this discussion with the FACT that 99+% of climate scientists and at the very least a large majority of EVERY science organization on the planet support the IPCC.  Or, as I put it "almost every scientist on the planet accepts the conclusions of the IPCC".


----------



## elektra (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Don't be an idiot
> 
> 
> So let's start this discussion with the FACT that 99+% of climate scientists and at the very least a large majority of EVERY science organization on the planet support the IPCC.  Or, as I put it "almost every scientist on the planet accepts the conclusions of the IPCC".


Go ahead, prove your assertion.


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2022)

The IPCC doesn't allow for dissenting opinions ... and none are publshed in their report ... almost all refereed scientific journals have space available for "letters to the editor" ... if you disagree with a scientific paper, the journal will publish your dissent ... 

It's bad science when 107.4% agree ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Oct 25, 2022)

elektra said:


> You copy/paste, that means you brought it up, not me.



Chick didn't read his post ... just a copy/paste ... if we go through it with a fine toothed comb, I'm sure we'll find lots and lots of contradictions ... Chick just copy/pastes and thinks that makes him look smart or something ... 

That he has time to do all this speaks to his lengthy period of unemployment ... what a loser ...


----------



## Redfish (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid that most of those organizations have had extensive internal dialogues and votes on whether or not to support the IPCC's conclusions.  At the very worst, a majority of the members of all those organizations (ie, ALL scientific organizations with national or international standing) agree with the IPCC.  What is unsupportable here is your now repeated 0.3% figure indicating that NO scientists outside those conducting and publishing climate research support the IPCC.  I think it's time for a retraction.  I was going to address that last comment personally but I'm still uncertain as to your gender.  I asked this of you a couple years ago but you declined to answer.  Elektra was the daughter of Agememnon and Clytemnestra.  Would you prefer he/she or they?
> 
> I still stand resolutely behind my statement: almost EVERY scientist on this planet support the conclusions of the IPCC


that is simply not true.  the scientific community is divided roughly by half on AGW.   You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion.  said another way, you are a sheep to your masters, exactly the kind of people they must have to dominate and mandate.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

Redfish said:


> that is simply not true.  the scientific community is divided roughly by half on AGW.   You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion.  said another way, you are a sheep to your masters, exactly the kind of people they must have to dominate and mandate.


That simply IS true.  There are numerous news articles and discussions in the Wikipedia article about such internal debates and the public statements of many of those organizations have changed over the years based on membership voting.  And if you think that only half of all scientists accept the IPCC's conclusions when 100% of their professional organizations do, you need to bone up on some basic statistics.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> That simply IS true.  There are numerous news articles and discussions in the Wikipedia article about such internal debates and the public statements of many of those organizations have changed over the years based on membership voting.  And if you think that only half of all scientists accept the IPCC's conclusions when 100% of their professional organizations do, you need to bone up on some basic statistics.


WIKI is a left wing propaganda mill.   If you believe what they say, you are very uninformed.   The founder of the weather station is one prominent scientist that debunks AGW theories. There are thousands more but the media refuses to let them be heard.  AGW is a cult religion, followed by those unable to think for themselves, like you.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2022)

Redfish said:


> WIKI is a left wing propaganda mill.


No objective review has ever found such a bias.  And this is a discussion about science, not politics.


Redfish said:


> If you believe what they say, you are very uninformed.


If you reject what they say, you are remaining willfully uninformed.


Redfish said:


> The founder of the weather station is one prominent scientist that debunks AGW theories.


Please don't tell me you mean Anthony Watts.  If so, I suggest you check out the man's credentials before you term him a "prominent scientist".


Redfish said:


> There are thousands more but the media refuses to let them be heard.


Bullshit.  Show me what source tells you there are thousands more and what media won't report on them. 


Redfish said:


> AGW is a cult religion, followed by those unable to think for themselves, like you.


So, how do you believe the thousands of published papers, the global temperature trend data assembled by NASA, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, Japan Meteorological Agency and Hadley CRUT,  and the extensive documentation in the six IPCC assessment reports was put together?


----------



## EMH (Oct 25, 2022)

Crick is parroting a filibuster...

Lol


They claim oceans are warming, but there is no breakout in canes.

They claim a net ongoing ice melt, but have to lie about islands in the South Pacific sinking as "evidence."

Co2 has gone up in the atmosphere, but temps have not according to the highly correlated satellite and balloon data.

Science says THEORY REJECTED

"The science" says FUDGE BOTH and get crick to cut paste and parrot the fudge...


----------



## abu afak (Oct 25, 2022)

Redfish said:


> *exactly how is it doing that?  *By the way CO2 is not a pollutant.   Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.
> 
> and it has nothing to do with political leanings, it has to do with scientific facts.   Prove the claimed link between human created pollution and climate.   you can't and no one else can either, because its a hoax designed to turn unthinking morons like you into obedient sheep.


CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas."
Look it up, you'll be amazed!
Wec known this since the late 19th C.

Sort but more technically..
CO2 and other GHGs Block radiation being reflected back out into space and trap it in the atmosphere.
Scientists have actually measured that fact.
`


----------



## Redfish (Oct 26, 2022)

abu afak said:


> CO2 is a "Greenhouse Gas."
> Look it up, you'll be amazed!
> Wec known this since the late 19th C.
> 
> ...


water vapor does the exact same thing, only more so.  Is water now a pollutant?


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Redfish said:


> water vapor does the exact same thing, only more so.  Is water now a pollutant?


The short answer is that it is not because it is condensable.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> The short answer is that it is not because it is condensable.


yep, it does rain on planet earth, but in its vapor form water is a sun blocking gas, just like evil CO2, which, by the way, all plants life must have to survive.


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Redfish said:


> yep, it does rain on planet earth, but in its vapor form water is a sun blocking gas, just like evil CO2, which, by the way, all plants life must have to survive.


I'm sorry you don't understand the basics of the issue.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry you don't understand the basics of the issue.


I understand the chemistry of earth's atmosphere quite well, its you who lacks understanding and knowledge.


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Redfish said:


> I understand the chemistry of earth's atmosphere quite well, its you who lacks understanding and knowledge.


Then what point did you take away from my comment that water wasn't a pollutant because it's condensable?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> Then what point did you take away from my comment that water wasn't a pollutant because it's condensable?


what you said is true, it is also true that CO2 is not a pollutant in the quantities found in our atmosphere, and is in fact a chemical without which there would be no life on earth of any kind.


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2022)

Redfish said:


> what you said is true, it is also true that CO2 is not a pollutant in the quantities found in our atmosphere, and is in fact a chemical without which there would be no life on earth of any kind.


I disagree and so did the Supreme Court.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 26, 2022)

Redfish said:


> that is simply not true.  *the Scientific community is divided roughly by Half on AGW. *  You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion.  said another way, you are a sheep to your masters, exactly the kind of people they must have to dominate and mandate.


LOL - Not even close.
LIE.
LINK?
`


----------



## Crick (Oct 27, 2022)

Redfish said:


> the scientific community is divided roughly by half on AGW.   You are only posting the claims from the groups that are being paid to come up with a pre-established conclusion.


I would very much like to see some evidence to back up both of these claims.


----------



## ding (Oct 28, 2022)

Grumblenuts said:


> The abstract concludes with:
> 
> Notice how even he has nothing to say regarding _today's _climate. Also how he doesn't say changes in oceanic CO2 concentrations did not cause temperature changes. He doesn't say much and much of what he does say is clearly BS.
> 
> Translation: _We looked at all this data and couldn't make hide nor tail out of more than three quarters of it. Two fifths of the remaining quarter indicated positive atmospheric CO2 forcing of temperature while three fifths did not. So we're hanging our hats on that one fifth of one quarter difference, ignoring that two fifths of one quarter we don't like, and going all in on Exxon-Mobil, our favorite hidden sponsor! _


What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution?  Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened.  The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution?  Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened.  The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.


It a very little known process known as the Greenhouse Effect.


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

ding said:


> What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution?  Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened.  The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.




The theory is laughably bull and always has been.

All forms of gas absorb some part of EM

Ozone absorbs powerful UV

Co2 absorbs super weak IR

And that is why increase in co2 has not warmed atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> The theory is laughably bull and always has been.
> 
> All forms of gas absorb some part of EM
> 
> ...



What does nitrogen absorb?


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does nitrogen absorb?




You look it up.

It absorbs something, since Pluto used to have an atmosphere decades ago...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> You look it up.
> 
> It absorbs something, since Pluto used to have an atmosphere decades ago...



You made the claim. 

Giving it up already?


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You made the claim.
> 
> Giving it up already?





What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"


Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"
> 
> 
> Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...



*What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"*

It froze because it was absorbing EM?


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"*
> 
> It froze because it was absorbing EM?




As Pluto moved further and further away from the sun, it absorbed less and less of whatever part of EM nitrogen gas was absorbing...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> As Pluto moved further and further away from the sun, it absorbed less and less of whatever part of EM nitrogen gas was absorbing...



Or the surface absorbed less...........









__





						Climate Science Investigations South Florida - Energy: The Driver of Climate
					

The Florida Center for Environmental Studies (CES) Climate Science Investigations of South Florida.



					www.ces.fau.edu
				




Darn, transparent to incoming solar radiation. 
Like the stuff Pluto gets.


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or the surface absorbed less...........
> 
> View attachment 717180
> 
> ...




Unlikely.

We could disprove that by putting a jar of nitrogen in space...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> Unlikely.
> 
> We could disprove that by putting a jar of nitrogen in space...



What's unlikely?


----------



## EMH (Oct 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's unlikely?





That nitrogen absorbs none of the em spectrum.  It likely absorbs something from the very weak end of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> That nitrogen absorbs none of the em spectrum.  It likely absorbs something from the very weak end of it.



Likely?
That doesn't sound like evidence.


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2022)

EMH said:


> What caused gaseous nitrogen in pluto's atmosphere 50 years ago to become two perfectly clear polar nitrogen "ice caps?"
> 
> 
> Hint - Pluto has an elliptical orbit and has been moving away from the sun, so something about the sun i.e. EM was being absorbed by gaseous nitrogen...


Pluto has a very eccentric orbit which gives it seasons.  Let's see a link to a source discussing this change.


----------



## ding (Oct 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> It a very little known process known as the Greenhouse Effect.


So dumb. You either don’t understand how what you said makes no sense or you are being dishonest. 

No.  The GHG effect is not why CO2 was a proxy for temperature prior to the industrial revolution and lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2022)

ding said:


> So dumb. You either don’t understand how what you said makes no sense or you are being dishonest.
> 
> No.  The GHG effect is not why CO2 was a proxy for temperature prior to the industrial revolution and lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.


That wasn't the question.  This was.

*ding said:*
What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.

As we all know, there are two processes involving CO2 and temperature.  1)  CO2 added to the atmosphere increases the heat retention of the greenhouse effect and raises the world's temperatures. 2) Increasing temperatures reduce gas solubility in liquids so less CO2 is held in the world's oceans.  The two best reconstructions of temperatures throughout the Holocene are the works of Jeremy Shakun and Shaun Marcotte.  What they found was the dominant effect throughout history is heating from Milankovitch cycle effect that then raise CO2 levels.  However, they also found that pulses of CO2 from volcanism or possibly clathrate events (CH4 vice CO2, but same warming process) led to their own heating.  The geological record displays both processes taking place.

And if you can't take a joke, even that bad of a joke, move on, eh?


----------



## ding (Nov 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> That wasn't the question.  This was.
> 
> *ding said:*
> What’s the mechanism for CO2 to lead temperature throughout the geologic record prior to the industrial revolution? Because I have yet to hear an explanation for how that consistently happened. The only mechanism I am aware of is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. And that mechanism requires temperature to lead atmospheric CO2.
> ...


Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature because of solubility of CO2 in the oceans versus temperature. 

Post industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 correlates to emissions.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2022)

ding said:


> Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 lagged temperature because of solubility of CO2 in the oceans versus temperature.
> 
> Post industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 correlates to emissions.


Have a read:  https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf


----------



## ding (Nov 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> Have a read:  https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf


Thumbnail it for me.


----------



## Crick (Nov 12, 2022)

ding said:


> Thumbnail it for me.


Don't be lazy.  Read the abstract.


----------



## ding (Nov 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Don't be lazy.  Read the abstract.


If you can’t state it simply maybe you don’t understand it.


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2022)

ding said:


> If you can’t state it simply maybe you don’t understand it.


Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read.  Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem.  It's one paragraph.


----------



## Crick (Nov 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read.  Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem.  It's one paragraph.



Here:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene iceages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an anti-phased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

This should be right up your alley.  Wasn't it you that had the obsession that the geographical differences between the poles drove all sorts of things?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Have a read:  https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/shakunetal2012.pdf



The conclusions of this paper state that carbon dioxide follows temperature ... see figure 5 ... so no correlation ... again, stupid *LIAR* just reads the abstract because she's *TOO STUPID* to understand anything else ...


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Maybe you can't understand it because you can't read.  Just read the fucking thing and comment on THAT instead of all the fucking ad hominem.  It's one paragraph.


Thumbnail it for me and I’ll comment.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2022)

ding said:


> Thumbnail it for me and I’ll comment.


Yo, asshole, it is posted in it's entirety about six inches up your screen in #1056


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Yo, asshole, it is posted in it's entirety about six inches up your screen in #1056


I have no idea what the point is you are trying to make.  You have to actually make your point.  I am not going to guess at the point you are trying to make.


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

If the point is that CO2 leads temperatures then what made CO2 levels change?


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

And if CO2 really does drive the earth’s climate why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2022)

ding said:


> And if CO2 really does drive the earth’s climate why was it 2C warmer in the past with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


You're unteachable.  When did these conditions exist?


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> You're unteachable.  When did these conditions exist?


The last interglacial cycle. How many more times do you need to be told that?


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2022)

Minor point here.  "Interglacial" isn't a cycle, it's a period of time within the glacial cycle.  Additionally, I think you've mentioned "3 million years ago" on several occasions.  However, the last interglacial period was 130,000 to 115,000 years BP.  That period would be fully covered by ice cores and the CO2/temperature data from them look like this:




with the last interglacial conveniently noted in grey.  Can we assume you're talking about the period from ~120,000 - 103,000 BP?  If so, I will point out there are very similar features at all three of the interglacials displayed here.  It looks to be completely typical behavior and the chances that YOU are the only person since these data were recorded to ever notice that feature are, I'm sorry to say, zero.


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Minor point here.  "Interglacial" isn't a cycle, it's a period of time within the glacial cycle.  Additionally, I think you've mentioned "3 million years ago" on several occasions.  However, the last interglacial period was 130,000 to 115,000 years BP.  That period would be fully covered by ice cores and the CO2/temperature data from them look like this:
> View attachment 725847
> with the last interglacial conveniently noted in grey.  Can we assume you're talking about the period from ~120,000 - 103,000 BP?  If so, I will point out there are very similar features at all three of the interglacials displayed here.  It looks to be completely typical behavior and the chances that YOU are the only person since these data were recorded to ever notice that feature are, I'm sorry to say, zero.


So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too?   Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty.

Northern hemisphere glaciation cycles began 3 million years ago.  There have been over 30 cycles in the last 3 million years.  Look at the oxygen isotope curve.


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

So the question still stands. What radiative forcing component was responsible for the planet being 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


----------



## ding (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick 

If your point is that CO2 leads temperatures then what made CO2 levels change?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am not an AGW denier.  I fully accept the conclusions of the IPCC.  I have no idea what you mean by "why are you money pits?" or the particular relevance of your comments about rain and flood mitigation.


the IPCC isn't a  science organization.  Name one scientist who works for the IPCC?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2022)

ding said:


> So the question still stands. What radiative forcing component was responsible for the planet being 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


Component*S.  *


ding said:


> So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too?   Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty.
> 
> Northern hemisphere glaciation cycles began 3 million years ago.  There have been over 30 cycles in the last 3 million years.  Look at the oxygen isotope curve.


It's a graph of temperature and CO2 versus time.  If the best you can come up with is that it didn't include sea level... that's just pathetic.  And, again, interglacials aren't cycles.


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> Component*S.  *
> 
> It's a graph of temperature and CO2 versus time.  If the best you can come up with is that it didn't include sea level... that's just pathetic.  And, again, interglacials aren't cycles.


Please tell me you aren’t arguing the last interglacial cycle wasn’t 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Please tell me you aren’t arguing the last interglacial cycle wasn’t 2C warmer than today with 26ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


I have made no attempt to verify your claims but I am not making such an argument.  I'm wondering why you're complaining about missing sea level data in a presentation of temperature vs CO2 data?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> I have made no attempt to verify your claims but I am not making such an argument.  I'm wondering why you're complaining about missing sea level data in a presentation of temperature vs CO2 data?


I haven’t complained about missing sea level data. It’s in the public record. The last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I haven’t complained about missing sea level data. It’s in the public record. The last interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.





ding said:


> So they missed noticing the 26ft higher sea levels too?   Seriously dude, you need to work on your honesty


And, again, there is no such thing as an interglacial cycle.  There are glacial cycles which contain interglacials.  And the last one took place about 120,000 years ago and was characterized by a larger than normal lag between temperature and CO2.  During the period temperatures were dropping, CO2, due to the lag, was still elevated.  That, of course, does NOT fit your description.  I strongly suspect that the midst of that lag is the point in time you keep describing to us and that your reluctance to identify the specific point in time is because even a sixth grader looking at the data would see a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 and would realize that you are either using the lag to be deceitful or you didn't yourself see it till you had stuck your foot so deep in your own mouth that it couldn't be extricated (or at least YOU couldn't pull it out).  If there is some other specific time to which you're referring, do us the favor of actually identifying it rather than whining that no one pays attention to you.  You get far more attention than you deserve.











						Figure 11.1: Temperature change over the past 400,000 years correlate...
					

Download scientific diagram | 1: Temperature change over the past 400,000 years correlate closely with variations in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (Source: http://www.klimafakten.de/behauptungen/behauptung- der-co2-anstieg-ist-nicht-ursache-sondern-folge-des-klimawandels...




					www.researchgate.net


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> And, again, there is no such thing as an interglacial cycle.  There are glacial cycles which contain interglacials.  And the last one took place about 120,000 years ago and was characterized by a larger than normal lag between temperature and CO2.  I strongly suspect that the midst of that lag is the point in time you keep describing to us and that your reluctance to identify the specific point in time is because even a sixth grader looking at the data would see a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 and would realize that you are either using the lag to be deceitful or you didn't yourself see it till you had stuck your foot so deep in your own mouth that it couldn't be extricated (or at least YOU couldn't pull it out)
> View attachment 729072
> 
> 
> ...


2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.


TROLL


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> TROLL


I don’t believe showing you hard proof that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature makes me a troll.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I don’t believe showing you hard proof that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature makes me a troll.


Hahahahahaaaa... hard proof!!!  Hahahahaaa...
Tell you what, let's you and me ignore each other.  I think the world will be a better place for it.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Hahahahahaaaa... hard proof!!!  Hahahahaaa...


The geologic record isn’t hard enough proof for you?

It’s certainly harder proof than computer modeling with garbage inputs. Especially since they routinely tune out natural variations.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> TROLL


Says the guy who believes CO2 leads temperature and can’t explain how that could happen.


----------

