# Global Warming Liars



## ChemEngineer (Jun 28, 2022)

*http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*

*THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.

This lie is based on a 2009 article by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, then a student at the University of Illinois.
As stated in the Wall Street Journal, "The '97 percent' figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
The WSJ went on to elaborate further: "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."
So much for that lie one hears so often and so loudly.
THE LIE: Humans are causing catastrophic changes in earth's climate by burning fossil fuel and increasing carbon dioxide.
This lie is based on the extremely disingenuous and anti-scientific Keeling Curve, below. 

This terribly misleading graph is intended to scare you into immediate action. 
Just adding water vapor, which constitutes 1.5% of the atmosphere, or 15,000 parts per million, that graph above becomes this below, far more realistic, more honest, less misleading:


Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:

THE LIE: Global catastrophe, "tipping point"! We must do something now!
This incredible lie is preached by Al Gore, the United Nations, bureaucracies beholden to research billions, and by Barack Obama. Obama recently flew on Air Force One from Washington, D.C. to California, to play a round of golf with his friends, the same way he uses Air Force One to fly to Democrat fund-raisers all over the U.S. 
Preaching doom and gloom to you little people is what they do, but not what they practice themselves. At the most recent Global Warming Scare-Fest, in Davos, Switzerland, the Scare-Mongers flew 1,700 private jets, rather than videoconference. Don't do as they do, do as they say.
Net global emission of CO2 looks nothing like human production of CO2. Rather, CO2 is the product of temperature and soil moisture.


THE LIE: Big oil billions are driving "deniers"
Budget requests from a few of the U.S. government agencies for global warming "research" money, just in 2011:

NOAA $437 million
NSF $480 million
NASA $438 million
DOE $627 million
DOI $171 million
EPA $169 million
USDA $159 million
ON OCTOBER 6, 2010, UC SANTA BARBARA PHYSICS PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HAROLD LEWIS, RESIGNED FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY IN PROTEST OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD. HIS LETTER READS IN PART:“FOR REASONS THAT WILL SOON BECOME CLEAR MY FORMER PRIDE AT BEING AN APS FELLOW ALL THESE YEARS HAS BEEN TURNED INTO SHAME, AND I AM FORCED, WITH NO PLEASURE AT ALL, TO OFFER YOU MY RESIGNATION FROM THE SOCIETY. “IT IS OF COURSE, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM, WITH THE (LITERALLY) TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS DRIVING IT, THAT HAS CORRUPTED SO MANY SCIENTISTS, AND HAS CARRIED APS BEFORE IT LIKE A ROGUE WAVE. IT IS THE GREATEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC FRAUD I HAVE SEEN IN MY LONG LIFE AS A PHYSICIST. ANYONE WHO HAS THE FAINTEST DOUBT THAT THIS IS SO SHOULD FORCE HIMSELF TO READ THE CLIMATEGATE DOCUMENTS, WHICH LAY IT BARE. (MONTFORD’S BOOK ORGANIZES THE FACTS VERY WELL.) I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANY REAL PHYSICIST, NAY SCIENTIST, CAN READ THAT STUFF WITHOUT REVULSION. I WOULD ALMOST MAKE THAT REVULSION A DEFINITION OF THE WORD SCIENTIST. “SO WHAT HAS THE APS, AS AN ORGANIZATION, DONE IN THE FACE OF THIS CHALLENGE? IT HAS ACCEPTED THE CORRUPTION AS THE NORM, AND GONE ALONG WITH IT." - END OF QUOTE BY PROFESSOR LEWIS ​​NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS, IVER GIAIVER LIKEWISE RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 OVER THIS ONGOING SCANDAL PARADING AS "SCIENCE". IT IS ANYTHING BUT.​THE LIE: Why would scientists lie!  For money, and for cowardice. They don't want to be blackballed by other cowards.*


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions. 

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jun 28, 2022)

It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset

And here come the bed wetters to tell us why clouds are so scary


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jun 28, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
> They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
> People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset
> 
> ...



You're smarter than folks say  you are.  I mean it!
I'm not playin' witchoo.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jun 28, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


The one claim science has made I will accept as fact is that the last ice age that covered much of the earth lasted from approximately 120,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then came a dramatic warm up and the earth has been in this warmer mode for the last 12,000 years. I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?

No matter what it was, I seriously doubt mankind’s influence is a zero factor against forces that immense. God is in charge of the weather, not man, and not “mother nature.“ Humanity suffers far greater today because billions, if not trillions of dollars that could be spent on their serious issues is being wasted on climate change, green jobs, et al. as well as how many universities and “Al Gore’s” are profiting nicely from it.    These politicians and profiteers cannot be trusted.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.



1) Crick lies once again saying Climate realists deny the AGW conjecture when they don't.

The numerous surveys are irrelevant because consensus arguments are for politics NOT science research where REPRODUCIBLE research trumps everything including that worn out consensus crap.

There have been many consensus errors and some of them kill a lot of people or generate suffering until someone finally cuts through the bullshit.

You have been corrected many times on this, yet you continue to lie over it.

Shame on you!

2) Yet another lies since it is well known that a warming ocean releases more CO2 and CO2 from so called fossil fuels are the same as the CO2 produced by nature.

3) This doesn't make a lick of sense since AGW doesn't drive climate change anyway so stop the lying!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jun 28, 2022)

Lotsa smart people here on dis board I tell ya.
The knuckleheads go on my Ignore List.
"It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it required to produce it." - Brandolini's Principle


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jun 28, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Lotsa smart people here on dis board I tell ya.
> The knuckleheads go on my Ignore List.
> "It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it required to produce it." - Brandolini's Principle


Correct!     And I like the similar thoughts of St. Thomas More -----   "'Tis a shorter thing and sooner done to write heresies than to answer them."

It's a life long lesson.   We all engage in futility when measured by results.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> The one claim science has made I will accept as fact is that the last ice age that covered much of the earth lasted from approximately 120,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then came a dramatic warm up and the earth has been in this warmer mode for the last 12,000 years. I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?
> 
> No matter what it was, I seriously doubt mankind’s influence is a zero factor against forces that immense. God is in charge of the weather, not man, and not “mother nature.“ Humanity suffers far greater today because billions, if not trillions of dollars that could be spent on their serious issues is being wasted on climate change, green jobs, et al. as well as how many universities and “Al Gore’s” are profiting nicely from it.    These politicians and profiteers cannot be trusted.


We may have just stumbled onto what caused the rapid warm up.  Dr. David Archibald of SHO (Solar Heiolos Observatory) wrote about solar dimming About 10 years ago.  They noted a shift in downwelling solar radiation which appeared, at first to reduce solar cell output by 10%.  When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.  

What they failed to look at initially, was what on earth was being affected besides solar panels.  Earth's oceans are warmed to depth by emitted energy in the 0.2-0.6um region of the suns downwelling radiation. We lost approximately 1w/m^2 in downwelling radiation in this region and when it shifted (dimmed) the ocean could no longer uptake this energy.  72% of earth's surface is water. This is a significant loss of energy absorption.  IT took 10 years for the buffer we call our oceans to release the energy they had stored and now we are cooling and nothing on earth is going to stop it.  

Were in our third deep dive in the ENSO (equatorial north south oscillations).  Our oceans have lost 3 deg C in ten years.  Like a light switch the sun can give us warmth or take it away as we have just witnessed.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 12, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> We may have just stumbled onto what caused the rapid warm up.  Dr. David Archibald of SHO (Solar Heiolos Observatory) wrote about solar dimming About 10 years ago.  They noted a shift in downwelling solar radiation which appeared, at first to reduce solar cell output by 10%.  When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.
> 
> What they failed to look at initially, was what on earth was being affected besides solar panels.  Earth's oceans are warmed to depth by emitted energy in the 0.2-0.6um region of the suns downwelling radiation. We lost approximately 1w/m^2 in downwelling radiation in this region and when it shifted (dimmed) the ocean could no longer uptake this energy.  72% of earth's surface is water. This is a significant loss of energy absorption.  IT took 10 years for the buffer we call our oceans to release the energy they had stored and now we are cooling and nothing on earth is going to stop it.
> 
> Were in our third deep dive in the ENSO (equatorial north south oscillations).  Our oceans have lost 3 deg C in ten years.  Like a light switch the sun can give us warmth or take it away as we have just witnessed.



Are you seriously suggesting that our grass today isn't green anymore? ... that's nonsense and you should know it ...

*When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.*

What a diaper-load ... 0.2 to 1.1 µm is exactly the same as 200 to 1100 nm ... which includes the entirety of the visible light spectrum ... this can only occur if the temperature of the Sun is reduced, Wein's Law in case you forgot ... less energy output would also require a new and smaller equilibrium with gravity ... and this would be clearly noticeable to everyone every eclipse season ...

No more annular eclipses ... obviously, everyone else in the world disagrees:









						Solar eclipse of October 14, 2023 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




=====

ETA:  That 97% has been raised to 104% now ... remember, any scientific paper that doesn't mention climate, or weather, is counted as a positive trial ... the harmonics of leopardite in southern Gabon doesn't deny man-made CCC, so that's considered a ringing endorsement humans are boiling our oceans off ... see the connection? ...

This is from people who believe in hypercanes after all ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that our grass today isn't green anymore? ... that's nonsense and you should know it ...
> 
> *When they evaluated this region of the suns output 0.2 to 1.1um they found it was simply a shift in energy from a more energetic spectrum to a longer wave, less energetic spectrum. IE: dimming.*
> 
> ...






ITs actually just half of the visible spectrum and in the UV.   It is this UV area that heats our oceans to depth.  I said nothing of grass.  The grass is not adversely affected by this section of the spectrum. The change is near 1w/m^2 in the oceans but not on land.  The portion which heats the land is relatively unchanged.
As to the laughable "boiling the oceans off", that prediction is not possible in our atmosphere until the sun begins enlarging, before going super nova.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 12, 2022)

*Notice that water vapor absorbs far more heat energy than carbon dioxide does.
Add to this the fact that water vapor constitutes ~15,000 ppm in our atmosphere compared to ~410 ppm carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is trivial except in the demented minds of sanctimonious climate change fanatics.  This is science.  They practice emotionalism and being offended, as if that makes them right.*


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 12, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 669336
> 
> ITs actually just half of the visible spectrum and in the UV.   It is this UV area that heats our oceans to depth.  I said nothing of grass.  The grass is not adversely affected by this section of the spectrum. The change is near 1w/m^2 in the oceans but not on land.  The portion which heats the land is relatively unchanged.
> As to the laughable "boiling the oceans off", that prediction is not possible in our atmosphere until the sun begins enlarging, before going super nova.



Green light comes from the Sun ... there no other natural source in the solar system ... any change in sunlight at these wavelengths will be immediately "reflected" by the color of the grass ... 

Proof positive the sun isn't changing ... didn't they have UVB photometers in your astrophysics class? ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
> They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
> People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset
> 
> ...



Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam.  The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism.  AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant.  When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.

PS:  Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2022)

Heavy snowfall leaves hundreds stranded between Argentina and Chile
					

Around 400 people including tourists, truck drivers and other travelers are still trapped in temperatures of 10 degrees Celsius below zero due to a snowstorm on the Argentine-Chilean border.




					www.radiohc.cu


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam.  The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism.  AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant.  When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.
> 
> PS:  Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.


Heavy snowfall and temps below zero in Argentina.  mther nature keeps fking with you jack.









						Heavy snowfall leaves hundreds stranded between Argentina and Chile
					

Around 400 people including tourists, truck drivers and other travelers are still trapped in temperatures of 10 degrees Celsius below zero due to a snowstorm on the Argentine-Chilean border.




					www.radiohc.cu


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 13, 2022)

*If it's hot, "climate change."*
*If it's cold, "climate change."
Too much rain, "climate change."*
*Rampant stupidity, "climate change."

Seasonal temperatures change all around the world 25 to 50 degrees Celsius.  Climate change zealots go crazy over a promised change of 2 degrees.  W.T.F.*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *If it's hot, "climate change."*
> *If it's cold, "climate change."
> Too much rain, "climate change."*
> *Rampant stupidity, "climate change."
> ...


if it's hot, it's always gotten hot since the earth has been in the universe.  Not sure why demofks think getting hot is unusual.

If it's cold, it's been cold since the dinosaurs walked the planet.  Not sure why demofks think getting cold is unusual.

And it's obvious the demofks don't know what solstice is.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> if it's hot, it's always gotten hot since the earth has been in the universe.  Not sure why demofks think getting hot is unusual.
> 
> If it's cold, it's been cold since the dinosaurs walked the planet.  Not sure why demofks think getting cold is unusual.
> 
> And it's obvious the demofks don't know what solstice is.


Your scientificalness is most depressive.  I mean oppressive.  That is to say uppressive.
(Did I get that right?)

Take break from the insanity Democrats have created and have some fun:

JohnsBrainCandy


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam.  The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism.  AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant.  When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.
> 
> PS:  Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.


You were saying Einstein?
Educate yourself before you spout nonsense to people who know better.

AGW is tailor made to separate fools from their money & freedom.
Good luck with that


_The facts from this news article appear to come from an article in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics. The article, titled The Remarkable Weather of 1911, commented on the strange meteorological swings of the past year and pointed the finger at coal consumption and carbon emissions. The greenhouse effect was already a theory in use, having been developed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896._









						Shocking 106-Year-Old Newspaper Article Predicts Global Warming
					

Articles from 1912 show how savvy scientists were to the greenhouse effect over 100 years ago and the human impact on the environment.




					mymodernmet.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> ... rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims ...



We've talked about this before ... the IPCC isn't a scientific body ... it may contain science, in an edited form ... but they are a political organization ... and their reports, including AR5 and AR6, are specifically addressed to political policy makers ... not scientists ... you can tell because they don't allow the dissenting scientific opinions ... like from Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost authorities on hurricane intensive and frequency ... he makes a great case that the IPCC is overstating their cause ...

We make effective arguments using basic physics ... but that's over your head academically ... because you _always_ rely on "104% consensus" without even trying to understand the science ...

Why do you believe in hypercanes? ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



Both sides are pushing their narratives.

It's quite scary really because most people are willing to accept one side of the narrative without doing their own research. They become believers. They accept all they are told.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 13, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Both sides are pushing their narratives.
> 
> It's quite scary really because most people are willing to accept one side of the narrative without doing their own research. They become believers. They accept all they are told.



... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 13, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> ... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...



But no one is interested. It's too boring.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 13, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> But no one is interested. It's too boring.



Gee thanx ... good to know you think I'm boring ... meh ... I work outdoors so I'm up front and personal with the weather ... and I like math ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Jul 14, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Gee thanx ... good to know you think I'm boring ... meh ... I work outdoors so I'm up front and personal with the weather ... and I like math ...



Huh? Okay, what I said was rather vague, but I was saying that no one is interested in what is in the middle, because it's boring. They want to be entertained.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Green light comes from the Sun ... there no other natural source in the solar system ... any change in sunlight at these wavelengths will be immediately "reflected" by the color of the grass ...
> 
> Proof positive the sun isn't changing ... didn't they have UVB photometers in your astrophysics class? ...


A 1% change is not sufficient to create this change.  It is however, enough change to slow the waters absorption of energy at depth.  Which is why our oceans are cooling.  Did they not teach you wave propagation though water in your physics class?


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *If it's hot, "climate change."*
> *If it's cold, "climate change."
> Too much rain, "climate change."*
> *Rampant stupidity, "climate change."
> ...


You claim to be an engineer yet you would ask a question as stupid as this?


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> You were saying Einstein?
> Educate yourself before you spout nonsense to people who know better.
> 
> AGW is tailor made to separate fools from their money & freedom.
> ...


Popular mechanics?  I bet you can find writings in ancient Greek worrying about sooty smoke absorbing sunlight.  And where is the evidence that it has ever been a scam?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 14, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> A 1% change is not sufficient to create this change.  It is however, enough change to slow the waters absorption of energy at depth.  Which is why our oceans are cooling.  Did they not teach you wave propagation though water in your physics class?



Give me a link to the UVB data ... geez ... this is easy to show ... why the gymnastics? ...

Why do you think the oceans are cooling? ... that's such an odd statement based on so little data ... when did we begin systematically measuring ocean temperatures at depth? ... or are you basing your claims on computer simulations? ...


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Popular mechanics?  I bet you can find writings in ancient Greek worrying about sooty smoke absorbing sunlight.  And *where is the evidence that it has ever been a scam*?


The fact you feel you can talk intelligently on this subject but didn't even know this grift has been going on since the 1880's is the best part!!
Priceless!!
Thanks for the laugh chick


----------



## dudmuck (Jul 18, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *If it's hot, "climate change."*
> *If it's cold, "climate change."
> Too much rain, "climate change."*
> *Rampant stupidity, "climate change."
> ...





			https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084
		


the pro-lifers keep the killing going.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 18, 2022)

dudmuck said:


> https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084
> 
> 
> 
> the pro-lifers keep the killing going.


Moron.

The polar jets are so large they are buckling.  This allows major high pressures and low pressures to form; they move very slowly due to the nature of the polar jet.  This allows temperatures to increase and temperatures to decrease across areas of the globe.  

This is a natural process of our climatic systems during cooling.  More evidence that most people have no clue about the earths systems and how they present paradoxically during the swing phase of cooling or warming.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> I do not know the answer, but what caused this ice age to occur and what caused this dramatic warm up or change in global climate?


Orbital factors kick it off, then it gets reinforced by changing CO2 levels.

It's not possible to explain paleoclimate without including the effects of CO2 as a greehouse gas.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> ... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...


Some say the earth is an ellipsoid, some say it's flat, so the truth must be that it's partially flat and partially round.

And thus I illustrate the fallacy of "the truth lies somewhere in between".


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The polar jets are so large they are buckling.


Meanwhile, back in reality, the way the polar jets are getting _weaker_ is what makes them buckle more. Think of a river. Slow rivers meander more. A slower jetstream meanders more.

And what's making them weaker? Global warming. The jet stream is driven by the temperature difference between polar and sub-polar. The poles are warming more, so that difference is getting less, so the polar jet is getting weaker.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> The fact you feel you can talk intelligently on this subject but didn't even know this grift has been going on since the 1880's is the best part!!


This from the kook who missed where his 1912 article said "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."

That is, the article was correct. And he calls it a grift. That's normal. Conservatives tend to reject anything that accurately describes reality.

Go on, kook. Humiliate yourself some more. Tell us more about the "grift". What else did TheParty tell you to parrot?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> 2) Yet another lies since it is well known that a warming ocean releases more CO2 and CO2 from so called fossil fuels are the same as the CO2 produced by nature.


Check it out. This one actually denies that the oceans are absorbing CO2.

This is why they call them deniers, because they just deny observed reality. They don't care if it makes them look insane. TheParty ordered them to do it, so they obey.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Some say the earth is an ellipsoid, some say it's flat, so the truth must be that it's partially flat and partially round.
> 
> And thus I illustrate the fallacy of "the truth lies somewhere in between".



Then why do you believe in hypercanes? ...


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 19, 2022)

mamooth said:


> This from the kook who missed where his 1912 article said "The effect may be considerable in a few centuries."
> 
> That is, the article was correct. And he calls it a grift. That's normal. Conservatives tend to reject anything that accurately describes reality.
> 
> Go on, kook. Humiliate yourself some more. Tell us more about the "grift". What else did TheParty tell you to parrot?


What's the matter mammoth, are you afraid that cloud is going to wipe out your herd?
They could literally tell you anything & you'd believe it.
That's hilarious & sad


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 19, 2022)

Mamooth has a very bad habit of subtracting from any and every argument he engages.
For that reason, I put him on Ignore long ago.  But JohnGaltShrugged's response intrigued me so I clicked on the link to see the inanity I ignored.  Here is Mamooth's latest nonsense:

"That is, the article was correct. And he calls it a grift. That's normal. Conservatives tend to reject anything that accurately describes reality.'

Here is some Leftist "reality" Mamooth worships, honors, and takes pride in:


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Then why do you believe in hypercanes? ...


Huh?

What are these "hypercanes" you speak of? I just ask because I've never run across the term before.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> What's the matter mammoth, are you afraid that cloud is going to wipe out your herd?


Cloud? Cult boi, what _are_ you babbling about? Remember, normal people don't understand whatever weird cult lingo it is you use.

Excactly what has your cult been teaching you, and why did you fall for something so transparently stupid?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 19, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Huh?
> 
> What are these "hypercanes" you speak of? I just ask because I've never run across the term before.



You should probably find out ... people are pointing at you saying you believe they exist ...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 19, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> You should probably find out ... people are pointing at you saying you believe they exist ...


Just one sort of crazy dude did that, and everyone is laughing at him because of it.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jul 19, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Orbital factors kick it off, then it gets reinforced by changing CO2 levels.  It's not possible to explain paleoclimate without including the effects of CO2 as a greehouse gas.



(IMO)  ----   You and your leaders are using this insane phony terror “The sky is falling!! Any year now !!” and in the process destroying millions of lives and crushing millions of others financially in the here and now and --- real suffering ---- just so your corrupt politicians and corporate types and well funded science labs and educators can wield their power and egos and profit hugely, and exact their diabolical demands on the masses. It’s all about control, and there are just enough stupid gullible people out there to keep you creeps in power.

From a recent article  >>> _President Trump was in peak form during his speech tonight in Commerce, Georgia. At one point Trump roasted John Kerry saying, “You have people like John Kerry traveling to foreign countries and worrying about “The Climate!” The climate! Oh, I heard that the other day…. Here we are, Russia’s destroying Ukraine, and threatening us with nuclear weapons, and he’s worried about the ocean will rise 1/100th of 1% in the next 300 fucking years.”_


----------



## Leo123 (Jul 19, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


Those who study AGW get funding.   No AGW, no funding.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 20, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> (IMO)  ----   You and your leaders are using this insane phony terror “The sky is falling!! Any year now !!” and in the process destroying millions of lives and crushing millions of others financially in the here and now and --- real suffering ---- just so your corrupt politicians and corporate types and well funded science labs and educators can wield their power and egos and profit hugely, and exact their diabolical demands on the masses. It’s all about control, and there are just enough stupid gullible people out there to keep you creeps in power.
> 
> From a recent article  >>> _President Trump was in peak form during his speech tonight in Commerce, Georgia. At one point Trump roasted John Kerry saying, “You have people like John Kerry traveling to foreign countries and worrying about “The Climate!” The climate! Oh, I heard that the other day…. Here we are, Russia’s destroying Ukraine, and threatening us with nuclear weapons, and he’s worried about the ocean will rise 1/100th of 1% in the next 300 fucking years.”_



On that amusing note, my website:

The Global Warming  Fraud

And this new query I just thought of and put to meme:


----------



## alexa (Jul 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



Unbelievable.



> It’s important to remember that the focus of scientists is always on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily due to the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on the weight of over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of the science and technology underpinning much of our civilization today.











						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
				






> *P*olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
> The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].





			https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618
		




> https://badge.dimensions.ai/details.../8/2/024024?domain=https://iopscience.iop.org
> 1. Introduction
> An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding _et al_ 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky _et al_ 2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz _et al_ 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
> 
> Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement (97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg _et al_ 2010). Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily increased from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton _et al_ 1996, 2001, Solomon _et al_ 2007).







__





						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## alexa (Jul 20, 2022)

ding said:


> 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.
> 
> For example:
> Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


I think we are very much past the point of changing people's minds on this.  The scientific community believes it is at least to some degree created by humans or rather fossil fuel use.  One of your own did research in the 60's and knew this was happening but kept quiet about it.   There has never ever been such a quick rise in Co2 as we are getting now.  Here is an article on the beginning of the understanding of our involvement.  It dates back to 1938

The Callendar effect: Here's how this man connected humans to global warming in 1938

and

*Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago*​
Now your names could be anyone to me.  These are the known and respected scientists and like it or not there is massive agreement that we, our very existence is in serious danger and the longer we leave it to sort things out, the harsher a world we will be leaving for those who come after.....and that is not just the money and time they will need to sort things out but there will be sustained damage lasting thousands of years.  For a long time people did not listen because it was not happening to them and so they put their head in the sand in order to make an extra buck or two.  Now it is obviously happening and they are still denying that.  The vast majority of people I am told now agree with the reality that we have a serious problem but even there most do not allow themselves to see how important it is to make changes yesterday.  I hope the recent weather in the UK will get people to push the Government for needed changes but whether it will or not I do not know.  However climate deniers or deniers of the main cause which is fossil fuels are not going to change now.  You are a small minority and not you but some of you no doubt will be kicking off believing you are right despite everything you can see,  There would be nothing I could say which would make you change your mind nor you mine.  We both know that.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> (IMO)  ----   You and your leaders are using this insane phony terror “The sky is falling!! Any year now !!” and in the process destroying millions of lives and crushing millions of others financially in the here and now and --- real suffering ---- just so your corrupt politicians and corporate types and well funded science labs and educators can wield their power and egos and profit hugely, and exact their diabolical demands on the masses. It’s all about control, and there are just enough stupid gullible people out there to keep you creeps in power.


The conspiracy kooks are coming out of the woodwork.

We've got the facts and the science backing us, plus a record of spot-on correct predictions going back 40 years. That's why AGW science has such credibility -- they've earned it.

The denier side babbles things that defy reality, and has been faceplanting with their predictions for 40 years. Their record of failure is perfect and unblemished, which is why the whole planet laughs at them.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2022)

ding said:


> 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.


And they've all been debunked.

Go on, pick one, and I'll show you the debunking. No sleazy Gish Gallops allowed, find _one_ and call it your best, then summarize it for us in your own words, and I'll show you the debunkings.

It's not difficult to debunk them, of course, given that since the 1970s, temperature has gone way up while solar irradiance has gone down. You have to be kind of insane to claim that a cooling sun causes warming.

And no, it's not heat hiding in the oceans. We've been closely measuring ocean temps for a long time. Ocean temps keep going up fast as well, conclusively debunking any "The warming is due to heat hiding in the oceans!" theory.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> I think we are very much past the point of changing people's minds on this.  The scientific community believes it is at least to some degree created by humans or rather fossil fuel use.  One of your own did research in the 60's and knew this was happening but kept quiet about it.   There has never ever been such a quick rise in Co2 as we are getting now.  Here is an article on the beginning of the understanding of our involvement.  It dates back to 1938
> 
> The Callendar effect: Here's how this man connected humans to global warming in 1938
> 
> ...


Correlation does not prove causation.  The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2022)

mamooth said:


> And they've all been debunked.
> 
> Go on, pick one, and I'll show you the debunking. No sleazy Gish Gallops allowed, find _one_ and call it your best, then summarize it for us in your own words, and I'll show you the debunkings.
> 
> ...


How about this one?

_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 20, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Was there any point to that stupid deflection?
> 
> Oh, that's right. I just stated the point. Deflection.
> 
> ...


Didn't mean to trigger you mammoth. 
Have you been attacked by another cloud today? 
Is the weather stalking you? 

Even when they admit they lie to you, you follow them like lemmings anyway.
I would be pathetic if you weren't wrecking the world.

You climate change bed wetters are dumber than a bag of nails.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Every one of your links are from models that fail empirical verification.  IE; THEY FAIL REALITY...    NASA is nothing more than a political agency any more just like NOAA.  They all make assumptions based on failed modeling.  The empirical evidence (observed and tested) shows them to fail with 100% certainty.  This means the knowledge they are using to create these models is flawed and INCORRECT...  AGW is a lie.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> I think we are very much past the point of changing people's minds on this.  The scientific community believes it is at least to some degree created by humans or rather fossil fuel use.  One of your own did research in the 60's and knew this was happening but kept quiet about it.   There has never ever been such a quick rise in Co2 as we are getting now.  Here is an article on the beginning of the understanding of our involvement.  It dates back to 1938
> 
> The Callendar effect: Here's how this man connected humans to global warming in 1938
> 
> ...


There it is "Evil Oil"...  And not based in fact.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jul 20, 2022)

mamooth said:


> The conspiracy kooks are coming out of the woodwork.
> 
> We've got the facts and the science backing us, plus a record of spot-on correct predictions going back 40 years. That's why AGW science has such credibility -- they've earned it.
> 
> The denier side babbles things that defy reality, and has been faceplanting with their predictions for 40 years. Their record of failure is perfect and unblemished, which is why the whole planet laughs at them.


Biden and the democrats have virtually stopped oil drilling off coast, issuing new permits to drill on federal lands or in Alaska, stopped worked on major pipe lines, deplored fracking, and instituted more choking regulations on the domestic oil and gas and coal industries. This is malicious to Americans and our economy. All under the guise or for the sake of the total B.S. political play called Climate Change. That is what they are doing, using this phony climate change crap to scare people to enact all kinds of destructive measures and maintain power and control.

Biden also greenlighted a Russian pipeline to continue at the same time he stopped ours. And then he goes begging other nations for oil. Sick!!! Being energy independent is a national security issue. Of course you creeps do not care about that, just look at the southern border. You have wasted --- WASTED! --- trillions of dollars on green jobs and green regulations that are funds that could have solved so many more real and grave ills in our society. Trump stops giving half a trillion to the joke Paris Climate accords, Biden gives it all back. FYI, God controls the weather, not politicians or scientists.

Speaking of your ‘god’ science, the chair of climatology at Georgia Tech, Judith Curry, resigned her position and gave up her tenure a couple of years ago because she was sick of the misinformation and manipulation of data being forced up the students. If everyone is so sure man it’s affecting the climate then why the need to lie?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> Biden and the democrats have virtually stopped oil drilling off coast, issuing new permits to drill on federal lands or in Alaska, stopped worked on major pipe lines, deplored fracking, and instituted more choking regulations on the domestic oil and gas and coal industries.


Um, no. I know the cult told you to say all that, but the cult lied to you.



jehanne1431 said:


> Speaking of your ‘god’ science, the chair of climatology at Georgia Tech, Judith Curry, resigned her position and gave up her tenure a couple of years ago because she was sick of the misinformation and manipulation of data being forced up the students.


So she had tenure and wasn't censored at all, but she threw a tantrum and left anyways.

I can see why.

Someone who could back up their position with facts and evidence would have done so. She clearly couldn't.

And as a professor, she couldn't rake in the massive bribes from fossil fuel companies. Now she can.

Basically, all denier "scientists" are on the take, accepting bribes to pump out garbage. In contrast, the ethical climate scientists refuse those bribes. They effectively take a pay cult to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.



> If everyone is so sure man it’s affecting the climate then why the need to lie?



Other than your side, I see nobody lying. If you're right, why does your side have to lie about everything?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 20, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> Didn't mean to trigger you mammoth.
> Have you been attacked by another cloud today?


What is it with you and your fixation with clouds?


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> Biden and the democrats have virtually stopped oil drilling off coast, issuing new permits to drill on federal lands or in Alaska, stopped worked on major pipe lines, deplored fracking, and instituted more choking regulations on the domestic oil and gas and coal industries. This is malicious to Americans and our economy. All under the guise or for the sake of the total B.S. political play called Climate Change. That is what they are doing, using this phony climate change crap to scare people to enact all kinds of destructive measures and maintain power and control.
> 
> Biden also greenlighted a Russian pipeline to continue at the same time he stopped ours. And then he goes begging other nations for oil. Sick!!! Being energy independent is a national security issue. Of course you creeps do not care about that, just look at the southern border. You have wasted --- WASTED! --- trillions of dollars on green jobs and green regulations that are funds that could have solved so many more real and grave ills in our society. Trump stops giving half a trillion to the joke Paris Climate accords, Biden gives it all back. FYI, God controls the weather, not politicians or scientists.
> 
> Speaking of your ‘god’ science, the chair of climatology at Georgia Tech, Judith Curry, resigned her position and gave up her tenure a couple of years ago because she was sick of the misinformation and manipulation of data being forced up the students. If everyone is so sure man it’s affecting the climate then why the need to lie?


How does what Biden has done - or would like to do, re global warming - enable him to maintain power and control?


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jul 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> How does what Biden has done - or would like to do, re global warming - enable him to maintain power and control?


By the democrat party being gigantic cheerleaders for stopping global warming --- it’s all politically motivated of course, if Trump was big on it they would all be against it --- they have curried favor with the liberal mainstream media and major newspapers who push the same agenda. Also with the universities and science organizations of all kinds who receive government funding for their operations to continue in this vein. Green corporations of all kinds receive government subsidies and other favors. The movie, TV, music and game industries push the same message, constantly. Public education indoctrinates our children on this. Put it all together and what those entities are doing is convincing the public how vital is our carbon footprint etc, the oceans are rising, it’s 100 degrees three days in a row, etc. ---- and they accept this issue as the major issue of the day ---- or as Biden’s press secretary said the other day, “our number one national security risk.” Votes keep them in power. How many liberals do you know that are not on board with the danger of climate change?


----------



## alexa (Jul 20, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> There it is "Evil Oil"...  And not based in fact.


Oh it is based on fact.  You prefer comics.  Your choice.


----------



## alexa (Jul 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Correlation does not prove causation.  The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.


That is true.  That is why this time it is different. A difference which has been known about for almost a hundred years.  Even most people who believe in Climate Disaster are dragging their feet  It seems us humans have some difficulty dealing with things until they are upon us.  The UK could easily have done something about its roads and runways before - or at least got started.  We probably will now.


----------



## ding (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> That is true.  That is why this time it is different. A difference which has been known about for almost a hundred years.  Even most people who believe in Climate Disaster are dragging their feet  It seems us humans have some difficulty dealing with things until they are upon us.  The UK could easily have done something about its roads and runways before - or at least got started.  We probably will now.


The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution.  Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature.  This is a fact that no one disputes.  If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me.  Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2.  We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2. 

Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. _But other scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



The AGW consensus is based on a great deal more than Zimmerman's small study (which turned out to be quite accurate) and you know it perfectly well.  YOU are the LIAR.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 20, 2022)

alexa said:


> That is true.  That is why this time it is different. A difference which has been known about for almost a hundred years.  Even most people who believe in Climate Disaster are dragging their feet  It seems us humans have some difficulty dealing with things until they are upon us.  The UK could easily have done something about its roads and runways before - or at least got started.  We probably will now.



Well ... you'll certainly have time ... and choices ... is not Scotland currently under isostatic rebound or something? ... otherwise what's going to happen in Scotland is a banner for the good this warming will do ... with the assumption what's good for Scotland is good for everybody ... 

A single degree of temperature isn't a disaster ... and then spread out that rise over fifty years ... you got nothing ... use common sense here ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Leftists traffic in fear, lies and ignorance.  This is simply another example of it.


Fear of minorities.  Fear of immigrants.  Fear of gays and lesbians.  Ignorance about global warming, the climate, pollution, the environment, ecology and the scientific method.  Liberals hate America, socialism is the same as communism, blacks are lazy and tend to criminality, immigrants commit violent crimes out of proportion to their numbers and Biden and the Democratic party stole the 2020 presidential election through voter fraud.

Talk about some fucking projection.


----------



## jehanne1431 (Jul 20, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> the political system, with only two corrupt political parties helps, but really a lot of people, on both sides, are simply unable to have a meaningful debate about things.  ...When one person claims it's only the other side.... it's rather hilarious.


Did Hitler have a just argument?
How about an open southern border where illegals, and criminals from various nations, and fentanyl pour across the border?  Defensible?
Still cannot see why 2nd graders have to be told to consider if they want to be a boy or a girl, and 4th graders, check out this film we got for you on the pleasures of sex. Is this debatable for the goodness of a child?
Why is it ok for the DNC to obtain fake Russian dossier, turn it into illegal FISA warrants so they can spy on a sitting U.S. president and no one goes to jail?  That's justice?

Often enough right vs. wrong is glaringly obvious, and it is not about both sides being obstinate.


----------



## White 6 (Jul 21, 2022)

*Be advised.  This is the global warming debate thread in the environment forum.
Stay on topic or more warnings and post deletions will accrue or further Moderation action.
Stay on topic.
Enjoy the thread.*


----------



## alexa (Jul 21, 2022)

You guys got my post which showed that what the OP said is not true deleted for this strange reason "Off topic response to off topic post of the op'.  I fail to see how presenting evidence which shows the op is not true is off topic but I do see that you climate deniers do not want any evidence which shows your position is wrong to be produced.  As such I will do what most people do which is not to answer your posts as that in itself gives you some credibility, suggesting there may be some truth in what you say.  There isn't.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

This was on the front of the Radio Times in 1974. What happened to that theory?


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

jehanne1431 said:


> Did Hitler have a just argument?
> How about an open southern border where illegals, and criminals from various nations, and fentanyl pour across the border?  Defensible?
> Still cannot see why 2nd graders have to be told to consider if they want to be a boy or a girl, and 4th graders, check out this film we got for you on the pleasures of sex. Is this debatable for the goodness of a child?
> Why is it ok for the DNC to obtain fake Russian dossier, turn it into illegal FISA warrants so they can spy on a sitting U.S. president and no one goes to jail?  That's justice?
> ...



^ What’s that got to do with anything?

Did l get lost?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



Manmade Global Climate Warming Change is the greatest scientific fraud in human history


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.



In China too, right?  Are you threatening China's fossil fuel industry too?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam.  The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism.  AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant.  When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.
> 
> PS:  Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.



"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Enedhofer, IPCC, 2010,


----------



## alexa (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> This was on the front of the Radio Times in 1974. What happened to that theory?
> 
> 
> View attachment 672672


I don't know but I know in 72 we got the first alarm I knew of.


----------



## alexa (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> This was on the front of the Radio Times in 1974. What happened to that theory?
> 
> 
> View attachment 672672


update 





> In 1972, a team at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) predicted that humanity's pursuit of economic growth without regard for environmental and society costs would lead to society collapsing by the mid 21st century – a new study finds this may become a reality.











						MIT's 1972 prediction of society collapsing could happen by 2040
					

A researcher tested MIT's 1972 prediction that we could see a societal collapse by 2040 and found we are currently on the path of destruction, but we could change it in a decade.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Orbital factors kick it off, then it gets reinforced by changing CO2 levels.
> 
> It's not possible to explain paleoclimate without including the effects of CO2 as a greehouse gas.





Funny how yiu have no empirical evidence to support that claim.

Not one iota in fact.


----------



## alexa (Jul 21, 2022)

Here is the Australian computers program which in 73 they were able to predict that by the middle of this century the world as we know it would probably be no more.








						MIT's 1972 prediction of society collapsing could happen by 2040
					

A researcher tested MIT's 1972 prediction that we could see a societal collapse by 2040 and found we are currently on the path of destruction, but we could change it in a decade.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




A new Study apparently agrees with this.  It does not surprise me.  Have a look at it and see if it rings any bells for you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> The AGW consensus is based on a great deal more than Zimmerman's small study (which turned out to be quite accurate) and you know it perfectly well.  YOU are the LIAR.



Consensus is a Cult word, not a scientific one


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #441 | Lotus Eaters
					

Connor and Jake Scott discuss how the WEF want to block out the sun, how Conservatives are alienating youth activists, and Biden's Marxist Groomer schools           Listen to the Audio Version      Audio Version Available After the Live Podcast




					www.lotuseaters.com


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

alexa said:


> I don't know but I know in 72 we got the first alarm I knew of.



I'm not sure about "alarm" ... but we are on track for glacial conditions again in 100,000 years ... it's a periodic thing ... the good news is that at our current rate of population expansion, we won't make it that long ... just look at the next 100 years ... 32 billion people ... do you honestly think the Earth can support that many people without serious and permanent damage our ecosystems ... temperature here is meaningless ... 

A better question is why do you think the Earth can support 8 billion people without serious damage to ecosystems? ... go ahead and focus on the East China Plain, Northern Europe and Eastern North America ... the world's greatest forests ...


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> A better question is why do you think the Earth can support 8 billion people without serious damage to ecosystems? .



That is a point, I suppose.

Maybe Covid was sent to cull us.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Orbital factors kick it off, then it gets reinforced by changing CO2 levels.
> 
> It's not possible to explain paleoclimate without including the effects of CO2 as a greehouse gas.



how much "excess heat" is generated by 120PPM of CO2, does it show up in any experiment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> That is a point, I suppose.
> 
> Maybe Covid was sent to cull us.



Fauxi and his CCP buddies developed it as a bioweapon


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

alexa said:


> Here is the Australian computers program which in 73 they were able to predict that by the middle of this century the world as we know it would probably be no more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What study?  Link to it please.   Current GCMs no longer show it failing. (I don't put a lot of faith in these either as they all fail with in 3-10 years, without exception.) Note their use of the word "Could", even they don't think it's possible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> how much "excess heat" is generated by 120PPM of CO2, does it show up in any experiment?


I love the idiots use of the word "excess" Downwelling Solar Radiation (DSR) has changed very little, in general, for a very long time.  I wonder what part of that radiation is "excess".  In order for energy conservation laws to work you must first receive it.  Where is this 'excess energy' coming from?  what is producing it?


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm not sure about "alarm" ... but we are on track for glacial conditions again in 100,000 years ... it's a periodic thing ... the good news is that at our current rate of population expansion, we won't make it that long ... just look at the next 100 years ... 32 billion people ... do you honestly think the Earth can support that many people without serious and permanent damage our ecosystems ... temperature here is meaningless ...
> 
> A better question is why do you think the Earth can support 8 billion people without serious damage to ecosystems? ... go ahead and focus on the East China Plain, Northern Europe and Eastern North America ... the world's greatest forests ...





Yes, the carrying capacity of the Earth without technology is around 12 billion.  And that is with our near 50% spoilage rate.

Eliminate the spoilage through technology and that increases the carrying capacity to 20 billion.

But don't fret, the population growth of the Earth is beginning to reverse itself.  In a few years there will be a net loss in human population.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> 32 billion people ... do you honestly think the Earth can support that many people without serious and permanent damage our ecosystems ... temperature here is meaningless ...


And there it is... World depopulation.  The whole point of this sham is aimed at starving to death millions of people.   The Globalist world view, most people are users of resources and worthless. 

As populations evolve and become more advanced, they have fewer children. IN the 1800's until about 1930 large families were needed to keep a farm running, to survive the harsh environments. Today, we are focused on careers and have 1 or 2 children, the US birth rate will fall below "replacement" rates in the next 10 years.  Democrats are already pulling in replacements as they have aborted their own.   

All of this is bull shit in my opinion.  As China just exposed, there are regimes that will kill millions for power. World War III has already started and COVID was the first salvo.  The "vaccines" that lower human immune function was the second salvo.  When they drop the next MOAB, millions will die as the human immune systems will be unable to defeat the next man-made virus.

Everything these elitists do is about power and control.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm not sure about "alarm" ... but we are on track for glacial conditions again in 100,000 years ...


The next glacial cycle will start in the next 30-200 years. We are already showing signs of the change.  Earths "tilt" has already moved to +23.6 degrees (Pole Shift - rotational center) +23.4 is the theoretical point at which glaciation starts.  We are already teetering on the point to rapid long-term cooling. One good volcanic eruption will send us over the edge with the suns internal shift in energy output.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

alexa said:


> Oh it is based on fact.  You prefer comics.  Your choice.


What facts?  where are they?  Empirically observed or are they model driven fantasy?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 21, 2022)

Obviously, those making energy policy not giving a fuck about the "science"  


Global Coal-Fired Electricity Generation Surges To Record High | ZeroHedge

I could not possibly be laughing harder.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2022)

skookerasbil said:


> Obviously, those making energy policy not giving a fuck about the "science"
> 
> 
> Global Coal-Fired Electricity Generation Surges To Record High | ZeroHedge
> ...


This kid has guts....   I love that he backed up his case with facts...  when the likes of Michael Mann is taken down by a 12 year old...   Got to love this little guy...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> That is a point, I suppose.
> 
> Maybe Covid was sent to cull us.



If you believe in all that "DNA" mumbo-jumbo ... then you know we experienced a genetic bottleneck event 50,000 years ago ... a virus would be my first guess ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> I love the idiots use of the word "excess" Downwelling Solar Radiation (DSR) has changed very little, in general, for a very long time.  I wonder what part of that radiation is "excess".  In order for energy conservation laws to work you must first receive it.  Where is this 'excess energy' coming from?  what is producing it?



Conservation laws work pretty fine without excess energy coming in ... but they don't say what Alarmists need them to say ... bummer ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yes, the carrying capacity of the Earth without technology is around 12 billion.  And that is with our near 50% spoilage rate.
> 
> Eliminate the spoilage through technology and that increases the carrying capacity to 20 billion.
> 
> But don't fret, the population growth of the Earth is beginning to reverse itself.  In a few years there will be a net loss in human population.



Without technology? ... that's an extraordinary claim ... the world could only support 2 billion with early 20th Century technology ... tractors instead of horses ...

Why do you think populations are reversing? ... I think your extrapolation is going a little too far in the future ... half of us have our reproduction rates down, but the other half doesn't ... (or actually they do, as many kids as they can as fast as they can ... it's the only retirement program they have) ... 

There's people in the world without internet access ... how are they to know there's a problem brewing for our great-great-great-great grandchildren? ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> The AGW consensus is based on a great deal more than Zimmerman's small study (which turned out to be quite accurate) and you know it perfectly well.  YOU are the LIAR.


Consensus in history

We have consensus that the Earth is a flat plane suspended in space on the backs of turtles!


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus in history
> 
> We have consensus that the Earth is a flat plane suspended in space on the backs of turtles!



I’ve heard that one too.

lol


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> And there it is... World depopulation.  The whole point of this sham is aimed at starving to death millions of people.   The Globalist world view, most people are users of resources and worthless.
> 
> As populations evolve and become more advanced, they have fewer children. IN the 1800's until about 1930 large families were needed to keep a farm running, to survive the harsh environments. Today, we are focused on careers and have 1 or 2 children, the US birth rate will fall below "replacement" rates in the next 10 years.  Democrats are already pulling in replacements as they have aborted their own.
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> The next glacial cycle will start in the next 30-200 years. We are already showing signs of the change.  Earths "tilt" has already moved to +23.6 degrees (Pole Shift - rotational center) +23.4 is the theoretical point at which glaciation starts.  We are already teetering on the point to rapid long-term cooling. One good volcanic eruption will send us over the edge with the suns internal shift in energy output.



I have no idea where you get the notion World Government™ wants _less_ people buying the goods we make ... just baffling ... the rest is more non-sense ...

You never answered my post #30 ... why these confusing mental gymnastics? ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Without technology? ... that's an extraordinary claim ... the world could only support 2 billion with early 20th Century technology ... tractors instead of horses ...
> 
> Why do you think populations are reversing? ... I think your extrapolation is going a little too far in the future ... half of us have our reproduction rates down, but the other half doesn't ... (or actually they do, as many kids as they can as fast as they can ... it's the only retirement program they have) ...
> 
> There's people in the world without internet access ... how are they to know there's a problem brewing for our great-great-great-great grandchildren? ...





It is a factual claim.  What problem is brewing for our great great grandkids?

Be specific.


The growth rate in the 1960's was 2.6 to one.  It is now 1.7 to one.  We are not replacing the ones who will be dying.  

That is called math.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

Has anyone been incinerated yet? During two days of heat?

Or did you fall asleep, drinking wine, and sitting under the fan?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> It is a factual claim.  What problem is brewing for our great great grandkids?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> ...



Wait ... you consider the 1960's "without technology"? ... and world population was half then what it is today ... 

I'm using fertility rate ... the average number of children one woman bears ... replacement is considered 2.1 ... and the World Bank gives 2.4 children per average healthy woman world-wide ... the rate is slowing, but not reversing ... but then I grew up without technology apparently ... Moon landings were a hoax right? ...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 21, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Manmade Global Climate Warming Change is the greatest scientific fraud in human history



Behind Darwin's Tautology.  If it survives, it's fit. If it's fit, it survives, and so A>B>C>D in the words of atheist socialist Richard Dawkins.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> This was on the front of the Radio Times in 1974. What happened to that theory?
> 
> 
> View attachment 672672



*Ghetto Fabulous. *

*Well deserving of a place in my website, The Global Warming Fraud.*


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Behind Darwin's Tautology.  If it survives, it's fit. If it's fit, it survives, and so A>B>C>D in the words of atheist socialist Richard Dawkins.



If it reproduces, the species survives ... do you know nothing of population dynamics? ... absolutely farcical how little you know of science ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Wait ... you consider the 1960's "without technology"? ... and world population was half then what it is today ...
> 
> I'm using fertility rate ... the average number of children one woman bears ... replacement is considered 2.1 ... and the World Bank gives 2.4 children per average healthy woman world-wide ... the rate is slowing, but not reversing ... but then I grew up without technology apparently ... Moon landings were a hoax right? ...






By technology I mean beyond what we have now.


ReinyDays said:


> Wait ... you consider the 1960's "without technology"? ... and world population was half then what it is today ...
> 
> I'm using fertility rate ... the average number of children one woman bears ... replacement is considered 2.1 ... and the World Bank gives 2.4 children per average healthy woman world-wide ... the rate is slowing, but not reversing ... but then I grew up without technology apparently ... Moon landings were a hoax right? ...







So am I.  By technology I mean beyond that which we have now, if we really wanted to produce food on a grand scale I have talked with scientists who conservatively estimate the planet could support 40 billion.  Demographers are who I pay attention to and they are calculating the Earth's population in 100 years will drop to 6 billion.

Mainly because the third world is slowly disappearing, and even those who still live in the third world are having fewer children.  Right now the Earth is barely keeping pace with replacement.  That is going to plummet in the next 25 years.  Demographers have already pointed out that china is in a world of hurt, their draconian policies have ensured they will drop below a billion people within the the next 20 years.  India is still growing, but the rate is slowing.  Japan is contracting as is almost all of Europe.

In other words, it is a non issue.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


Can you provide one scientific organization that supports the belief that human caused AGW is not happening?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> We've talked about this before ... the IPCC isn't a scientific body ... it may contain science, in an edited form ... but they are a political organization ... and their reports, including AR5 and AR6, are specifically addressed to political policy makers ... not scientists ... you can tell because they don't allow the dissenting scientific opinions ... like from Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost authorities on hurricane intensive and frequency ... he makes a great case that the IPCC is overstating their cause ...
> 
> We make effective arguments using basic physics ... but that's over your head academically ... because you _always_ rely on "104% consensus" without even trying to understand the science ...
> 
> Why do you believe in hypercanes? ...


Your trying to politicize science and it’s not working.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> By technology I mean beyond what we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We'll see ... the technology you're relying on seems to be transportation technology ... growing food in Russia and Ukraine and transporting it to the hungry ... and the hungry aren't eating better, their having more kids ... 

You should look at the demographics yourself ... instead of picking and choosing the demographer that says what you want to hear ... I'm seeing the same numbers as you, but this is really only true for the top half of nations, the ones with electric power and video cameras ... now look at the bottom half, places that doesn't have reliable power and thus no video cameras ... 

=====

12 billion you say ... _National Geographic_ says 15 billion so I think we're all in the same place on that ... we can hope and move towards a peaceful settlement ... most population decreases comes with calamity; war, drought, Russians ...


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Well ... you'll certainly have time ... and choices ... is not Scotland currently under isostatic rebound or something? ... otherwise what's going to happen in Scotland is a banner for the good this warming will do ... with the assumption what's good for Scotland is good for everybody ...
> 
> A single degree of temperature isn't a disaster ... and then spread out that rise over fifty years ... you got nothing ... use common sense here ...


That's an excellent point.  

To use an analogy to illustrate your point... I was arguing they you don't have a bogeyman in your closet.  You argued and if they do it's a mouse.


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Your trying to politicize science and it’s not working.


I can't believe you didn't implode when you wrote that.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2022)

ding said:


> I can't believe you didn't implode when you wrote that.


Why? I have the facts which support a conclusion.

You don't.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

Another Billy faceplant:

Solar Cycle 25 has been much more active than predicted. There is no 'cooling sun'.






Yes, other deniers have faceplanted with that, but Billy has faceplanted the hardest.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> This was on the front of the Radio Times in 1974. What happened to that theory?


It was bad science spread by global warming deniers. It was never accepted by mainstream science.

Deniers have been sucking with their science for over 40 years now. That's why they're considered to be clowns.

In contrast, the real scientists have been predicting warming since the 1970s. That's why AGW science has such crediblity, because it's always gotten everything right.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> Funny how yiu have no empirical evidence to support that claim.


Yeah, I assume people know the basics. I forget how many are like you.

But as I live to educate, here's a good summary, with gobs of references to papers.









						Explainer: How the rise and fall of CO2 levels influenced the ice ages
					

In this explainer, Carbon Brief explores how the last ice age provides strong evidence of the role CO2 plays as a “control knob” for the Earth’s climate. It also acts as a cautionary tale of how the climate can experience large changes from relatively small outside “forcings”.




					www.carbonbrief.org
				




You won't read it, of course. You're too scared you might learn something.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> You won't read it, of course. You're too scared you might learn something.



Isn’t that short of.......patronising?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> Isn’t that short of.......patronising?



You have no experience with Westwall, obviously. He's not going to pollute the purity of his unsullied cultist mind with anything that TheParty doesn't approve of.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> We'll see ... the technology you're relying on seems to be transportation technology ... growing food in Russia and Ukraine and transporting it to the hungry ... and the hungry aren't eating better, their having more kids ...
> 
> You should look at the demographics yourself ... instead of picking and choosing the demographer that says what you want to hear ... I'm seeing the same numbers as you, but this is really only true for the top half of nations, the ones with electric power and video cameras ... now look at the bottom half, places that doesn't have reliable power and thus no video cameras ...
> 
> ...







No, mainly technology geared towards eliminating waste.  We lose almost 50% just to rotting before it gets anywhere.  That includes transportation, inventory management, and storage.  

I look at all the demographers that publish.  I currently get Demography, the journal of Demographic Economics, and the MPIDR.  All current source material.

Of them all, only the MPIDR has a doom and gloom bent.  Which figure coming from the Max Planck Institute, purveyors of global warming fraud etc.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yeah, I assume people know the basics. I forget how many are like you.
> 
> But as I live to educate, here's a good summary, with gobs of references to papers.
> 
> ...






I have read it, multiple times.  What it doesn't do is show empirically how the "control knob" works.  They have computer models, but they don't jibe up with real world observations.  Color me unsurprised you can't understand the difference between computer derived fiction, and reality.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> I have read it, multiple times.  What it doesn't do is show empirically how the "control knob" works.  They have computer models, but they don't jibe up with real world observations.


Sure it does. You're just lying.

"You're just lying" is pretty much the correct response to anything you say.



westwall said:


> Color me unsurprised you can't understand the difference between computer derived fiction, and reality.


All of the directly observed data confirms the strong warming and the human cause of it. No models required.  The success of the models is just icing on the cake.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Your  (sic) trying to politicize science and it’s not working.



I had to take Osmo off Ignore to read his pap when it was quoted by one of my friends.
Poor Osmo can't even write simple English.  How can anyone expect him to understand
physics, chemistry, logic, and politics all intermingled......

"You're" is the contraction for "You are."  The apostrophe designates the position where a letter was omitted in the contraction.  ("Contraction" is the term for a shortened word.)

As to the politicization of climate change, this:

_“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”  – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009_​
*“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015*​Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 21, 2022)

*Embedded Costs of Going Green*​


It should concern you that all those toxic components in batteries and electric vehicles come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each auto battery like me, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”

Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Shouldn’t we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?

California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Here’s why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- Di selenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. Windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> You have no experience with Westwall, obviously. He's not going to pollute the purity of his unsullied cultist mind with anything that TheParty doesn't approve of.






Squeals the cultist spewing computer derived fiction.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Sure it does. You're just lying.
> 
> "You're just lying" is pretty much the correct response to anything you say.
> 
> ...







No, it doesn't.  What the raw data shows is a very slow drop in overall temps.  Then, your magicians run that raw data through the computer models (a thinking person would ask "why do they run raw data through a computer model?") which, no matter what numbers are plugged in to them, ALWAYS show a warming increase.

So, are you stupid, or are you just lying?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> I had to take Osmo off Ignore to read his pap when it was quoted by one of my friends.
> Poor Osmo can't even write simple English.  How can anyone expect him to understand
> physics, chemistry, logic, and politics all intermingled......
> 
> ...


Again, just a political answer to a scientific fact.

When will facts against human caused AGW be presented to convince any scientific organization to agree and publicly state that it is not happening?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yeah, I assume people know the basics. I forget how many are like you.
> 
> But as I live to educate, here's a good summary, with gobs of references to papers.
> 
> ...



The astronomy is wrong ... we dismiss Precession and Obliquity as having the wrong periods ... and Eccentricity is currently decreasing, meaning our orbit is becoming more circular, reduced seasonal differences ... which are just averaged out over a year anyway ... thus these cycles are meaningless to climatology ... 

This is intentional deception ... to justify a single degree over fifty years ... sad really ...


----------



## Mindful (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material.



That bothered me, when l heard about it.


And also the desecration of the landscape.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 21, 2022)

Mindful said:


> That bothered me, when l heard about it.
> 
> 
> And also the desecration of the landscape.
> ...


*Let's say you give the kids $10 a day for their labors. 
Is that "fair"?  By whose reckoning?  Who's to judge what labor is worth and at what age?
When they start earning "a living wage" as Democrats call any wage they seek, are these conditions then all right?  How much different are their alternatives?  Perhaps not much and earning even less.....*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> thus these cycles are meaningless to climatology ...


You're actually denying milankovitch cycles exist?

Really?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it doesn't.  What the raw data shows is a very slow drop in overall temps.


And again, we use the usual answer.

You're just lying.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, mainly technology geared towards eliminating waste.  We lose almost 50% just to rotting before it gets anywhere.  That includes transportation, inventory management, and storage.
> 
> I look at all the demographers that publish.  I currently get Demography, the journal of Demographic Economics, and the MPIDR.  All current source material.
> 
> Of them all, only the MPIDR has a doom and gloom bent.  Which figure coming from the Max Planck Institute, purveyors of global warming fraud etc.



Well okay, if your current with this ... I'm just extrapolating and I understand that's dangerous ... [blush] ... hyperbole? ...

Yeah ... that's the ticket ... 

I'm exaggerating to drive a point home ... we have much bigger problems at hand than a stupid single degree ... in fifty years ... if we want to avoid what we see in China today (what a mess) ... we need to start delivering diesel generators and getting folks hooked up ... energy for cooking and refrigeration ... that's not a lot of carbon dioxide compared to American A/C usage ... 

Humanitarianism ... that should let me wiggle out of this corner I'm in ... get it ... for the children ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> You're actually denying milankovitch cycles exist?
> 
> Really?



Do you know what Milankovitch Cycles are? ... which of them alter the annual insolation and by how much? ... go ahead a focus on eccentricity, we know this is falling ... how does this effect Earth's input energy? ... first when e = 0.017 and then when e = 0.001 ...

Ready, set, go ...


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Well okay, if your current with this ... I'm just extrapolating and I understand that's dangerous ... [blush] ... hyperbole? ...
> 
> Yeah ... that's the ticket ...
> 
> ...






I stay current with demography, it's a hobby.  What we need to do is stop the bullshit thinking that CO2 is a pollutant.  It isn't.  It also PROVABLY has no impact on global temperature.  However, that doesn't mean we should ignore clean energy production, we just need to be smart about it.  Nuclear is by far the best, most efficient energy source we have available.  We should be building the small nuke plants that will power a neighborhood for 20 years at a stretch.  

The prime problem is the way green enrgy projects are funded is almost entirely from taxpayers and there are zero consequences for failure.  So long as the crappy scientists keep getting bailed out we will never see advancement in that field.


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Why? I have the facts which support a conclusion.
> 
> You don't.


It's hilarious that you can't see that climate has been weaponized as a political tool.  What's even funnier is that you think the other guys are doing it.  

What do you do for a living?


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> I had to take Osmo off Ignore to read his pap when it was quoted by one of my friends.
> Poor Osmo can't even write simple English.  How can anyone expect him to understand
> physics, chemistry, logic, and politics all intermingled......
> 
> ...


He's a buffoon.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Your scientificalness is most depressive.  I mean oppressive.  That is to say uppressive.
> (Did I get that right?)
> 
> Take break from the insanity Democrats have created and have some fun:
> ...


It’s unimpressive, thanks for the lob


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> ... and the truth lies somewhere in between ...


Come on now, the truth is that it’s all bullshit


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> You're actually denying milankovitch cycles exist?
> 
> Really?



I'm going to quit at 20,000 km difference ... I don't have to figure the flux difference to know it is trivial ... oh, add a ± 5,000 km to that figure ... I thought five significant digits was fair ... 

Hey stupid ... the Earth's orbit is only a couple of Earth's diameters from a perfect circle ... and you think this causes hypercanes ... 

So your link starts with a filthy lie ... why should I read any more of it?...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2022)

ding said:


> It's hilarious that you can't see that climate has been weaponized as a political tool.  What's even funnier is that you think the other guys are doing it.
> 
> What do you do for a living?


Human caused AGW is a reality. 

Your denial is political.


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

Hypercane is coming!!


----------



## ding (Jul 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Human caused AGW is a reality.
> 
> Your denial is political.


What do you do for a living?  Why should I listen to you?


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 21, 2022)

ding said:


> Hypercane is coming!!
> View attachment 672976



Hockey Sticks falling from the sky causing double minors ...


----------



## ding (Jul 22, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Human caused AGW is a reality.
> 
> Your denial is political.


The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. _But other scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.










Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.
> 
> Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. _But other scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> ...



Why do you think human deforestation is "natural" in the context of climate? ... graph on upper right ... Theory 2 ... rural includes farmland, a most profoundly unnatural environment ... [giggle] ... why would astrophysicists ignore changing albedo? ... why do rhetorical questions need no answer? ...

I agree with the article's conclusions about using more and different datasets ... it's the purpose of science to evaluate the whole, whereas the purpose of politics is to deceive ... as an analogy, compare the size of the IPCC report to the size of the US tax code ... politics at its best ...

First, we need to figure out what's causing the 125,000 year glacial cycles ... only then can we measure man's contribution ... maybe ... and we're at the bottom limit here for accuracy ... we don't measure temperature for climate study, so we only spend the money for thermometers accurate enough for pilots and farmers ... and nearest whole degree is fine for them ... $10 at Walmart ... fuck climate research, it's woman's work ...


----------



## ding (Jul 22, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Why do you think human deforestation is "natural" in the context of climate? ... graph on upper right ... Theory 2 ... rural includes farmland, a most profoundly unnatural environment ... [giggle] ... why would astrophysicists ignore changing albedo? ... why do rhetorical questions need no answer? ...
> 
> I agree with the article's conclusions about using more and different datasets ... it's the purpose of science to evaluate the whole, whereas the purpose of politics is to deceive ... as an analogy, compare the size of the IPCC report to the size of the US tax code ... politics at its best ...
> 
> First, we need to figure out what's causing the 125,000 year glacial cycles ... only then can we measure man's contribution ... maybe ... and we're at the bottom limit here for accuracy ... we don't measure temperature for climate study, so we only spend the money for thermometers accurate enough for pilots and farmers ... and nearest whole degree is fine for them ... $10 at Walmart ... fuck climate research, it's woman's work ...


I think deforestation and urban heat island effect are affecting the climate, if that helps.  How much?  It's hard to say.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2022)

ding said:


> I think deforestation and urban heat island effect are affecting the climate, if that helps.  How much?  It's hard to say.



It's the carbon dioxide advocates who haven't made their case ...


----------



## ding (Jul 22, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> It's the carbon dioxide advocates who haven't made their case ...


It's because their case is a computer model.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2022)

ding said:


> It's because their case is a computer model.



The model is based on science ... carbon dioxide is well demonstrated to react to IR in the atmosphere ... from this we can build computer simulations, but these simulations take too long so we introduce short-cuts ... still good science if we're clear about the short-cuts ... call it the simple honesty required by reputable science journals ... Moore's Law is still in effect? ... 2.5 exaflop at Oakridge is already obsolete and they haven't even switched it on ... fucking government project ...

Computer simulations produce distribution curves, not discrete answers ... always ask to see that curve before you believe any computer result ...


----------



## ding (Jul 22, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The model is based on science ... carbon dioxide is well demonstrated to react to IR in the atmosphere ... from this we can build computer simulations, but these simulations take too long so we introduce short-cuts ... still good science if we're clear about the short-cuts ... call it the simple honesty required by reputable science journals ... Moore's Law is still in affect? ... 2.5 exaflop at Oakridge is already obsolete and they haven't even switched it on ... fucking government project ...


The problem is in the feedback/climate sensitivity, not the GHG effect itself.  And when they fine tune their model to minimize the effects of natural variations so they can isolate CO2 they in effect create circular logic.  They stack the deck at every turn; they use urban temperature stations and a low variability solar output dataset.  No one is ever going to convince me that the "climate sensitivity" is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect itself.


----------



## ding (Jul 22, 2022)

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool.  They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.  Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous.  The geologic record is littered with examples.  This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago.  Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The problem is in the feedback/climate sensitivity, not the GHG effect itself.  And when they fine tune their model to minimize the effects of natural variations so they can isolate CO2 they in effect create circular logic.  They stack the deck at every turn; they use urban temperature stations and a low variability solar output dataset.  No one is ever going to convince me that the "climate sensitivity" is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect itself.



Sensitivity is assumed to be very large ... but we don't know the value ... seems a simple experiment to shine light on a gas and measure the temperature ...

The IPCC also assumes average cloud cover remains the same ... for the job security ... politics at it's finest ...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 23, 2022)

ding said:


> The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.
> 
> Some scientists have attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. _But other scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> ...


You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.


----------



## ReinyDays (Jul 23, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.



So should you ... the math is easy, double check the figures you're given ... shouldn't hurt ...

Hypercanes, Hockey Sticks, Unicorns and Democrat Unity ... these only come from good acid ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Another Billy faceplant:
> 
> Solar Cycle 25 has been much more active than predicted. There is no 'cooling sun'.
> 
> ...


And once again you have no concept of the internal shift in output.  The count of sunspots causes very little change as the fusion reaction is almost constant.  But a simple cooling of the ongoing reaction changes the output from one the oceans can absorb to one it cannot.   

You fail to understand the problem once again.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The model is based on science ... carbon dioxide is well demonstrated to react to IR in the atmosphere ... from this we can build computer simulations, but these simulations take too long so we introduce short-cuts ... still good science if we're clear about the short-cuts ... call it the simple honesty required by reputable science journals ... Moore's Law is still in effect? ... 2.5 exaflop at Oakridge is already obsolete and they haven't even switched it on ... fucking government project ...
> 
> Computer simulations produce distribution curves, not discrete answers ... always ask to see that curve before you believe any computer result ...


The model fails empirical verification every time..  So, their understanding of the process fails.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Sensitivity is assumed to be very large ... but we don't know the value ... seems a simple experiment to shine light on a gas and measure the temperature ...
> 
> The IPCC also assumes average cloud cover remains the same ... for the job security ... politics at it's finest ...


The Global Warming nut cases assume that the sensitivity number is 3/1 (where 1 is the log of CO2). This assumes that the log value will influence water vapor by a factor of three in warming.  Empirically observed behavior of our atmosphere is 0.5/1 (where the log of expected warming alone by CO2 is diminished by water vapor by >0.5.   This is one of the many reasons GCM's fail without exception.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 3, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> And once again you have no concept of the internal shift in output.


So the guy who said the sun was cooling fast and we're all DOOMED because of it, based largely on the sunspot cycle, now says the sunspot cycle doesn't matter.

I think everyone expected that. End-times cultists have to have their end-times catastrophe.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 3, 2022)

Half a doubling has caused 1.0C of warming.

That puts observed TCS (transient climate sensitivity) around 2.0C/doubling.

ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) has to be bigger than TCS.

Thus, anyone claiming ECS < 2.0C/doubling is a hopelessly deluded cult crank, a person to be laughed at and then ignored, being that they're flat-out denying observed reality.

That's why we correctly call them "deniers". All they can do is rave about their delusions in SafeSpaces on political message boards.


----------



## ding (Aug 3, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Half a doubling has caused 1.0C of warming.
> 
> That puts observed TCS (transient climate sensitivity) around 2.0C/doubling.
> 
> ...


Climate sensitivity is a hoax.  But not to worry.... time will prove it a hoax.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 3, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The model fails empirical verification every time..  So, their understanding of the process fails.



Empirical values are given almost every time, somewhere in the distribution curve ... if we look at the "most likely" results of this distribution curve, we find predictions still within "common sense" ... and, in fact, the IPCC prediction of 2ºC increase in 100 years can be demonstrated by the 1ºC increase these past 50 years ... noting it takes this long for our instruments to be able to record such a small difference ...

The lies come from the extreme edges of these curves ... and greedy software engineers amping up some of the parimeters ... and *presto*, oceans boiling away by mid-century ... just remember there's an equal probability of the exact opposite ... a well-behaved and orderly atmosphere giving us rain in just the right measure and in the right places ... ha ha ... 

And always remember ... an "unprececidented event" is statistically impossible ... zero divided by any non-zero number is zero ... ha ha ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 3, 2022)

mamooth said:


> So the guy who said the sun was cooling fast and we're all DOOMED because of it, based largely on the sunspot cycle, now says the sunspot cycle doesn't matter.
> 
> I think everyone expected that. End-times cultists have to have their end-times catastrophe.


You have no understanding of the cause/effect relationship.  Go back to scratching your cat nip...


----------



## Flash (Aug 3, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


Excellent post!

Climate change is real, man made global warming is bullshit.


----------



## Flash (Aug 3, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


You are confused.

Almost all the "data" on AGW is extracted from fraudulent and cherry picked sources.

At the end of the day all they really have is one silly half ass correlation and a whole bunch of shit in shit out computer simulations that are based upon fraudulent and cherry picked data.

We even have the principle scientists blatantly admitting using fraudulent and cherry picked data and you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats refuse to accept that it is a scam.

If AGW was real then there would be no reason to fake data, which they have been caught doing numerous times.  In addition every once in awhile maybe some of their predictions would come true, which we never see.

It is a scam and only idiots fall for it.

They welcome you to Idiotland Moon Bat.  They have reserved a cabin for you.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 3, 2022)

Flash said:


> Almost all the "data" on AGW is extracted from fraudulent and cherry picked sources.


I understand that your cult told you to believe that, and that you instantly believe whatever your cult tells you to believe, no matter how stupid and reality-defying it is.

You need to understand that your masters can only gaslight fascist cult imbeciles like you. Normal people, OTOH, all know you're just babbling some weird cult religious beliefs.

Think of it this way. If you told us the earth is flat, everyone would classify you as a cult imbecile, regardless of how intense your religious beliefs about it were.

It's the same with climate science. The intensity of your religious beliefs about the matter have no bearing on the issue. You're still a kook, babbling some kook conspiracy theories that your masters told you to repeat.


----------



## Flash (Aug 3, 2022)

mamooth said:


> I understand that your cult told you to believe that, and that you instantly believe whatever your cult tells you to believe, no matter how stupid and reality-defying it is.
> 
> You need to understand that your masters can only gaslight fascist cult imbeciles like you. Normal people, OTOH, all know you're just babbling some weird cult religious beliefs.
> 
> ...


All you have to do Moon Bat, is to read the Climategate emails to understand that it is a blatant scam.  The scientists blatantly admitted they used fraudulent and cherry picked data.  We have found government agencies like NASA and NOAA, along with the  UN Climate Commission, admitting to using false data.

Your refusal to accept reality speaks volumes for the typical Moon Bats stupidity that see from you morons all the time.

You don't know anymore about Climate Science than you know about Economics, History, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 3, 2022)

Flash said:


> All you have to do Moon Bat, is to read the Climategate emails


You mean the incident that proved your heroes were all lying fraudsters?

Hate to break it to you, cult boi, but that is how the world correctly saw it.

We get it already. You instantly fall for whatever propaganda which your masters trickle down your parched and eager throat. Then you run over here and tell us how yummy it was, and how badly you hate anyone who hasn't also guzzled down the cult's golden nectar. At this stage, the only purpose you serve is as an example of how cult devotion leads to self-lobotomizing.


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You should go back and take a long look at the source you copied and pasted from.


What is it that you want me to look for?

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.


----------



## otto105 (Aug 4, 2022)

ding said:


> What is it that you want me to look for?
> 
> The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.


Denier dude, live today. 


I don’t care nor does the current conditions care that once 3 million years ago the planet’s climate was different.

Do you live in that one?


Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.


Just one.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 4, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.



The entirety of NOAA data ... what would you expect to be abnormal conditions? ... 

Weather has been as normal as normal has ever been ... thus average weather, or climate, is also completely normal ... no hurricanes in Antarctica and no summer rains in California ...


----------



## ding (Aug 4, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Denier dude, live today.  I don’t care nor does the current conditions care that once 3 million years ago the planet’s climate was different. Do you live in that one?  Show me anything from a scientific organization which supports your position that our current condition is just normal.





otto105 said:


> Just one.


Ok, here you go.  Here's one. 

_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Ok, here you go.  Here's one.
> 
> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> ...


And the name of the organization is….?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> And the name of the organization is….?


Organizations don't write papers, dummy.  Scientists do.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> And the name of the organization is….?


Now it's my turn.  Show me a paper that justifies the feedback from CO2 being 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2.


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Organizations don't write papers, dummy.  Scientists do.


So, you answer my question with a giant no then.


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Now it's my turn.  Show me a paper that justifies the feedback from CO2 being 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2.


Show me one scientific organization which backs your position that human caused AGW is not happening.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, you answer my question with a giant no then.


Incorrect.  Do you know why the northern hemisphere drives the planet's climate?


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Show me one scientific organization which backs your position that human caused AGW is not happening.


As soon as you can explain to me why the feedback is 2 - 3 times greater than the GHG effect.  But you don't even know what I am talking about, do you?


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ding said:


> Now it's my turn.  Show me a paper that justifies the feedback from CO2 being 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2.


Instead of picking your nose take a shower.

How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse


----------



## Stryder50 (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Instead of picking your nose take a shower.
> 
> How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse


Your linked article/source is a biased, pro-ACC/AGW source. As the saying goes 'has a dog in the fight'.

The situation and math is rather simple.

At @410ppm of CO2 and what is about 1ppm of Methane, the ratio of both to total atmosphere composition, less water vapor, is about 1/2,500.

If we have, say, 2,500 pennies (that's fifty rolls of fifty each) all at 70 degrees F. bunched together in a pile, and we take ONE penny out of the pile and heat it up to 80 degrees F.; then drop it back into the middle of the other 2,499 pennies, it will NOT heat the whole pile to 80 degrees. Not even to one degree more (71).  It will transfer some small amount of heat to a few that are in contact with it, but only a few, barely a degree or two, and that will quickly fade via the low temprature of the rest of the pennies absorbing portions of it as it dissipates.


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Your linked article/source is a biased, pro-ACC/AGW source. As the saying goes 'has a dog in the fight'.
> 
> The situation and math is rather simple.
> 
> ...


Let's take your one penny and attach a small heat pipe to it in an analog to the way the sun is constantly putting in energy that is being absorbed by that "penny" of CO2 and methane.  Guess what?  They all get warmer.


----------



## ding (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Instead of picking your nose take a shower.
> 
> How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse


Thumbnail it for me.


----------



## Stryder50 (Aug 5, 2022)

Crick said:


> Let's take your one penny and attach a small heat pipe to it in an analog to the way the sun is constantly putting in energy that is being absorbed by that "penny" of CO2 and methane.  Guess what?  They all get warmer.


To accurately replicate using your approach, that heat pipe gets attached to the other 2,499 pennies representing Nitrogen and Oxygen as they also receive heat from the Sun at same time.  Which is why they would all heat up.

Typical nonsense~non-science from "Global Warming Liars".


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 5, 2022)

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is trivial and follows temperature changes, it does not lead them.


----------



## Crick (Aug 5, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide is trivial and follows temperature changes, it does not lead them.
> 
> View attachment 678362


Where'd you ever get the gall to suggest you have an engineering degree?

1) That water vapor has a greater greenhouse effect than does CO2 does not mean that CO2 is irrelevant.  Water vapor levels are not changing, CO2 levels are.  The increase in CO2 and methane are the primary cause of the warming experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
2) VERY close to 100% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 is of human origin.  Your statement in red there is absolutely FALSE.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 5, 2022)

Water is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE at capturing heat than is CO2.
This is massively compounded by water's atmospheric concentration, at ~1.5% or 15,000 ppmv
compared to ~410 ppmv for scary carbon dioxide.

This is science, denied categorically by Al Gore and followers.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 5, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> The situation and math is rather simple.


You pooched it pretty hard.



Stryder50 said:


> At @410ppm of CO2 and what is about 1ppm of Methane, the ratio of both to total atmosphere composition, less water vapor, is about 1/2,500.
> 
> If we have, say, 2,500 pennies (that's fifty rolls of fifty each) all at 70 degrees F. bunched together in a pile, and we take ONE penny out of the pile and heat it up to 80 degrees F.; then drop it back into the middle of the other 2,499 pennies, it will NOT heat the whole pile to 80 degrees.


Let's improve your analogy.

Stack those pennies several trillion deep. 

Now heat up one penny in 2500, but ... and here's the important part ... keep that penny heated up forever.

I guarantee, that's going to warm up the pennies a lot. It will take some time, but it's inevitable.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 5, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Water is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE at capturing heat than is CO2.


Like most deniers, you're on the lower half of the IQ curve.

CO2 increases the amount of water vapor in the air.

A third-grader can grasp this, but you can't. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Instead of picking your nose take a shower.
> 
> How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse



This cite is materially wrong ... climate moves towards equilibrium ... ALWAYS ... when an artificial change is made to this equilibrium level, then the climate system  moves towards that new equilibrium ... but never past it ... this artificial change is humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and cutting down of our great forests ...

The opposite of feedback ... 

Climatologists have discarded the "runaway greenhouse effect" ... and this what you're advocating ... "5. Even more warming leads to even more water evaporating, starting the cycle over again. And again. _And again_." ... I'm sorry, once we reach equilibrium, the changes end ... this is energy, and energy follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...  your citation ignores this basic law of nature ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> This cite is materially wrong ... climate moves towards equilibrium ... ALWAYS ... when an artificial change is made to this equilibrium level, then the climate system  moves towards that new equilibrium ... but never past it ... this artificial change is humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and cutting down of our great forests ...
> 
> The opposite of feedback ...
> 
> Climatologists have discarded the "runaway greenhouse effect" ... and this what you're advocating ... "5. Even more warming leads to even more water evaporating, starting the cycle over again. And again. _And again_." ... I'm sorry, once we reach equilibrium, the changes end ... this is energy, and energy follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ...  your citation ignores this basic law of nature ...


Does nature include all our pollution?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> View attachment 678394
> 
> Water is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE at capturing heat than is CO2.
> This is massively compounded by water's atmospheric concentration, at ~1.5% or 15,000 ppmv
> ...



More important to the climate system is water's evaporation ... The Great Lie is that radiative transfer is the all of it ... and that's completely wrong ... only a fool ignores convection ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> More important to the climate system is water's evaporation ... The Great Lie is that radiative transfer is the all of it ... and that's completely wrong ... only a fool ignores convection ...


Can you cite an scientific organization which supports your position in human caused AGW?


You seem so sure of it.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Does nature include all our pollution?



What do you mean? ... rocket debris in decaying heliocentric orbits is pollution ... Earth's biosphere has no effect on the Sun gravity ...

Have you heard of the Urban Heat Island? ... there's no runaway heat catastrophe ... just al the extra temperature due to blacktop roads ... is that the pollution you mean? ... plastic patches in our oceans? ... 

If you violate the laws of nature, just one of them ... you're wrong ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> What do you mean? ... rocket debris in decaying heliocentric orbits is pollution ... Earth's biosphere has no effect on the Sun gravity ...
> 
> Have you heard of the Urban Heat Island? ... there's no runaway heat catastrophe ... just al the extra temperature due to blacktop roads ... is that the pollution you mean? ... plastic patches in our oceans? ...
> 
> If you violate the laws of nature, just one of them ... you're wrong ...


You have never heard of the burning of fossil fuels?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Can you cite an scientific organization which supports your position in human caused AGW?
> You seem so sure of it.



Would you include the publishers of college level text books? ... John Wiley & Sons publishes Halliday/Resnick ... my claims above come from that source ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You have never heard of the burning of fossil fuels?



Yes ... that was the example I gave of human's changing the equilibrium state of the atmosphere ... by adding greenhouse gases ... my point is by adding so much carbon dioxide, temperatures will only go up a little ... and not "runaway" like you advocate ... we need only look back at Earth's history to see this has NEVER happened in the 4.6 billion years ... so it's NOT going to happen in the next 12 ... duh ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Would you include the publishers of college level text books? ... John Wiley & Sons publishes Halliday/Resnick ... my claims above come from that source ...


Is there a scientific organization that you can cite which supports your view or not?


If it’s not, can you explain why.


----------



## otto105 (Aug 5, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Yes ... that was the example I gave of human's changing the equilibrium state of the atmosphere ... by adding greenhouse gases ... my point is by adding so much carbon dioxide, temperatures will only go up a little ... and not "runaway" like you advocate ...


Prove that it’s not happening.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 5, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Is there a scientific organization that you can cite which supports your view or not?
> If it’s not, can you explain why.



Any and all colleges and universities around the world who use Halliday/Resnick's_ Fundamentals of Physics_ textbook for incoming freshmen science students ... all of them support that there are laws that all things must follow ... one of which is that energy moves toward equilibrium ...



otto105 said:


> Prove that it’s not happening.



Global temperatures are down for 2021 ... that's certainly proves the runaway greenhouse effect is not happening ... see, things aren't running away ...

=====

Do you have any formal education in science, any science? ... your questions are completely naive ... it's for you to prove your claim or withdraw it ... or you're a liar ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 6, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Any and all colleges and universities around the world who use Halliday/Resnick's_ Fundamentals of Physics_ textbook for incoming freshmen science students ... all of them support that there are laws that all things must follow ... one of which is that energy moves toward equilibrium ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Down from what?

And still looking for the organization?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2022)

otto105 said:


> And still looking for the organization?



Keep looking ... blind man ... keep looking ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 6, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Keep looking ... blind man ... keep looking ...


Hint: Like any evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, there isn’t anything to present.


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.
> They still get some low info types to buy in but most people still just laugh at them. That's why they have been going after kids with this for the past 2 decades.
> People are getting rich off this grift & now they want to use it to crash the world for a reset
> 
> ...


Wear Depends


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hint: Like any evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, there isn’t anything to present.


Lies upon LIES


----------



## otto105 (Aug 6, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Lies upon LIES


Lack proof upon lack of proof.


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Global temperatures are down for 2021 ... that's certainly proves the runaway greenhouse effect is not happening ... see, things aren't running away ...



Bullshit





Here are monthly comparisons between 2019, 20, 21 and 2022 through Jun. (Monthly average temperature United States 2022 | Statista) Just comparing 2022 to 2021, we can see that January March, April and June were lower than 21 while February and May were higher.  2022 still measures in the top ten warmest of all years since the invention of the thermometer.  So, any claim that temperatures have taken any sort of significant decline - ie, signifying a change in the pattern we've experienced for the last 50 years, is simple, ignorant bullshit, ie, your usual.





I'm not a climate scientist but I think that if you actually want to suggest that the warming trend produced by human GHG emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has ended and the world is beginning to grow cooler, I'd say you need to show a consistent decline of about 1C degree over a period of at least 15-20 years.  Telling us that temperatures have declined this month so AGW is refuted is just more simple, ignorant bullshit.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Aug 6, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Wear Depends


Why? Does that help you? How often does yours fill? Is it embarrassing when you leak in the safe space?
I imagine the odor is horrifying but good for you to at least try.
Do you eat too much bran, klan?
TMI


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> Why? Does that help you? How often does yours fill? Is it embarrassing when you leak in the safe space?
> I imagine the odor is horrifying but good for you to at least try.
> Do you eat too much bran, klan?
> TMI


Post reported


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2022)

Flash said:


> If AGW was real then there would be no reason to fake data, which they have been caught doing numerous times. In addition every once in awhile maybe some of their predictions would come true, which we never see.



Hey, Mike's Nature Trick is perfectly legitimate!!!

DURR


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> Bullshit
> View attachment 678743
> 
> Here are monthly comparisons between 2019, 20, 21 and 2022 through Jun. (Monthly average temperature United States 2022 | Statista) Just comparing 2022 to 2021, we can see that January March, April and June were lower than 21 while February and May were higher.  2022 still measures in the top ten warmest of all years since the invention of the thermometer.  So, any claim that temperatures have taken any sort of significant decline - ie, signifying a change in the pattern we've experienced for the last 50 years, is simple, ignorant bullshit, ie, your usual.
> ...



How are you evidencing a runaway greenhouse effect? ... and where does AGW Theory demand this runaway effect? ...

This is a strawman argument ... I've always agreed the Earth is warming and I've always agreed Man contributes to this effect ... where we disagree is whether catastrophic events will happen because of the warming ... I don't believe in hypercanes, that's your nightmare not mine ...

Otto105 posted a link advocating a runaway greenhouse effect ... evaporating water causes more water to evaporate ... hotter and hotter and hotter without end ... a positive feedback mechanism ... my point was any drop in temperature coupled with increasing CO2 is proof-positive there's no ongoing runaway greenhouse effect ... 

You're right you're not a climate scientist, you haven't even taken a class in meteorology ... if you've taken physics, then you know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics fully discredits otto105's position, or at least the position in the link he's defending ... 

Maybe you haven't taken physics? ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2022)

Crick said:


> Where'd you ever get the gall to suggest you have an engineering degree?
> 
> 1) That water vapor has a greater greenhouse effect than does CO2 does not mean that CO2 is irrelevant.  Water vapor levels are not changing, CO2 levels are.  The increase in CO2 and methane are the primary cause of the warming experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> 2) VERY close to 100% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 is of human origin.  Your statement in red there is absolutely FALSE.



*Water vapor levels are not changing, CO2 levels are.*













						Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Water vapor levels are not changing, CO2 levels are.*
> 
> 
> View attachment 678822
> ...



It takes 2,260 joules of energy to evaporate one gram of water ... it takes 1 joule of energy to heat one gram of air one degree Celsius ... math anyone ... condense one gram of water and we heat one gram of air to 2,257ºC ... melts iron ...

I'm I the only one who's taken chemistry class? ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 6, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Instead of picking your nose take a shower.
> 
> How Feedback Loops Are Making the Climate Crisis Worse


BWHAAAAAAAaaaaaa   The Climate Reality Project..  A far-left wing socialist group that doesn't understand the science...  I love that they are touting failed Global Climate Modeling (GCM) as their "source" of proof..  Not empirical evidence, but a model that fails inside 10 days.    LOL...

   

You have no idea what the climate sensitivity number is or what it represents.

Here is some very basic science that should help you understand what it is and why it is not doing what you think it is doing.









						The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans
					

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.




					mises.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> condense one gram of water and we heat one gram of air to 2,257ºC ... melts iron ...



Neat!

How much iron can I melt with one gram of air?


----------



## otto105 (Aug 6, 2022)

I love it when you knuckle draggers cheer each other like little school girls.

Still quoting lord muckington and some scientists think laughable bullshit.


Why is it that no scientific organization backs your climate denial?


----------



## Crick (Aug 6, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Any and all colleges and universities around the world who use Halliday/Resnick's_ Fundamentals of Physics_ textbook for incoming freshmen science students ... all of them support that there are laws that all things must follow ... one of which is that energy moves toward equilibrium ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


His request that you provide the name of some scientific organization that agrees with your rejection of AGW was completely reasonable and you completely failed to answer it.  And EVERYONE here knows why.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> His request that you provide the name of some scientific organization that agrees with your rejection of AGW was completely reasonable and you completely failed to answer it.  And EVERYONE here knows why.



*I'm afraid both values you've given are incorrect. It takes 2,260 joules to raise one gram of water from 0 to 100C. Water will evaporate at any temperature above 0C (like 0.001C) And it takes 4.186 joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree C. You will not melt iron. Or pass your next exam.*

Are you sure? LOL!


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> His request that you provide the name of some scientific organization that agrees with your rejection of AGW was completely reasonable and you completely failed to answer it.  And EVERYONE here knows why.



John Wiley and Sons Publishing isn't an organization? ... How about Cambridge University Press:

"The Stefan–Boltzmann law is an example of a negative feedback that stabilizes a planet's climate system. If the Earth received more sunlight it would result in a temporary disequilibrium (more energy in than out) and result in warming. However, because the Stefan–Boltzmann response mandates that this hotter planet emits more energy, eventually a new radiation balance can be reached and the temperature will be maintained at its new, higher value" -- Catling/Kasting 2017

Otto105 in a liar ... and so are you ... now you prove the carbon dioxide portion of AGW Theory is true ... and keep burning coal, you know it's not harming the environment ... you just lie about that ...

Idiots ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I'm afraid both values you've given are incorrect. It takes 2,260 joules to raise one gram of water from 0 to 100C. Water will evaporate at any temperature above 0C (like 0.001C) And it takes 4.186 joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree C. You will not melt iron. Or pass your next exam.*
> 
> Are you sure? LOL!



He deleted that claim ... this is liquid water at 100ºC ... the latent heat of evaporation starts here converting water into gas at 100ºC ... we add 2,260 joules and temperature doesn't change ... 

Same thing happens with melting ice except it's only 334 J/g ... and this is called the latent heat of fusion ... look it up if you don't believe me ...

I'm glad you managed to capture *crick*'s mistake ... this demonstrates the enormous amounts of energy involved in these change-of-state processes ... something an atmospheric scientist wouldn't neglect in his calculations ... sad the IPCC doesn't allow for dissenting opinions ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 7, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> John Wiley and Sons Publishing isn't an organization? ... How about Cambridge University Press:
> 
> "The Stefan–Boltzmann law is an example of a negative feedback that stabilizes a planet's climate system. If the Earth received more sunlight it would result in a temporary disequilibrium (more energy in than out) and result in warming. However, because the Stefan–Boltzmann response mandates that this hotter planet emits more energy, eventually a new radiation balance can be reached and the temperature will be maintained at its new, higher value" -- Catling/Kasting 2017
> 
> ...


The only thing that you can offer as a scientific organization is a publishing company? 


Hilariously bad fail.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> How are you evidencing a runaway greenhouse effect? ... and where does AGW Theory demand this runaway effect? ...
> 
> This is a strawman argument ... I've always agreed the Earth is warming and I've always agreed Man contributes to this effect ... where we disagree is whether catastrophic events will happen because of the warming ... I don't believe in hypercanes, that's your nightmare not mine ...
> 
> ...


Maybe I've taken more physics than you have.  I've never used the term "runaway greenhouse effect".  But the greenhouse effect is quite real and the effect, acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming we've witnessed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Since we have not managed to sufficiently reduce those emissions, warming will continue for some time to come.  Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.  

Your comment that any drop in temperature while CO2 is increasing is proof there's no runaway greenhouse effect is simply an ungainly pile of poorly defined terms.  What magnitude of a drop and for what period of time while experiencing what increase in CO2?  And are you suggesting that even in a runaway situation there is no 'noise' to the planet's temperature trends?  Even in the worst imaginable runaway conditions there would be instances in which temperatures would move in the opposite direction.  You look to have a cartoonish understanding of complex systems like the Earth's climate.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> He deleted that claim ... this is liquid water at 100ºC ... the latent heat of evaporation starts here converting water into gas at 100ºC ... we add 2,260 joules and temperature doesn't change ...
> 
> Same thing happens with melting ice except it's only 334 J/g ... and this is called the latent heat of fusion ... look it up if you don't believe me ...
> 
> I'm glad you managed to capture *crick*'s mistake ... this demonstrates the enormous amounts of energy involved in these change-of-state processes ... something an atmospheric scientist wouldn't neglect in his calculations ... sad the IPCC doesn't allow for dissenting opinions ...


I deleted that claim because I very quickly realized my error.  Something I don't see happening a lot on your side of this argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Maybe I've taken more physics than you have.  I've never used the term "runaway greenhouse effect".  But the greenhouse effect is quite real and the effect, acting on human GHG emissions is the primary cause of the warming we've witnessed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Since we have not managed to sufficiently reduce those emissions, warming will continue for some time to come.  Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.
> 
> Your comment that any drop in temperature while CO2 is increasing is proof there's no runaway greenhouse effect is simply an ungainly pile of poorly defined terms.  What magnitude of a drop and for what period of time while experiencing what increase in CO2?  And are you suggesting that even in a runaway situation there is no 'noise' to the planet's temperature trends?  Even in the worst imaginable runaway conditions there would be instances in which temperatures would move in the opposite direction.  You look to have a cartoonish understanding of complex systems like the Earth's climate.



*Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.*

What are all the feedbacks that can be attributed to water vapor?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> I deleted that claim because I very quickly realized my error.  Something I don't see happening a lot on your side of this argument.



Why didn't you correct and repost?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why didn't you correct and repost?


The point I thought I should make was invalid.  It wasn't a math error.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Water vapor does provide a positive feedback mechanism to warming.*
> 
> What are all the feedbacks that can be attributed to water vapor?


I don't understand your question.  This has been spelled out repeatedly.  Increased temperatures lead to increased evaporation and increased atmospheric saturation capacity (more water vapor in the air).  Water vapor makes up a large portion of the climate sensitivity values for CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> I don't understand your question.  This has been spelled out repeatedly.  Increased temperatures lead to increased evaporation and increased atmospheric saturation capacity (more water vapor in the air).  Water vapor makes up a large portion of the climate sensitivity values for CO2.



Is there only one feedback from water vapor?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is there only one feedback from water vapor?


It increases corrosion which decreases albedo, increasing the solar energy absorbed by metals exposed to the sun ; - )

It increases the density of the air and thus the air pressure at the Earth's surface.

It pushes the altitude at which IR backradiation finally escapes to space upward, increasing the heatable volume (planet can hold more energy), increasing the radiating area (cools faster) but decreasing the density of the air where such radiation takes place (cools more slowly).

If you're trying to make a point, just go ahead and make it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> It increases corrosion which decreases albedo, increasing the solar energy absorbed by metals exposed to the sun ; - )
> 
> It increases the density of the air and thus the air pressure at the Earth's surface.
> 
> ...



You forgot clouds?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You forgot clouds?


Tell us about clouds Todd.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Tell us about clouds Todd.


I found this at Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity - Scientific Reports

Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity​
Víctor Mendoza, 
Marni Pazos, 
René Garduño & 
Blanca Mendoza 
_Scientific Reports_ *volume 11*, Article number: 21244 (2021) Cite this article

1798 Accesses
2 Citations
3 Altmetric
Metricsdetails
Abstract​On a global and annual average, we find a parameterization in which the cloud cover increase is proportional to the mid tropospheric temperature increase, with a negative proportionality factor. If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid troposphere, decreases (increases) the cloud cover by 1.5 percentage points (pp). But if the relative humidity is not conserved, then the cloud cover decreases (increases) by 7.6 pp. If the shortwave reflection effect of the cloud cover is dominant on a global scale, this parameterization leads to a predominant positive feedback: if the temperature increases like in the current climate change, the cloud cover decreases and more solar radiation reaches the surface increasing the temperature even more. The contribution of the present work consists in finding that the negative sign of the proportionality factor is due to the Clausius–Clapeyron equation; that is, to the magnitude of the derivative of the saturation vapor pressure at the typical standard surface temperature of 288 K. The negative sign of the factor is independent on the conservation or non-conservation of relative humidity in the troposphere under climate change.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Tell us about clouds Todd.



So you did forget them?
Could they be a negative feedback?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you did forget them?
> Could they be a negative feedback?


They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do.  Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now.  It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do.  Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now.  It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.



*They could be but as we all here know,*

So we can't say that the only feedbacks are positive?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding?  There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding?  There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.


The AR6 SPM and Technical Summary are both now available for download.  I'm pulling down the latter and will see what it might have to say about clouds*.

* Besides: "they're puffy and white and sometimes they look like bunnies and sometimes they look like dragons"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Was there something I said there that you're having trouble understanding?  There is still no firm understanding of the response of clouds to warming and the response of warming to clouds... at least that I know of.







Were you lying in post #223, or are you lying now?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> The AR6 SPM and Technical Summary are both now available for download.  I'm pulling down the latter and will see what it might have to say about clouds*.
> 
> * Besides: "they're puffy and white and sometimes they look like bunnies and sometimes they look like dragons"


From Pg 41: Magnitude of climate system response: In this Report, it has been possible to reduce the long-standing uncertainty ranges for metrics that quantify the response of the climate system to radiative forcing, such as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR), due to substantial advances (e.g.,* a 50% reduction in the uncertainty range of cloud feedbacks*) and improved integration of multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimate information.

Pg 42: Effects of short-lived climate forcers on global warming: The AR5 assessed the radiative forcing for emitted compounds. *The AR6 has extended this by assessing the emissions-based ERFs also accounting for aerosol–cloud interactions*. The best estimates of ERF attributed to sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CH4 emissions are substantially greater than in AR5, while that of black carbon is substantially reduced. The magnitude of uncertainty in the ERF due to black carbon emissions has also been reduced relative to AR5. (Section TS.3.1)

Pg 49: *Some CMIP6 models demonstrate an improvement in how clouds are represented*. CMIP5 models commonly displayed a negative shortwave cloud radiative effect that was too weak in the present climate. These errors have been reduced, especially over the Southern Ocean, due to a more realistic simulation of supercooled liquid droplets with sufficient numbers and an associated increase in the cloud optical depth. Because a negative cloud optical depth feedback in response to surface warming results from ‘brightening’ of clouds via active phase change from ice to liquid cloud particles (increasing their shortwave cloud radiative effect), the extratropical cloud shortwave feedback in CMIP6 models tends to be less negative, leading to a better agreement with observational estimates (medium confidence). CMIP6 models generally represent more processes that drive aerosol–cloud interactions than the previous generation of climate models, but there is only medium confidence that those enhancements improve their fitness-for-purpose of simulating radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions. {6.4, 7.4.2, FAQ 7.2}

Pg 49:  Two important quantities used to estimate how the climate system responds to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR16). The CMIP6 ensemble has broader ranges of ECS and TCR values than CMIP5 (see Section TS.3.2 for the assessed range). *These higher sensitivity values can, in some models, be traced to changes in extratropical cloud feedbacks (medium confidence).* To combine evidence from CMIP6 models and independent assessments of ECS and TCR, various emulators are used throughout the report. Emulators are a broad class of simple climate models or statistical methods that reproduce the behaviour of complex ESMs to represent key characteristics of the climate system, such as global surface temperature and sea level projections. The main application of emulators in AR6 is to extrapolate insights from ESMs and observational constraints to produce projections from a larger set of emissions scenarios, which is achieved due to their computational efficiency. These emulated projections are also used for scenario classification in WGIII. {Box 4.1, 4.3.4, 7.4.2, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 7.1, FAQ 7.2}

That's enough for this purpose.  Certainly clouds are addressed in AR6 and mainstream science's knowledge of how clouds figure into all this is certainly improving.  One thing I always find when I go to the the assessment reports is how far beyond the typical USMB conversation are the work of actual scientists.  These excerpts are from introductory texts in a technical summary.  This is about the simplest level of material you'll find in The Physical Science Basis outside the summary for policymakers but we both know that most posters here can't follow one word in ten from those documents.  Why do you listen to those people Todd?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 679119
> Were you lying in post #223, or are you lying now?


Fuck you Todd.  I don't lie.  The statement quite intentionally lacks the word "net" or "sum", doesn't it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2022)

Crick said:


> Fuck you Todd.  I don't lie.  The statement quite intentionally lacks the word "net" or "sum", doesn't it.



_Water vapor does provide a *[NET]* positive feedback mechanism to warming. _

Because the word NET wasn't in your statement, it was true?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> Fear of minorities.  Fear of immigrants.  Fear of gays and lesbians.  Ignorance about global warming, the climate, pollution, the environment, ecology and the scientific method.  Liberals hate America, socialism is the same as communism, blacks are lazy and tend to criminality, immigrants commit violent crimes out of proportion to their numbers and Biden and the Democratic party stole the 2020 presidential election through voter fraud.
> 
> Talk about some fucking projection.


yep, you do it well.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Why do you think the oceans are cooling?


why do you think they're not?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *If it's hot, "climate change."*
> *If it's cold, "climate change."
> Too much rain, "climate change."*
> *Rampant stupidity, "climate change."
> ...





Crick said:


> You claim to be an engineer yet you would ask a question as stupid as this?


where is a question in Chem's post?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

dudmuck said:


> https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/death-toll-from-brutal-heat-wave-tops-1000-in-spain-and-portugal/1218084
> 
> 
> 
> the pro-lifers keep the killing going.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Check it out. This one actually denies that the oceans are absorbing CO2.
> 
> This is why they call them deniers, because they just deny observed reality. They don't care if it makes them look insane. TheParty ordered them to do it, so they obey.


so, are you saying warm oceans don't release CO2? hahahaahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Redfish (Aug 8, 2022)

OK AGW advocates:  is florida under water as algore promised?  is Manhattan under water as algore promised,  is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised?   Duh, no.  he lied and you fools believed the lies.   You idiots made him rich.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> Let's take your one penny and attach a small heat pipe to it in an analog to the way the sun is constantly putting in energy that is being absorbed by that "penny" of CO2 and methane.  Guess what?  They all get warmer.


so show the experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Prove that it’s not happening.


prove it is.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You have never heard of the burning of fossil fuels?


how about volcanoes?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Consensus in history
> 
> We have consensus that the Earth is a flat plane suspended in space on the backs of turtles!


I thought it was yaks?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> The only thing that you can offer as a scientific organization is a publishing company?
> 
> 
> Hilariously bad fail.


how do you supposed they get their material?  you think the IPCC is a science organization?  hahahhahahahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> From Pg 41: Magnitude of climate system response: In this Report, it has been possible to reduce the long-standing uncertainty ranges for metrics that quantify the response of the climate system to radiative forcing, such as the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and the transient climate response (TCR), due to substantial advances (e.g.,* a 50% reduction in the uncertainty range of cloud feedbacks*) and improved integration of multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimate information.
> 
> Pg 42: Effects of short-lived climate forcers on global warming: The AR5 assessed the radiative forcing for emitted compounds. *The AR6 has extended this by assessing the emissions-based ERFs also accounting for aerosol–cloud interactions*. The best estimates of ERF attributed to sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CH4 emissions are substantially greater than in AR5, while that of black carbon is substantially reduced. The magnitude of uncertainty in the ERF due to black carbon emissions has also been reduced relative to AR5. (Section TS.3.1)
> 
> ...


still no empirical data huh?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 8, 2022)

Redfish said:


> OK AGW advocates:  is florida under water as algore promised?  is Manhattan under water as algore promised,  is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised?   Duh, no.  he lied and you fools believed the lies.   You idiots made him rich.



Obama and his husband purchased an oceanfront mansion on Martha's Vineyard years after the pathological liar said "Climate change is the greatest threat America is facing.  Our oceans are rising."

Construction is going on in the Maldives at a furious pace to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. It's NOT going underwater.

*Fear and ignorance are cornerstones of Democrats/environmentalists/Leftists/AlGorians.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

Crick said:


> They could be but as we all here know, clouds are a very complicated question and all the king's horses and all the king's men and all the climate scientists on the planet haven't quite figured out what they do.  Now, one thing THAT tells me is that they very likely do NOT have a large effect in either direction, else the data would have shown it by now.  It certainly doesn't LOOK like the rate of warming is slowing and if warming is increasing cloud cover it should have been doing that since the turn of the last century at least.


thought you had consensus? How can you know anything if you admittedly have missing data?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> why do you think they're not?



Because we measure a tiny increase in average air temperature ... that can't happen unless there's an equal increase in the oceans ... equilibrium ... we haven't been measuring ocean temperature, so no one knows for sure ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Because we measure a tiny increase in average air temperature ... that can't happen unless there's an equal increase in the oceans ... equilibrium ... we haven't been measuring ocean temperature, so no one knows for sure ...


But we measure air temperatures over water!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> still no empirical data huh?


Its all-failed modeling all of the time with Crick...  He will not believe real empirical evidence right in front of his eyes. Crick relies on fantasies that have no basis in reality.


----------



## dudmuck (Aug 8, 2022)

Redfish said:


> OK AGW advocates:  is florida under water as algore promised?  is Manhattan under water as algore promised,  is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised?   Duh, no.  he lied and you fools believed the lies.   You idiots made him rich.







is the beach getting smaller?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> But we measure air temperatures over water!



Yea ... so? ... our ten thousand year or ten million year averages will begin to approach equality ... and remember, the water heats the air, including latent heat ... if the surface was 100% reflective, air temperature would be ... er ... oops ... the atmosphere is floating on the ocean now ... it liquified ... 50 K is all the energy it contains ...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> so, are you saying warm oceans don't release CO2? hahahaahahahahahahahaha


Not if the atmospheric CO2 levels outside are increasing quicker, on a percentage basis, than the ocean temperature is. Since that is what's happening, the oceans are absorbing CO2.

You faceplant at the most basic things every time. All the deniers here are hopeless dumbasses. They need to stop bothering the grownups and stay at the kiddie table.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2022)

Redfish said:


> OK AGW advocates:  is florida under water as algore promised?  is Manhattan under water as algore promised,  is all of the polar ice gone as algore promised?   Duh, no.  he lied and you fools believed the lies.   You idiots made him rich.


Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the thread for their own side.

Those who can talk about the science, do. Those imbeciles who can't, they talk about politicians.

Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our USMB home game.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> we haven't been measuring ocean temperature,


Actually, we have. In great detail. For many years.

The oceans have been warming strongly and steadily.

That fact destroys the denier "The current atmospheric warming comes from heat hiding out in the oceans, heat that came from the previous warm sun era!" conspiracy theory. If that theory was true, ocean heat would now be decreasing, or at least the rate of increase would be steadily decreasing. Since that's not happening, that theory is proven to be wrong.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Actually, we have. In great detail. For many years.
> 
> The oceans have been warming strongly and steadily.
> 
> That fact destroys the denier "The current atmospheric warming comes from heat hiding out in the oceans, heat that came from the previous warm sun era!" conspiracy theory. If that theory was true, ocean heat would now be decreasing, or at least the rate of increase would be steadily decreasing. Since that's not happening, that theory is proven to be wrong.



Sea surface temperatures can be measured from space ... but going down and measuring these parameters through the entire water column isn't all that common, and what data we do have is from the recent past ...

Today, that's different ... and every day we're dropping more equipment and instruments into the seas ... and we're gathering the data we need to evaluate this ...

The oceans can't warm "strongly" as you suggest unless the atmosphere is warming "strongly" ... we're at a degree every fifty years ... that's not noticeable ... who cares if today is 0.02ºC warmer than last year? ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Not if the atmospheric CO2 levels outside are increasing quicker, on a percentage basis, than the ocean temperature is. Since that is what's happening, the oceans are absorbing CO2.
> 
> You faceplant at the most basic things every time. All the deniers here are hopeless dumbasses. They need to stop bothering the grownups and stay at the kiddie table.


Hahaha hahaha hahaha


----------



## otto105 (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> how do you supposed they get their material?  you think the IPCC is a science organization?  hahahhahahahahahahahaha



Yes, and yes they are.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Yes, and yes they are.


There you go, you don’t even know they have no scientific expertise.


----------



## otto105 (Aug 8, 2022)

jc456 said:


> There you go, you don’t even know they have no scientific expertise.


Sorry, not playing the bullshit game.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Sorry, not playing the bullshit game.



The IPCC is a unit of the United Nations .. their report is specificaly targetting policy makers ... _i.e._ politicians ... they use science, but they do not advance science ... like using science to bild a sewage treatment plant ... it's still just a sewage treatment plant, not science ...


----------



## otto105 (Aug 8, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The IPCC is a unit of the United Nations .. their report is specificaly targetting policy makers ... _i.e._ politicians ... they use science, but they do not advance science ... like using science to bild a sewage treatment plant ... it's still just a sewage treatment plant, not science ...


*The IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision-makers because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature*. Participation in the IPCC is open to all member countries of the WMO and United Nations. It currently has 195 members.


----------



## ding (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> *The IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision-makers because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature*. Participation in the IPCC is open to all member countries of the WMO and United Nations. It currently has 195 members.


That's so funny that you believe that.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 8, 2022)

otto105 said:


> *The IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision-makers because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature*. Participation in the IPCC is open to all member countries of the WMO and United Nations. It currently has 195 members.



Then where do they publish conflicting views? ... Chris Landsea of the NHC was kicked off the commission because of his statements ... it's not balanced if a world renowned expert in hurricanes is silenced ... 

They use science ... but they are a political body ...


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

dudmuck said:


> is the beach getting smaller?


what liar made that chart?   and where and how were the measurements taken?   I could make a chart showing the trend line going down and it would be as valid as this one.   

If it is supposed to be a california beach, then did they consider continental rise on the west coast and decline on the east coast?   The north american continent has been tilting slightly for hundreds of years with the west coast rising and the east falling.   


So tell us where the water is coming from to rise the sea level.  The arctic and antarctic ice has grown not gone away so where did the water your chart maker shows come from?

AGW is junk science designed to indoctrinate mental midgits like you.


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first forfeits the thread for their own side.
> 
> Those who can talk about the science, do. Those imbeciles who can't, they talk about politicians.
> 
> Thanks for playing, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including our USMB home game.


Gore was your spokesperson, now that he is a proven liar you want to dump him.   Typical braindead libtardian move


----------



## mamooth (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> Gore was your spokesperson,


Yet you're the only one who talks about him.

You must have a major mancrush on his pudgy bod.


----------



## ding (Aug 9, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yet you're the only one who talks about him.
> 
> You must have a major mancrush on his pudgy bod.


It's a hoax of Emperor's Clothes proportions.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> what liar made that chart?   and where and how were the measurements taken?   I could make a chart showing the trend line going down and it would be as valid as this one.
> 
> If it is supposed to be a california beach, then did they consider continental rise on the west coast and decline on the east coast?   The north american continent has been tilting slightly for hundreds of years with the west coast rising and the east falling.
> 
> ...



Indeed ... just the kind of chart we'd expect in a thread about liars ... Church, White 2011 gives 3mm per year using both tidal gauge and satellite altimeter data ... or an inch per decade ... 

The better question is who posted it and why didn't they check? ...


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> Gore was your spokesperson, now that he is a proven liar you want to dump him.   Typical braindead libtardian move


HAHAHAHAHahahahaaaa... what a morooooooon....


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2022)

ding said:


> That's so funny that you believe that.


That's so stupid that you don't


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Sea surface temperatures can be measured from space ... but going down and measuring these parameters through the entire water column isn't all that common, and what data we do have is from the recent past ...
> 
> Today, that's different ... and every day we're dropping more equipment and instruments into the seas ... and we're gathering the data we need to evaluate this ...
> 
> The oceans can't warm "strongly" as you suggest unless the atmosphere is warming "strongly" ... we're at a degree every fifty years ... that's not noticeable ... who cares if today is 0.02ºC warmer than last year? ...


Because a degree in 50 years over the whole planet means something you're lipidinous blob of grey bias doesn't seem to fathom. And, of course, the rate of increase is accelerating.


----------



## ding (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> That's so stupid that you don't


There has been nothing in the name of science that has been more politicized than AGW. You can know who the guilty party is by the policies they try to implement by lying they have consensus to do so.  There is no consensus.  It's being hotly contested.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 9, 2022)

ding said:


> That's so funny that you believe that.





Crick said:


> That's so stupid that you don't



Science isn't about belief, it's about understanding ... religion is about belief ... or are you admitting the IPCC is based on dogma? ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because a degree in 50 years over the whole planet means something you're lipidinous blob of grey bias doesn't seem to fathom. And, of course, the rate of increase is accelerating.



What does 1ºC in 50 years mean? ... point to any place on Earth and show me how this 1ºC has changed climate ... last time I asked, you were unable to answer ... I'm repeating what the climatologists interviewed on NPR say, "It's too soon to tell" ... when asked about smoking guns, they say none yet ... or do you think NPR is a shrill for Big Oil? ...

The science predicts the rate of increase is decelerating ... temperature has a logarithmic relationship with carbon dioxide concentration and the IPCC confirms this ... ∆T=5.35 W/m^2 _k_ ln CF/CO ... see the little "ln" there, that stands for natural logarithm ... and this fact is borne out of the climate model consensus ... with forcing going from 1.8 W/m^2 to 4.5 W/m^2, we'll see temperature rise almost stop at 100 years, virtually no increase in the 100 to 300 years time frame ...

Do you just ignore what the IPCC is saying? ... AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 ...


----------



## ding (Aug 9, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Science isn't about belief, it's about understanding ... religion is about belief ... or are you admitting the IPCC is based on dogma? ...


It's totally taken on a religious dogma and cult.


----------



## ding (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because a degree in 50 years over the whole planet means something you're lipidinous blob of grey bias doesn't seem to fathom. And, of course, the rate of increase is accelerating.


Actually it doesn't.  The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't cause by CO2 or orbital forcing.  

And clearly you do not understand the concept of acceleration.  Even after we have explained it to you.


----------



## dudmuck (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> what liar made that chart?   and where and how were the measurements taken?   I could make a chart showing the trend line going down and it would be as valid as this one.
> 
> If it is supposed to be a california beach, then did they consider continental rise on the west coast and decline on the east coast?   The north american continent has been tilting slightly for hundreds of years with the west coast rising and the east falling.
> 
> ...











						Florida's Sea Level Is Rising
					

Sea levels around Florida have risen up to 8 inches since 1950, and are now rising as much as 1 inch every 3 years, mainly due to a slowing Gulf Stream. Because of sea level rise, tidal flooding in some areas of the state has increased by 352% since 2000, and communities are spending over $4...




					sealevelrise.org


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yet you're the only one who talks about him.
> 
> You must have a major mancrush on his pudgy bod.


yeah, he was shut down, but too late.  The noise is out.  You can't bring back the noise he delivered.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> That's so stupid that you don't


Why?

Name a prediction they published that's come true?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 9, 2022)

*“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015*​Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD


*May 2022  “Unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are ALWAYS wrong.”  – Stuart Kirk, HSBC Bank Head of Responsible Investing, quoted in Wall Street Journal, May 24*

HSBC cowards quickly condemned his remarks, which Wall Street Journal characterized as “a profile in pusillanimity.” (lacking courage and resolution *: *marked by contemptible timidity)



_“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”  – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009_​


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Yet you're the only one who talks about him.
> 
> You must have a major mancrush on his pudgy bod.


nope, but he was the prophet of the left for many years, now you want to dump him.  hypocrite


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> HAHAHAHAHahahahaaaa... what a morooooooon....


yes he was and is


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

dudmuck said:


> Florida's Sea Level Is Rising
> 
> 
> Sea levels around Florida have risen up to 8 inches since 1950, and are now rising as much as 1 inch every 3 years, mainly due to a slowing Gulf Stream. Because of sea level rise, tidal flooding in some areas of the state has increased by 352% since 2000, and communities are spending over $4...
> ...


That is a lie.  we have been going to the same florida beach for over 40 years and the water level is right where it was way back then.   

But if you still support the lie, where did the water come from?   the polar ice is greater now than it was 40 years ago so where did the water come from that is rising the oceans?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> That is a lie.  we have been going to the same florida beach for over 40 years and the water level is right where it was way back then.
> 
> But if you still support the lie, where did the water come from?   the polar ice is greater now than it was 40 years ago so where did the water come from that is rising the oceans?


that fk doesn't know the moon raises sea level.  It's hilarious how stupid a demofk really is.


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because a degree in 50 years over the whole planet means something you're lipidinous blob of grey bias doesn't seem to fathom. And, of course, the rate of increase is accelerating.


so what caused the ice age when no humans existed?   and the warming period that followed it with no humans on earth?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> so what caused the ice age when no humans existed?   and the warming period that followed it with no humans on earth?


I'm still trying to get him to tell us how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.  

I also would like to know why the temperatures don't stay the same for more than one week drop and then go back up.  crickets.


----------



## Redfish (Aug 9, 2022)

Crick said:


> Because a degree in 50 years over the whole planet means something you're lipidinous blob of grey bias doesn't seem to fathom. And, of course, the rate of increase is accelerating.


so where did they stick the thermometer?   Was it a forest 50 years ago and a parking lot today?   Do ya think that might account for a temp difference?   its a hoax.  a proven hoax, designed to turn you into a sheep and take your money "for the common good"  you fricken moron.


----------



## Crick (Aug 9, 2022)

Redfish said:


> so where did they stick the thermometer?   Was it a forest 50 years ago and a parking lot today?   Do ya think that might account for a temp difference?   its a hoax.  a proven hoax, designed to turn you into a sheep and take your money "for the common good"  you fricken moron.


You think the warming of the planet is a hoax?  You believe the planet is not warming?  Have I got that right?


----------



## Redfish (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> You think the warming of the planet is a hoax?  You believe the planet is not warming?  Have I got that right?


the climate is changing,  it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing millions of years after the last human is gone.  WE are not causing it, cannot stop it, cannot slow it or speed it up.  WE are gnats on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth.  That is what you AGW idiots refuse to understand.  Its not US, its the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and changing ocean and air currents.  Its natural, not man made.  Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

Redfish said:


> the climate is changing,  it has been changing for hundreds of millions of years and will be changing millions of years after the last human is gone.  WE are not causing it, cannot stop it, cannot slow it or speed it up.  WE are gnats on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth.  That is what you AGW idiots refuse to understand.  Its not US, its the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and changing ocean and air currents.  Its natural, not man made.  Wake the fuck up.



I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere.  That isn't the question.  You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have.  You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it).  You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C.  That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm.  It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions.  So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%.  Additionally, water provides a positive feedback.  As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming.  So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have.  The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years.  The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions.  That is very well accepted science.  It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate.  You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs.  I have to ask YOU to wake up.







Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA


----------



## Redfish (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere.  That isn't the question.  You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have.  You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it).  You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C.  That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm.  It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions.  So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%.  Additionally, water provides a positive feedback.  As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming.  So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have.  The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years.  The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions.  That is very well accepted science.  It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate.  You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs.  I have to ask YOU to wake up.
> 
> View attachment 680172
> View attachment 680174
> Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA


anyone can make a chart that tells whatever story the person paying for the chart wants.   We humans are polluting the planet and have been for hundreds of years.   What you cannot grasp is that there is no proven solid link between pollution and climate.   I will never understand why you on the left refuse to address the real problem of pollution and focus on a bogus AGW agenda that accomplishes nothing but I guess the real goal has nothin to do with climate or pollution, but is really about controlling the activities of every person on earth.   What is it about freedom that bothers you libs so much?


----------



## Redfish (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere.  That isn't the question.  You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have.  You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it).  You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C.  That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm.  It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions.  So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%.  Additionally, water provides a positive feedback.  As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming.  So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have.  The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years.  The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions.  That is very well accepted science.  It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate.  You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs.  I have to ask YOU to wake up.
> 
> View attachment 680172
> View attachment 680174
> Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA


The climate probably is changing, but we are not causing it. and we cannot stop, reverse, or delay it.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere.  That isn't the question.  You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have.  You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it).  You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C.  That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm.  It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions.  So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%.  Additionally, water provides a positive feedback.  As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming.  So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have.  The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years.  The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions.  That is very well accepted science.  It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate.  You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs.  I have to ask YOU to wake up.
> 
> View attachment 680172
> View attachment 680174
> Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA



Very painful to read ... you're so close but just stubbornly cling to a few false ideas ...

*... water provides a positive feedback ... *

This is a runaway greenhouse effect, something you denouced earlier in this thread ... so which is it? ... you're saying water vapor will keep increasing just because water vapor is increasing ... hold an electric guitar next to the speaker and pluck the A-string ... hopefully the fuse will blow before you set the amp on fire ... if you ignore latent heat, you're wrong, don't be stubborn about this ...

People with PhD's don't violate Kepler's Laws ... you do ... how does axial tilt effect Earth's area in cross-section? ...


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

Water does provide a positive feedback.  It also provides negative feedbacks.  That does NOT equate to a runaway effect.  Are you suggesting that water does NOT provide a positive feedback?  I included axial tilt in that list because Redfish listed it as one of the causes  he believe is causing the observed warming.  I have to go to the store so keep Redfish entertained while I'm gone.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Science isn't about belief, it's about understanding ... religion is about belief ... or are you admitting the IPCC is based on dogma? ...


I bet you believe yourself clever and witty for that.

And I believe the Earth's axial tilt is responsible for our seasons - annual variations in our climate.


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

Redfish said:


> anyone can make a chart that tells whatever story the person paying for the chart wants.



This tells me you are stupid.



Redfish said:


> We humans are polluting the planet and have been for hundreds of years.



Wow, you got something right.



Redfish said:


> What you cannot grasp is that there is no proven solid link between pollution and climate.



You haven't the faintest idea what I can and cannot grasp.  The problem here is not pollution, per se, but greenhouse gas emissions.  Pollution fucks the planet in a thousand different ways but the discussion here is about the global warming being caused primarily by human emissions of CO2 as well as methane, nitrous oxide and polychlorofluorocarbons.  That they cause warm the planet through the greenhouse effect is an established fact.  If not, the planet would have an average temperature of -23C (-9.4F).



Redfish said:


> I will never understand why you on the left refuse to address the real problem of pollution



I hate to tell you but you will find a GREAT deal more concern about pollution among those of the left than among those on the right.  And, of course, you have created the logical flaw of the false dilemma here.  It is entirely possible to be concerned and take action both against pollution AND AGW.  We are not forced to address only one or the other.  We can do both.



Redfish said:


> and focus on a bogus AGW agenda that accomplishes nothing



That AGW agenda is eliminating the ICE powered automobile.  That AGW agenda has converted a significant and growing portion of our electricity production to wind and solar sources.  What's been done is not enough, but it is most certainly not "nothing"



Redfish said:


> but I guess the real goal has nothin to do with climate or pollution, but is really about controlling the activities of every person on earth.   What is it about freedom that bothers you libs so much?


Do you object to laws that prevent you from murdering that annoying neighbor down the street?  Do you object to laws that prevent your daughter's date from taking her out in the woods and raping her?  Do you object to laws that prevent manufacturers from selling you devices that will predictably fail and endanger the lives of you and your family?  We already live in a society that uses laws and regulations to attempt to protect us from dangerous behavior.  Those laws have changed and developed in countless ways as our knowledge of what is and is not unreasonably dangerous has grown.  That we should attempt to codify reductions in GHG emissions as we discover the avoidable harm they are doing to us is no more a tyrranical attempt to control your behavior than the library of laws under which you've lived without complaint your entire life.

Do you actually have ANYTHING in the way of scientific evidence that would support your contention that human actions are too inconsequential to affect global climate?  I'll wait.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> Water does provide a positive feedback.  It also provides negative feedbacks.  That does NOT equate to a runaway effect.  Are you suggesting that water does NOT provide a positive feedback?  I included axial tilt in that list because Redfish listed it as one of the causes  he believe is causing the observed warming.  I have to go to the store so keep Redfish entertained while I'm gone.



Evaporation lowers temperature ... and that's taken into consideration when predicting the new equilibrium ... how are you accounting for latent heat in your claim temperatures keep going up? ... 2,200 J/g to evaporate water ...


----------



## Crick (Aug 10, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Evaporation lowers temperature ... and that's taken into consideration when predicting the new equilibrium ... how are you accounting for latent heat in your claim temperatures keep going up? ... 2,200 J/g to evaporate water ...


My *claim* that temperatures keep going up?  Why would I need to claim that?  Are you disputing it?


----------



## ding (Aug 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> My *claim* that temperatures keep going up?  Why would I need to claim that?  Are you disputing it?


What do you think it will be in 15 years?


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> This tells me you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why Most Published Research Findings Are False​

 John P. A. Ioannidis









						Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
					

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.




					journals.plos.org


----------



## Likkmee (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


I midd the old days. The dust bowl was a blast !








						July 2022 was third hottest on record for the U.S.
					

Parts of the nation saw historic flooding and intensifying drought




					www.noaa.gov


----------



## Likkmee (Aug 11, 2022)

ding said:


> What do you think it will be in 15 years?


I'll be skinny !








						How Much Do The Bones In Your Body Weigh? | Calculate This!
					

This little calculator will help you determine how much the bones in your body weigh based on a percentage of your weight in pounds. The human skeleton represents approximately 14% of the average hum




					calculate-this.com


----------



## Redfish (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> This tells me you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am just going to address one of your ignorant comments:   "elimating the ICE powered automobile".   Do you understand that EVs have to be recharged and that it takes a significant electrical current to do that?  Do you also understand that there is not enough wind, solar, hydro power generation capacity to recharge even the EVs that are on the road today.   The vase majority of recharges are done from fossil fuel generation plants.   California has banned recharging at night because the grid cannot handle it.   Then there is the cost of an EV.  the original purchase price is just the start, 70K or so, then after about 2 years the battery has to be replaced for 10-15K and you have not even finished paying off the original purchase.   and the recharges============are they free?   The cost per mile of an EV is worse than a large pickup pulling a trailer.    EVs are not the answer, and you don't even understand the question.    The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.


----------



## Redfish (Aug 11, 2022)

ding said:


> What do you think it will be in 15 years?


run, run, we are all going to boil


----------



## Redfish (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> My *claim* that temperatures keep going up?  Why would I need to claim that?  Are you disputing it?


the temp of planet earth has cycled up and down for millions of years, the idea that we humans can stop it is extreme ignorance, the idea that we are causing it is even more stupid.


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 11, 2022)

Redfish said:


> The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.


I'm not so sure about that.  I think he is not indocrinated, I think he is being purposefully deceptive.  No point in arguing with Crick, he doesn't debate from a place of honesty.

I have been watching him, I'm pretty sure he is a professional propagandist.  This is probably not the only forum/discussion board/this corporate spy/intel agent, etc. does this on.

I would bet there is an account for this guy on FB, as well as on multiple discussion boards that lean right, libertarian, who care more about their liberties, then giving over control of resources to unelected global elites.

I completely destroyed his arguments, but?  I did it FROM THE LEFT, and now?  He is ignoring me.  All you have to do, is expose him as the hypocrite that he is.

He doesn't give a shit about the, "planet," only about the power and money of those he is working for. . .

This is a documentary by a VERY, VERY, left wing documentary film maker, he would never acknowledge any of these facts.  The _real_ left know is he full of shit as well as you do. 

He is a paid agent of oligarchs and global interlocking interests, he has been told all of this stuff.

He is a shady actor, so even if he DOES believe this garbage?  He isn't acting in good faith, by pushing the global government garbage, or supporting the UN, or all the other global elites. .  all of it is a scam, and I have proved it to him.

Beware Industry-Backed 'Nature-Based Solutions' Scam, Warns Global Climate Coalition​"What corporations and big conservation groups call 'nature-based solutions' is a dangerous distraction."








						Beware Industry-Backed 'Nature-Based Solutions' Scam, Warns Global Climate Coalition
					

"What corporations and big conservation groups call 'nature-based solutions' is a dangerous distraction."




					www.commondreams.org
				





Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs​


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2022)

Redfish said:


> I am just going to address one of your ignorant comments:   "elimating the ICE powered automobile".   Do you understand that EVs have to be recharged and that it takes a significant electrical current to do that?  Do you also understand that there is not enough wind, solar, hydro power generation capacity to recharge even the EVs that are on the road today.   The vase majority of recharges are done from fossil fuel generation plants.   California has banned recharging at night because the grid cannot handle it.   Then there is the cost of an EV.  the original purchase price is just the start, 70K or so, then after about 2 years the battery has to be replaced for 10-15K and you have not even finished paying off the original purchase.   and the recharges============are they free?   The cost per mile of an EV is worse than a large pickup pulling a trailer.    EVs are not the answer, and you don't even understand the question.    The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.


Hello Mr Fish,

I AM aware that EV's have to be recharged.  The 4-year old next door is aware of it.

Let's just check that next claim.  The US's total electrical capacity as of the end of 2021 was 1.14 billion kW.  27% of that, or 307.8 million kW  was from renewable sources.  The US has 607,600 EVs.  A typical EV requires less than 7.2 kW to charge.  So, charging every single EV in the US, SIMULTANEOUSLY, would require 4,374,720 kW or 1.4% of the renewable capacity of the US electrical system.  So, your claim is BIGLY incorrect.

The majority of charging will be done with fossil fuel because fossil fuel still provide the majority of US electricity.  No one has ever claimed otherwise.  However, the proportion being generated from renewable sources is still growing at a tremendous pace, both here and abroad.  

Yes, EVs are expensive, replacing their batteries is expensive and some recharging has to be paid for.

However, let's get back to what you CLAIMED you were doing with this post: addressing my statement that the agenda of folks on my side of this argument were "eliminating the ICE powered automobile".  Your points here fail to address that at all.  What will cover that is the fact that Ford, General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC), Stellantis (Fiat-Chrysler), Volkswagen, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and others have all stated that they will stop producing ICE powered vehicles within the next decade or so.  ICE-powered vehicle sales peaked in 2017 and have been in permanent decline ever since.  I don't think anything else needs to be said


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> However, let's get back to what you CLAIMED you were doing with this post: addressing my statement that the agenda of folks on my side of this argument were "eliminating the ICE powered automobile". Your points here fail to address that at all. What will cover that is the fact that Ford, General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC), Stellantis (Fiat-Chrysler), Volkswagen, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and others have all stated that they will stop producing ICE powered vehicles within the next decade or so. ICE-powered vehicle sales peaked in 2017 and have been in permanent decline ever since. I don't think anything else needs to be said



They are being forced to do this move, otherwise, institutional investors, and capitol markets will cut them all off.  All of these automakers don't have much of a choice.







			https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ESG-WorkingPaper-33_Schulz-and-Siriwardane.pdf
		













						Corporate Technocrats Use ESG To Drive Technocracy
					

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is a United Nations inspired global scam to drive the world into Sustainable Development (aka Technocracy), control all resources and kill capitalism and free market economics all at the same time. ESG is backed by the UN, the World Economic Forum and...




					www.technocracy.news
				




Republican States Resist Credit Rating Agencies' Use of ESG Criteria​








						Republican States Resist Credit Rating Agencies' Use of ESG Criteria | JD Supra
					

Recently, the States of Idaho and Utah --both controlled by the Republican Party--sent letters to S&P, one of the three major credit rating agencies, ...




					www.jdsupra.com


----------



## Crick (Aug 11, 2022)

I just caught something on TV where some psychologist noted that people suffering from narcissism syndromes were really prone to buy into nutjob conspiracy theories.  Automobile manufacturers were forced to install headrests and seat belts and padded dashes and collision resistant bumpers and backup cameras and anti-lock brakes.  So what?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 11, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> ... No point in arguing with Crick, he doesn't debate from a place of honesty ...



I think you're right ... he made a mistake lying in a thread dedicated to exposing lies ... the "I never said that" defense ...


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 11, 2022)

Crick said:


> I just caught something on TV where some psychologist noted that people suffering from narcissism syndromes were really prone to buy into nutjob conspiracy theories.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> I think you're right ... he made a mistake lying in a thread dedicated to exposing lies ... the "I never said that" defense ...





MisterBeale said:


>


You missed something.  I very effectively refuted all your contentions and THEN subtly suggested you're irrationality is caused by a mental illness.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> You missed something.  I very effectively refuted all your contentions and THEN subtly suggested you're irrationality is caused by a mental illness.



How have you refuted the laws of thermodynamics? ... you made the claim of a positive feedback mechanism without explaining ... on the surface, this violates several of the laws that govern the movement of energy in our universe ... do you understand the electric guitar analogy? ...

You need to have your math right or nobody is going to listen to you ...


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> You missed something.  I very effectively refuted all your contentions and THEN subtly suggested you're irrationality is caused by a mental illness.


I thought you had notified me, that, in your considered opinion, you viewed me as insane, not worthy of viewing my post, and would hence forth, be ignoring me.  I was so looking forward to not having to deal with your fallacies, your equivocations, and your clearly deceptive and dishonest discussion techniques, it really was, no great loss to me.  What a disappointment to have to deal with your direct comments, once again.


Thus, as I had commented to the forum, I had suspicions that you are liar, and now?  You do us all a favor proving these assertions, up front, that, indeed, you will do anything, including lie to push your narrative.

Thanks for the experimental confirmation pal.   


As ReinyDays has stated, "because I say so," does not an solid argument make.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> How have you refuted the laws of thermodynamics? ... you made the claim of a positive feedback mechanism without explaining ... on the surface, this violates several of the laws that govern the movement of energy in our universe ... do you understand the electric guitar analogy? ...
> 
> You need to have your math right or nobody is going to listen to you ...


1)  I was addressing Mr Beale.

2)  I did explain the positive feedback (more heat, more water in the air, more greenhouse effect).

3)  Please explain *what* violates *what* laws?

4)  I have never heard of the "electric guitar analogy".  

5)  I aced two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermo) as part of a BSc in Ocean Engineering at FAU over 30 years ago.  But feel free to see if you can educate me on the finer points.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> 2) I did explain the positive feedback (more heat, more water in the air, more greenhouse effect).



And that's why we're as hot as Venus.........


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And that's why we're as hot as Venus.........



No it is not.

Astronomers have detected that the atmosphere of Venus consists of *0.002%* water vapor. Compare that to the Earth's atmosphere, which contains 0.40% water vapor.Jul 29, 2009








						Is There Water on Venus?
					

[/caption] When astronomers first pointed their rudimentary telescopes at Venus, they saw a world shrouded in clouds. Here on Earth, clouds mean water, so early astronomers imagined a tropical world with constant rainfall. The truth, of course is that the thick atmosphere on Venus is made almost...




					www.universetoday.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> No it is not.
> 
> Astronomers have detected that the atmosphere of Venus consists of *0.002%* water vapor. Compare that to the Earth's atmosphere, which contains 0.40% water vapor.Jul 29, 2009
> 
> ...



You said when it gets hotter, there is more water vapor which makes it hotter still.
_
 (more heat, more water in the air, more greenhouse effect)._

So why doesn't lead melt at the Earth's surface? Why would runaway global warming caused 
by increased water vapor ever stop?

With 200 times the water vapor in our atmosphere already, we should be much hotter than Venus.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said when it gets hotter, there is more water vapor which makes it hotter still.
> 
> _(more heat, more water in the air, more greenhouse effect)._
> 
> ...


Is all of life that simple to you Todd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> Is all of life that simple to you Todd?



Your runaway global warming / water vapor theory was very simplistic.

Were you wrong, or are we headed toward Venus-like temperatures?


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your runaway global warming / water vapor theory was very simplistic.
> 
> Were you wrong, or are we headed toward Venus-like temperatures?


What do you think Todd?  That's what's important

When was the last time you actually made a factual, critical, rational argument about anything?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> What do you think Todd?  That's what's important
> 
> When was the last time you actually made a factual, critical, rational argument about anything?



No, I don't think your error-filled claim is important.

Rational? Runaway global warming isn't rational?


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

So 


Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I don't think your error-filled claim is important.
> 
> Rational? Runaway global warming isn't rational?


So, you've given up using your intellect?  Too bad.  You used to be pretty sharp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> So
> 
> So, you've given up using your intellect?  Too bad.  You used to be pretty sharp.



I took your claim and I extrapolated it into the future.

Was your claim wrong? Was my extrapolation?

Spell it out. Use your intellect, not your feelings. Don't cry.


----------



## Crick (Aug 12, 2022)

We both know what I said so we both know that what you are attempting to credit me with now is simply a lie.  I can't say I care for it Todd.  Are you or Redfish or Healthmyths (your brain trust, I guess) attempting to argue that water DOESN'T provide a positive feedback to greenhouse warming?


----------



## MisterBeale (Aug 12, 2022)

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
					

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				












						Welcome
					

The web4work content management system and virtual office



					www.weatheraction.com
				





. . . and, as stated, in the Micheal Moore video posted earlier, these AGW kooks, and their Al Gore sycophants, if they really believed this whole paradigm, are really the ones making the matters worsen by supporting all these global organizations supplanting LNG, coal and petroleum with "bio-mass," IOW? Masses destruction of the world's Forrest for this, is insanity.

They are actually speeding up their Armageddon, and making the weather worse ever year, if there is any evidence at all we are having an effect.  The number of those bio-mass plants, world-wide?  Is depressing.  I have watched that film three times, but I can't even watch the end, where they are causing the extinction of the Orangatung.  Psychopaths.

A look at the “97.4% of climate scientists” meme​by Sapere Aude as part of our “dissident denial” series​


			https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/27/the-muddy-reality-behind-the-97-4-of-climate-scientists-meme/


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2022)

Crick said:


> We both know what I said so we both know that what you are attempting to credit me with now is simply a lie.  I can't say I care for it Todd.  Are you or Redfish or Healthmyths (your brain trust, I guess) attempting to argue that water DOESN'T provide a positive feedback to greenhouse warming?



*We both know what I said *

_Increased temperatures lead to increased evaporation and increased atmospheric saturation capacity (more water vapor in the air).

Global Warming Liars_

Increased temps add water vapor, more water vapor retains more energy from the sun, more retained energy increases temps, increased temps add water vapor, more water vapor retains more energy from the sun.......when does it stop? Why would it stop?

*attempting to argue that water DOESN'T provide a positive feedback to greenhouse warming?*

Are you arguing it's a positive feedback forever? Why not?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> 5)  I aced two semesters of thermodynamics and one of heat transfer (non-equilibrium thermo) as part of a BSc in Ocean Engineering at FAU over 30 years ago.  But feel free to see if you can educate me on the finer points.



Liar ... if anything you took the dumbed down version of thermo ... ENG 3343 ... not the one designed for majors ... all one can get from a liberal arts college ... 

Interesting, not a single 1991 graduate from FAU works at at "ocean engineering" ... a few computer software engineers but almost all work in medical or business positions ... should have moved to California and attended UCSD's Scripps' Institute on the cheap ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> We both know what I said so we both know that what you are attempting to credit me with now is simply a lie.  I can't say I care for it Todd.  Are you or Redfish or Healthmyths (your brain trust, I guess) attempting to argue that water DOESN'T provide a positive feedback to greenhouse warming?



I certainly will ... once the energy is used for evaporation (2,200 J/g), the energy can't be used again until that water condenses ... at altitude ... First Law of Thermodynamics ... so you'll need MORE energy to raise temperatures ... oh, and have we stopped melting ice? ... how curious ... sure would like some observations that demonstrate your claims ... what everybody else sees confirms my position ... "humidity is an equilibrium value" ...

You're a *LIAR* if you don't acknowledge the electric guitar analogy ... you caught yourself in a lie again ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> You think the warming of the planet is a hoax?  You believe the planet is not warming?  Have I got that right?


Indeed.

Let me ask you this, if it was so dire, why not give away all the solar panels and hook ups for everyone! Free,, because it’s dire emergency!  I still laugh at your stupid


----------



## bodecea (Aug 13, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


Too late now anyways.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

bodecea said:


> Too late now anyways.


For what?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

Crick said:


> You missed something.  I very effectively refuted all your contentions and THEN subtly suggested you're irrationality is caused by a mental illness.


Naw. Why aren’t we just putting solar panels in for free? Why should someone make money on disaster?

Like big pharma


----------



## bodecea (Aug 13, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Let me ask you this, if it was so dire, why not give away all the solar panels and hook ups for everyone! Free,, because it’s dire emergency!  I still laugh at your stupid


When was anything given for free?  Oil?  Gas?  Propane?  Coal?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

bodecea said:


> When was anything given for free?  Oil?  Gas?  Propane?  Coal?


Why would it? It wasn’t dire emergency. Shit, you wrote it’s too late! 

But not too late to give it all away right?

Hahaha I called your scam and you just bit


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

The proof it’s all a scam is the fact they’re not giving solar panels out for free


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 13, 2022)

The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...


Swamp


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The Inflation Reduction Act allows for tax breaks for solar installations ... and we'll just "print" more money to cover the budget shortfall ... causing more inflation ... see how The Swamp operates ...


Is that how they took care of the shortfall from the Trump tax cut?  I wager subsidized solar installations for low income folks would do them a great deal more good than Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> Is that how they took care of the shortfall from the Trump tax cut?  I wager subsidized solar installations for low income folks would do them a great deal more good than Trump's tax cut for the wealthy.


Which tax cut was for the wealthy?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

...

*Surveys of scientists and scientific literature*
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[143]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]



> It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.


A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]



> (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]




*Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming*
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at *2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering* 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors* during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to *54,195 articles* with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from *88,125 peer-reviewed studies* related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of *2780 Earth scientist* showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
******************************************************

There is a very strong consensus among scientists supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming.  Denial of this fact is simply unsupportable.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> *54,195 articles* with an average consensus of 99.94%.


I want the figures used to achieve this percentage.  How many out of how many?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2022)

GIGO


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> GIGO


So... you believe the conclusions of those thousands of scientists are all garbage?  And you come to that conclusion based on what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> So... you believe the conclusions of those thousands of scientists are all garbage?  And you come to that conclusion based on what?



I believe the polls are garbage.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.



Garbage, but funny.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I believe the polls are garbage.


Based on what?  Do you have peer reviewed studies showing different results?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Garbage, but funny.



Do you think this is garbage?
*Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming*
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at *2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering* 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors* during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to *54,195 articles* with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from *88,125 peer-reviewed studies* related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of *2780 Earth scientist* showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
****************************************************
Where is your review of thousands of published papers showing there's no consensus Todd?  If you can't back these statements up - as we all know you cannot - retract them and stop making them.  This is no different than simply lying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Based on what?  Do you have peer reviewed studies showing different results?



Based on what you posted


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> Do you think this is garbage?
> *Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming*
> A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at *2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering* 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors* during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]
> 
> ...



Yes, based on what you posted, that's garbage.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 18, 2022)

Crick said:


> From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
> 
> There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
> 
> ...


Bull Shit!  A "general" question does not a consensus make.  This is hog wash.


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 18, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



Since most of our water use is outdoors, watering landscape correctly is one of the easiest and most effective ways to conserve water. If you have grass be sure to water it no more than twice a week, even during the summer. 









						City of Phoenix Statement on Colorado River Shortage
					






					www.phoenix.gov
				












						Europe’s rivers run dry as scientists warn drought could be worst in 500 years
					

Crops, power plants, barge traffic, industry and fish populations devastated by parched waterways




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bull Shit!  A "general" question does not a consensus make.  This is hog wash.


Show us where such a restriction on the term is spelled out Billy Boy.

And I am really curious as to why you capitalized "shit".


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, based on what you posted, that's garbage.


Explain why it would be garbage.  Just saying it means nothing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> Explain why it would be garbage.  Just saying it means nothing.



_A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming._

What a useless point. Do they reject the possibility entirely? Or just the doomsday runaway positive feedback possibilities? Do all of the 13,926 "good" articles think humans are 100% responsible for whatever warming we're currently whining about? 50%? Less?
Do they think that we're responsible and need to spend $76 trillion, or more, to fix it?

How many think it's happening and it's no big deal? Or that it could be fixed by using more nat gas and 200 new nuclear plants?

Without a level of detail that none of your garbage included, your claim of consensus is garbage.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming._
> 
> What a useless point. Do they reject the possibility entirely? Or just the doomsday runaway positive feedback possibilities? Do all of the 13,926 "good" articles think humans are 100% responsible for whatever warming we're currently whining about? 50%? Less?
> Do they think that we're responsible and need to spend $76 trillion, or more, to fix it?
> ...


_ibid_

Consensus points​The current scientific consensus is that:


Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.
Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[8] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[9][10] It is "extremely likely"[11] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[11] in the atmosphere.[12] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[13][14][15][16]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[17] The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[18] Its conclusions are summarized below:


"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."[19]
"Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."[20]
Human influence on the climate system is clear.[21] It is extremely likely (95–100% probability)[22] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[21]
"Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts."[23]
"A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability."[24]
"The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[23]
Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[25]
The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[26] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66–100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[27]



The warming influence (called radiative forcing) of long-lived atmospheric greenhouse gases has nearly doubled in 40 years.[28]
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[29][30]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[31] which in 2007[32] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[33] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I could also point out that no matter HOW vaguely it is worded, no consensus exists for the position that you and the other AGW deniers on this forum maintain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> I could also point out that no matter HOW vaguely it is worded, no consensus exists for the position that you and the other AGW deniers on this forum maintain.



My position is that 99% of greens are useless, whiney twats and their ignorance of science is only exceeded by their ignorance of economics.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

From links in the Wikipedia article which you believe is garbage:









						A Simple Pie Chart Shows Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air
					

I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science...




					slate.com
				












						Why Don’t Climate Change Deniers Publish Papers?
					

To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely...




					slate.com
				




And here is the link to Powell's study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958.   Unfortunately, this is a pay site.  However, here is the abstract and a list of references
Abstract​The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

References​
Anderegg, W., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 12107-12109.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Atkin, E. (2015). Ted Cruz challenged science at his climate change hearing: Science won. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/10/3729732/ted-cruz-and-science-have-a-rocky-relationship/
Google Scholar
Avakyan, S. V. (2013a). Problems of climate as a problem of optics. Journal of Optical Technology, 80, 717-721.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Avakyan, S. V. (2013b). The role of solar activity in global warming. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 83, 275-285.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., . . . Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Doran, P. T., Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Gervais, F. (2014). Tiny warming of residual anthropogenic CO2. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 28, 1450095.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Happer, W. (2014). Why has global warming paused? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 29, 1460003.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Hug, H. (2013). “The Climate Models are inadequate”: Heinz Hug queries the significance of CO2 for climate change. Nachrichten Aus Der Chemie, 61, 132.
Google Scholar
Kolbert, E. (2007). Field notes from a catastrophe: Man, nature, and climate change. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Obama, B. (2013). Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Retrieved from Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. (1999). The rejection of continental drift: Theory and method in American earth science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Pew Research Center . (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
Google Scholar
Powell, J. L. (2015). Four revolutions in the earth sciences: From heresy to truth. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Google Scholar
Weart, S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> My position is that 99% of greens are useless, whiney twats and their ignorance of science is only exceeded by their ignorance of economics.


You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd.  Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem.  What is your educational background?

And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW.  Are they ignorant, whiney twats?


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

That's a mistake you and other deniers frequently make here.  Greens didn't discover global warming and its human causation.  Scientists did.  Greens just believe them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> From links in the Wikipedia article which you believe is garbage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anything in those links about not publishing because the warmers are scheming to prevent them?
I mean that's what I'd do if I had all the science on my side.........

*The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.*

Obviously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd.  Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem.  What is your educational background?
> 
> And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW.  Are they ignorant, whiney twats?


*
You have not demonstrated any significant knowledge of science Todd. *

Why do I need any? Everything I know I learned from Michael Mann.

*Your concern has almost always centered on the costs of dealing with the problem.  *

I know. Liberals are really bad at economics, but they're Milton Friedman compared to the greens.

*And, there is the point that virtually EVERY scientist on the planet accepts AGW. *

Of course they do, because there is no downside to expressing any doubt. None at all.

*Are they ignorant, whiney twats?*

No. But 99% of the greens are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> That's a mistake you and other deniers frequently make here.  Greens didn't discover global warming and its human causation.  Scientists did.  Greens just believe them.



Nope, but the greens are the twats coming up with all the really stupid "solutions".

How many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because of the greens?


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope, but the greens are the twats coming up with all the really stupid "solutions".
> 
> How many Germans are going to freeze to death this winter because of the greens?


Here are the people coming up with "solutions":  Working Group III — IPCC.

And Todd, what are YOUR people like?  Are they scientists?  Are they economists?  Are they coming up with effective, workable solutions?  I think you would have to agree the answers are "no", "no" and "no".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> Here are the people coming up with "solutions":  Working Group III — IPCC.
> 
> And Todd, what are YOUR people like?  Are they scientists?  Are they economists?  Are they coming up with effective, workable solutions?  I think you would have to agree the answers are "no", "no" and "no".



They sound swell.

How much taxpayer money are they looking to spend?

*And Todd, what are YOUR people like? *

My people are even less patient with whiney green twatness than I am.

*Are they scientists?  Are they economists? *

Are they AOC?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They sound swell.
> 
> How much taxpayer money are they looking to spend?
> 
> ...


Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?  And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.  To my knowledge, you've never responded to that point.  

And why do you fail to answer my simple question?  You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.  Why would that be Todd?  I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science.  And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics.  Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible, I can't say much for the quality of your basic economic knowledge but we can save that for another day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?  And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.  To my knowledge, you've never responded to that point.
> 
> And why do you fail to answer my simple question?  You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.  Why would that be Todd?  I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science.  And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics.  Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible, I can't say much for the quality of your basic economic knowledge but we can save that for another day.



*Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?*

You don't think it is? Aren't you cute.

*And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.*

Yes, I mock those claims all the time.

*And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.*

Yes, I'm chacterizing the shit out of the green morons.
I don't need to defend anyone on my side, I'm making my own arguments. 
You want to attack someone else on USMB for mocking your side, feel free.

*Why would that be Todd?  I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science. *

It's true, none of them are Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann. 
*
And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics. *

Green economics is even worse than green science.

*Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible*

Catastrophic? Please. If we spend $10 trillion on "green" fixes over the next 20 years, how much cooler will it be in 2100?

If we waste trillions to cut 2.2 gigatons of CO2 (about 50% of our emissions) and China adds another 4 gigatons, have we made a wise investment or a stupid one? How much should we harm our GDP by installing more expensive, less reliable power sources? Will a smaller GDP make us more or less able to respond to a future "catastrophe"?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why do you seem to think that they're primary goal is spending money?*
> 
> You don't think it is? Aren't you cute.



So, you don't have an answer.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And you've heard many times how much more it will cost to do nothing than it will to address the problem head on.*
> 
> Yes, I mock those claims all the time.



So, you don't have evidence to refute such claims.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And why do you fail to answer my simple question? You had no problem characterizing the people on my side of the argument but when asked about yours, you dodge and evade.*
> 
> Yes, I'm chacterizing the shit out of the green morons.
> I don't need to defend anyone on my side, I'm making my own arguments.
> You want to attack someone else on USMB for mocking your side, feel free.



So, you are afraid to discuss the average qualification of people on your side of the argument while characterizing several thousand published PhD scientists as "green morons".



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why would that be Todd?  I mean, besides the fact that EXTREMELY few people on your side of the argument have even a basic education in science. *
> 
> It's true, none of them are Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.



Almost none of them are Joe STEM-Degree Todd.  Why doesn't that bother you?  Doesn't it strike you as a potential mistake to throw yourself in with the demonstrably more ignorant side of a technical argument?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And since it seems to be your specialty, you can address the quality of their economics. *
> 
> Green economics is even worse than green science.



Why and why should I take your word for it?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Given that you want to put off dealing with a catastrophic problem as long as possible*
> 
> Catastrophic? Please. If we spend $10 trillion on "green" fixes over the next 20 years, how much cooler will it be in 2100?
> 
> If we waste trillions to cut 2.2 gigatons of CO2 (about 50% of our emissions) and China adds another 4 gigatons, have we made a wise investment or a stupid one? How much should we harm our GDP by installing more expensive, less reliable power sources? Will a smaller GDP make us more or less able to respond to a future "catastrophe"?



You're making a circular argument here Todd.  Money spent to cut CO2 emissions is not wasted.  This is not an investment to make us rich, it is an investment to keep us from the fucking abyss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> So, you don't have an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*So, you don't have an answer.*

My answer is, yes, all they're interested in is spending taxpayer money or imposing mandates which is forced spending funded by someone else.

*So, you don't have evidence to refute such claims.*

The evidence to refute claims of future economic harm if we don't "fix things"? LOL!

*So, you are afraid to discuss the average qualification of people on your side of the argument*

I don't give a shit about average qualifications on my side. 
Your side wants to spend tens of trillions of dollars, your argument needs to be better than some people on my side are unqualified.

*Almost none of them are Joe STEM-Degree Todd*

Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann? LOL!

*Doesn't it strike you as a potential mistake to throw yourself in with the demonstrably more ignorant side of a technical argument?*

Idiots who don't want to waste tens of trillons versus idiots who do? Yeah, that's a tough one.

*Why and why should I take your word for it?*

Don't. I'm sure AOC's GND made a lot of economic sense to you.

*Money spent to cut CO2 emissions is not wasted.*

How much will Biden's green investments in his recent pork-barrel bill cut CO2 by 2100?

*This is not an investment to make us rich, *

Finally, you say something I can agree with. 

*it is an investment to keep us from the fucking abyss.*

Only if trillions wasted to reduce temps by 0.1 degrees is the difference between safety and the abyss.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2022)

What's been a waste is this thread and trying to talk with you Todd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> What's been a waste is this thread and trying to talk with you Todd.



And you almost had me convinced we needed to spend $76 trillion.

You think Michael Mann will ever pay the court judgment against him?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 22, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> It's a global scam & has been going on for over 100 years.


At least 100 years...every drought brought in the weather con-men who for a price would make the weather behave itself...the last time was the 70's ice age, before that it was the dust bowl, now it is, well it is whatever they want it to be...there is always a market for this age old scam.


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2022)

*Crick said:*
From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.


Billy_Bob said:


> Bull Shit!  A "general" question does not a consensus make.  This is hog wash.


Billy Boy, what generality in the above statement: "the Earth is warming that this warming is mainly caused by human activities" do you believe makes the consensus invalid?


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> At least 100 years...every drought brought in the weather con-men who for a price would make the weather behave itself...the last time was the 70's ice age, before that it was the dust bowl, now it is, well it is whatever they want it to be...there is always a market for this age old scam.


Who do you believe is making themselves rich in this way?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Who do you believe is making themselves rich in this way?


this is a typical scam artist question, the implication being if you can't put a name or face on the scam then we're suppose to believe that the scam is impossible, where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam.

And rich? perhaps/probably but your word not mine...the bulk of the money is to prop up sagging left wing economies around the world who already have too much on their plates as it is...if it were legit then it wouldn't matter if it were anthropologic or not, but to get us to foot the bill it must be tabled to our actions.

It's all about the money...the earth cycles through these types of things, if the earth is warming up it just means the end of the last ice age has not yet occurred, it will be over when the temperature reaches its/an apex and then over time begins to rescind, heading back into another ice age.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Billy Boy, what generality in the above statement: "the Earth is warming that this warming is mainly caused by human activities" do you believe makes the consensus invalid?


I can't speak for billy but for me this alone would do it:


Crick said:


> supported by various studies of scientists' opinions


Supported by opinions? even if I believed man made climate change were real I would not put any stock at all in that claim!

various studies?  a scam artist would use that in place of "cherry picked" and "selective studies"

I don't see anything in the language that would be said any differently than a scam would say it.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 23, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> this is a typical scam artist question, the implication being if you can't put a name or face on the scam then we're suppose to believe that the scam is impossible, where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam.
> 
> And rich? perhaps/probably but your word not mine...the bulk of the money is to prop up sagging left wing economies around the world who already have too much on their plates as it is...if it were legit then it wouldn't matter if it were EDIT: anthropogenic or not, but to get us to foot the bill it must be tabled to our actions.
> 
> It's all about the money...the earth cycles through these types of things, if the earth is warming up it just means the end of the last ice age has not yet occurred, it will be over when the temperature reaches its/an apex and then over time begins to rescind, heading back into another ice age.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> I can't speak for billy but for me this alone would do it:
> 
> Supported by opinions? even if I believed man made climate change were real I would not put any stock at all in that claim!
> 
> ...


An enormous percentage of the studies done on climate have concluded that global warming is taking place and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.  

The term "scientist's opinions" was from a sentence referencing studies done ON SCIENTIST'S OPINIONS regarding anthropogenic global warming.  The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".

To claim that an absence of anyone committing a crime is evidence that a crime has been committed is laughably paranoid nonsense.

Your comment about propping up "sagging left wing economies" is irrelevant and, again, nonsense.  The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position.  If that rambling, shambolic blather is the best you can come up with supporting such a core contention, then you really need... help.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> An enormous percentage of the studies done on climate have concluded that global warming is taking place and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.
> 
> The term "scientist's opinions" was from a sentence referencing studies done ON SCIENTIST'S OPINIONS regarding anthropogenic global warming. The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".
> 
> ...


everything in that post defines pseudo intellectualism, especially [but not limited to] the non sequitur about crime...
...I would have said it was especially 'the sagging economies needing money is irrelevant to wanting money'[paraphrased]  but I think just pointing it out will do a better job...
and then of course after the pseudo intellectual beard was shaved off the name calling and demands that I seek help appear as if on cue...
the only ones being fooled by any of this climate scam are those who want to be fooled by it.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".



That's a philosophical position ... not a scientific one ... you're not knowledgeable enough to understand these opinions anyway ... you're just lying ...


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2022)

It is a linguistic position.  In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage.  That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus.  You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.

And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> It is a linguistic position.  In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage.  That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus.  You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.
> 
> And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.


Science doesn't have attacks, it has challenges.  Unless of course you are a drama queen.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 24, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> the only ones being fooled by any of this climate scam are those who want to be fooled by it.



*Nota bene:*
*The Unabomber had a well-worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in his rathole cabin as he constructed bombs to kill and maim people he felt were not treating the earth in accordance with his and Al Gore's desires.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Nota bene:*
> *The Unabomber had a well-worn copy of Al Gore's Earth in the Balance in his rathole cabin as he constructed bombs to kill and maim people he felt were not treating the earth in accordance with his and Al Gore's desires.*



He was building bombs and killing people long before Gore wrote that piece of crap.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2022)

*Crick said*:
It is a linguistic position. In English, the definition of a word is determined by its common usage. That is the common understanding of the meaning of the consensus. You and your friends attempts to attack the acceptance of AGW among the science community are futile and smack of desperation.

And your post is an excellent example of the faults of ad hominem attacks.



ding said:


> Science doesn't have attacks


That's right, it doesn't.


----------



## ding (Aug 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> That's right, it doesn't.


This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “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.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2022)

ding said:


> This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “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.



Beck et al 2014 will require an active link.

Abstract from Hoppe & Rodder, 2019: 

*Abstract: *
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proceeds on the assumption that scientific consensus is a tool for successful climate communication. While 'speaking with one voice' has contributed to the Panel's success in putting climate change on the public and political agenda, the consensus policy is also contested, as our literature analysis (n=106) demonstrates. The arguments identified thereby inform a survey of climate scientists (n=138), who are the ones responsible for realising the policy. The data indicate moderate support for the consensus policy but significantly more in traditional climate sciences than in social sciences, life- and geosciences.

Abstract from van der Slujis et al, 2010:  
Abstract​
Climate change may pose considerable challenges to coastal cities, particularly in low-lying urban deltas. Impacts are, however, associated with substantial uncertainties. This paper studies an uncertainty-robust adaptation strategy: strengthening the resilience of the impacted system. This approach is operationalised for the city of Rotterdam, using literature study, interviews, and a workshop. Potential impacts have been explored using national climate statistics and scenarios and a set of ‘wildcards’ (imaginable surprises). Sea level rise, particularly in combination with storm surge, and enduring heat and drought are the most relevant potential stresses in the area. These can lead to damage, loss of image, and societal disruption. Unclear responsibilities enhance disruption. ‘Resilience principles’ made the concept of resilience sufficiently operational for local actors to explore policy options. Useful principles for urban resilience include: homeostasis, omnivory, high flux, flatness, buffering, redundancy, foresight and preparedness/planning, compartmentalisation, and flexible planning/design. A resilience approach makes the system less prone to disturbances, enables quick and flexible responses, and is better capable of dealing with surprises than traditional predictive approaches. Local actors frame resilience as a flexible approach to adaptation that would be more suitable and tailored to local situations than rigid top–down regulations. In addition to a change in policy, it would require a more pro-active mentality among the population.

Abstract from Curry & Webster, 2011:  
*Abstract:*

How to understand and reason about uncertainty in climate science is a topic that is receiving increasing attention in both the scientific and philosophical literature. This paper provides a perspective on exploring ways to understand, assess, and reason about uncertainty in climate science, including application to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. Uncertainty associated with climate science and the science–policy interface presents unique challenges owing to the complexity of the climate system itself, the potential for adverse socioeconomic impacts of climate change, and the politicization of proposed policies to reduce societal vulnerability to climate change. The challenges to handling uncertainty at the science– policy interface are framed using the “monster” metaphor, whereby attempts to tame the monster are described. An uncertainty lexicon is provided that describes the natures and levels of uncertainty and ways of representing and reasoning about uncertainty. Uncertainty of climate models is interpreted in the context of model inadequacy, uncertainty in model parameter values, and initial condition uncertainty. This article examines the challenges of building confidence in climate models and, in particular, the issue of confidence in simulations of the twenty-first-century climate. The treatment of uncertainty in the IPCC assessment reports is examined, including the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report conclusion regarding the attribution of climate change in the latter half of the twentieth century. Ideas for monster-taming strategies are discussed for institutions, individual scientists, and communities.

Abstract from Sarewitz, 2011:
Abstract​
Climate science and climate policy have been tightly linked for more than two decades. Science is supposed to provide the factual basis for action on climate, and a single policy approach to dealing with climate (through the UN Framework Convention process) has been dominant throughout this period. As a result, debates about climate policy and debates about climate science are impossible to disaggregate, and opposition to the prevailing international climate regime is often expressed as distrust of the science. Until new policy options are available that can enfranchise more diverse political constituencies, climate science will continue to exist as a largely political phenomenon. _WIREs Clim Change_ 2011 2 475–481 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.126

Abstract from Hulme, 2013:  
Abstract​
Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity.
***********************************************************************

It is not the drive to present a scientific consensus that has given the IPCC any epistemic authority it may possess.  It is the scientific consensus itself.


----------



## ding (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> It is not the drive to present a scientific consensus that has given the IPCC any epistemic authority it may possess. It is the scientific consensus itself.


Incorrect.  It's the money.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  It's the money.


Money doesn't produce epistemic authority


----------



## ding (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Money doesn't produce epistemic authority


Correct.  It produces the desired model results.  The problem is they need it to be sensational and time works against them.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

ding said:


> Correct.  It produces the desired model results.  The problem is they need it to be sensational and time works against them.


How does money produce "the desired model results"?  And what are "the desired model results"?  And who is providing the money and who is receiving the money?  Let's flesh out this assertion just a little bit, eh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> How does money produce "the desired model results"?  And what are "the desired model results"?  And who is providing the money and who is receiving the money?  Let's flesh out this assertion just a little bit, eh.



Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann doesn't work for free.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann doesn't work for free.


Not many people do. So what? The question here was how does money give the IPCC epistemic authority and Ding claimed that it was by producing sensational model results. I wanted some elucidation on this claim. That Dr Mann gets paid does not provide such elucidation.


----------



## Crick (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> An enormous percentage of the studies done on climate have concluded that global warming is taking place and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.
> 
> The term "scientist's opinions" was from a sentence referencing studies done ON SCIENTIST'S OPINIONS regarding anthropogenic global warming. The definition of "consensus" is "a general accordance in opinion".
> 
> ...





Frankeneinstein said:


> everything in that post defines pseudo intellectualism, especially [but not limited to] the non sequitur about crime...
> ...I would have said it was especially 'the sagging economies needing money is irrelevant to wanting money'[paraphrased]  but I think just pointing it out will do a better job...
> and then of course after the pseudo intellectual beard was shaved off the name calling and demands that I seek help appear as if on cue...
> the only ones being fooled by any of this climate scam are those who want to be fooled by it.



My comment about crime was not a non-sequitur.  It was in response to your comments in Post #385 stating: "where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam"

My response to your comments about scientific opinions were clear and justified.  Your comment about sagging left wing economies WAS irrelevant.  You have not justified or supported any of your nonsense.  What sort of help you seek is your choice to make.  I just note that your comments clearly indicate a lacking that really ought to be addressed.


----------



## ding (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> How does money produce "the desired model results"?  And what are "the desired model results"?  And who is providing the money and who is receiving the money?  Let's flesh out this assertion just a little bit, eh.


There's been an entire niche built upon the catastrophe narrative.  No prediction of catastrophe, no need for the niche to exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Not many people do. So what? The question here was how does money give the IPCC epistemic authority and Ding claimed that it was by producing sensational model results. I wanted some elucidation on this claim. That Dr Mann gets paid does not provide such elucidation.



Michael Mann has shown that AGW fiction can be profitable.

Even considering the legal fees he still owes.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> "where as the truth is if you can't put a name or face on it then it surely is a scam"


Which is an obvious truth


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> Your comment about sagging left wing economies WAS irrelevant.


Making the claim of irrelevance only means we shouldn't concern ourselves with where the money is going [more proof its a scam] not that it isn't going there, so we just need to cough it up.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 25, 2022)

*The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position. - CRICK

MASSIVE LIE*
___________________________________________
_“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”  – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009_​
*“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015*​
_“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the _*U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report*_._

_“The rate of _*global sea-level rise*_ 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,” according _*to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*_ (IPCC).

“The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” - IPCC_

*Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.*​Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out

_The country with the largest human population has recently experienced “the coldest records since the monitoring service first operated,” the “lowest [air temperature] in 44 years,” and “the coldest temperature in the past 59 years” during prolonged cold waves that directly led to excess mortality (Ho et al., 2020)._

“The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism.  … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, *This Changes Everything:  Capitalism vs. the Climate*​
*The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007*​
*HOW MANY MORE OF THESE WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO STOP LYING?*


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *The charge that in order to get rich, all the world's climate scientists have been lying to us for the last few decades has been the absolute cornerstone of the denier position. - CRICK
> 
> MASSIVE LIE*
> ___________________________________________
> _“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”  – Kevin Trenbarth, IPCC lead author on physical science, regarding the pause in measured warming from 1999 t0 2009_​



You apparently missed a decade or so.   PS: His name is spelled Trenberth









						Climate Change: Global Temperature
					

Earth's surface temperature in 2021 was 1.87 °Fahrenheit warmer than the 20th-century average.




					www.climate.gov
				






ChemEngineer said:


> *“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015*​



This comment is the opinion of an individual about UN policy which rather ignores the fact that the IPCC has no policy-setting authority whatsoever.  It has NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.



ChemEngineer said:


> _“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years,” Koonin writes, according to the _*U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report*_._










__





						Did You Know? | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
					

A suite of notes that attempt to explain or clarify complex climate phenomena, Climate Monitoring products and methodologies, and climate system insights




					www.ncei.noaa.gov
				






ChemEngineer said:


> _“The rate of _*global sea-level rise*_ 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today,” according _*to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*_ (IPCC)._














						Climate Change: Global Sea Level
					

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.




					www.climate.gov
				



The trouble is that while seas have risen eight to nine inches since 1880, more than 30 percent of that increase has occurred during the last two decades: 30 percent of the historical record over the past 14 percent of the time series. This is why rising sea levels are expected with very high confidence to exaggerate coastal exposure and economic consequences [Section 19.6.2.1].



ChemEngineer said:


> _“The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” - IPCC_











						A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong
					

In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action




					www.scientificamerican.com
				




So, did you _buy_ Koonin's book or get these from the reviews?  Do you happen to have Koonin's definition of the word "minimal"?  The IPCC devotes over a thousand pages to what Koonin gives one sentence.  From AR6 Summary for Policymakers:

SPM.B.1.1 Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, these observed impacts have been attributed 28 to human-induced climate change particularly through increased frequency and severity of extreme events. These include increased heatrelated human mortality (medium confidence), warm-water coral bleaching and mortality (high confidence), and increased drought related tree mortality (high confidence). Observed increases in areas burned by wildfires have been attributed to human-induced climate change in some regions (medium to high confidence). Adverse impacts from tropical cyclones, with related losses and damages19, have increased due to sea level rise and the 29 increase in heavy precipitation (medium confidence). Impacts in natural and human systems from slow-onset processes such as ocean acidification, sea level rise or regional decreases in precipitation have also been attributed to human induced climate change (high confidence).
SPM.B.1.2 Climate change has caused substantial damages, and increasingly irreversible losses, in terrestrial, freshwater and coastal and open ocean marine ecosystems (high confidence). The extent and magnitude of climate change impacts are larger than estimated in previous assessments (high confidence). Widespread deterioration of ecosystem structure and function, resilience and natural adaptive capacity, as well as shifts in seasonal timing have occurred due to climate change (high confidence), with adverse socioeconomic consequences (high confidence). Approximately half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations (very high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence), as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean (very high confidence) and loss of kelp forests (high confidence). Some losses are already irreversible, such as the first species extinctions driven by climate change (medium confidence). Other impacts are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence).



ChemEngineer said:


> *Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.*​Lawrence Solomon: Finally it's safe for the whistleblowers of corrupted climate science to speak out
> 
> _The country with the largest human population has recently experienced “the coldest records since the monitoring service first operated,” the “lowest [air temperature] in 44 years,” and “the coldest temperature in the past 59 years” during prolonged cold waves that directly led to excess mortality (Ho et al., 2020)._



First, explain the following without resorting to conspiratorial fantasies:
*










						The Raw Truth on Global Temperature Records – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
					

From old buckets to high-tech buoys: why initial temperature data need to be adjusted




					climate.nasa.gov
				



*
Then, there is this, illustrating the actual magnitude of the change to which your whistleblower is alerting us:





Then, explain this from the same arsTechnica article which indicates that your whistleblower didn't know what he was talking about and had been recently demoted by Tom Karl, the senior scientist his "revelations" attacked:
​The whistleblower​Bates recently retired from NOAA after a career working primarily on satellite measurements used for weather forecasting. Recently, he was also in charge of data-archiving efforts for satellite and surface temperature records. Bates alleges that NOAA's Tom Karl and the rest of the team behind the paper failed to adequately follow NOAA’s internal processes for archiving their data and stress-testing the updated databases they used.

Bates also questions the way in which some sea surface temperature measurements were adjusted to sync them up with the rest of the measurements, falsely claiming that the technique alters the warming trend.

In a blog post, Maynooth University research Peter Thorne—who worked on both the land and sea databases underlying the Karl paper but not the Karl paper itself—disputed many of Bates’ claims. First off, Thorne notes that Bates was not personally involved in the research at any stage. And while Bates claims that Karl made a series of choices to exaggerate the apparent warming trend, Thorne points out that this would be difficult for Karl to do since he didn’t contribute to the underlying databases. Karl’s paper simply ran those updated databases through the same algorithm NOAA was already using.

Ars talked with Thomas Peterson, a co-author on the Karl paper who has since retired. Peterson provided some useful context for understanding Bates’ allegations. The satellites that Bates worked with were expensive hardware that couldn't be fixed if anything went wrong after they were launched. The engineering of the software running those satellites sensibly involved testing and re-testing and re-testing again to ensure no surprises would pop up once it was too late.

Bates expected the same approach from his surface temperature counterparts, but Peterson explained that their work with weather station data was not nearly so high-stakes—problems could easily be fixed on the fly. The engineering-style process NOAA was using for endlessly double-checking the software for all dataset updates could drag on for quite a long time—years, in fact—and Bates opposed any attempt to speed this up. Peterson and other scientists were naturally anxious to incorporate changes they knew were scientifically important.

Bates alleges that the Karl paper was “rushed” for political reasons, but Peterson said the reality was that NOAA was well behind the times, waiting to include known improvements like additional recording stations in the rapidly warming Arctic. “I had been arguing for years that we were putting out data that did not reflect our understanding of how the temperature was actually warming—[for] literally years we slowed down to try to account for some of these processing things that we had to do,” Peterson said. (At the time of the Karl paper, NOAA’s dataset showed less warming in recent years than other datasets, like NASA’s.)

Bates also claims that there were bugs in the land station database software that were ignored in the Karl paper. But according to Peterson, the slight day-to-day variability seen in the software’s output was simply the result of the fact that _new data was added every day_. Stations that straddled statistical cut-offs might fall on one side of the dividing line today, and on the other side tomorrow. There was nothing wrong with the software, they realized. It was just silly to re-run it every single day.

There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Bates had held the title of Supervisory Meteorologist and Chief of the Remote Sensing Applications Division, but Karl removed him from that position partly due to a failure to maintain professionalism with colleagues, assigning him to a position in which he would no longer supervise other staff. It was apparently no secret that the demotion did not sit well with Bates.








						Article names “whistleblower” who claims that NOAA manipulated data [Updated]
					

Allegations in a Daily Mail article seem more office politics than science.




					arstechnica.com
				






ChemEngineer said:


> “The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism.  … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, *This Changes Everything:  Capitalism vs. the Climate*​



An irrelevant opinion of an individual.  Ms Klein is not disputing AGW in the slightest.  Is English your native tongue?



ChemEngineer said:


> *The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007*​



IPCC stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  We have no idea here who made this statement or where it appeared since you have not provided links for ANYTHING you've brought up here.



ChemEngineer said:


> *HOW MANY MORE OF THESE WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO STOP LYING?*



I am not lying.  If you contend that these comments refute AGW, then it is you who are lying, though I am willing to consider the possibility that you simply speak from pure ignorance.


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> You apparently missed a decade or so.   PS: His name is spelled Trenberth
> View attachment 687225
> 
> 
> ...



The shear length of this post speaks to your lying tongue ... 

What is the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature? ...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The shear length of this post speaks to your lying tongue ...


So tell us you're a brainwashed cultist without saying it out loud. Do that by getting triggered hard by any facts and data which debunk TheParty's wildly dishonest propaganda. Like you just did there.



ReinyDays said:


> What is the numerical relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature? ...


EMERGENCY! DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!

Just what did that have to do with the topic of your propaganda getting debunked? I mean, we can give you an answer to your question. Anyone minimally informed on the topic knows it. Why are you so uninformed, and why did you choose that particular deflection?


----------



## ding (Aug 26, 2022)

mamooth said:


> So tell us you're a brainwashed cultist without saying it out loud. Do that by getting triggered hard by any facts and data which debunk TheParty's wildly dishonest propaganda. Like you just did there.
> 
> 
> EMERGENCY! DEFLECT! DEFLECT! DEFLECT!
> ...


How can the feedback from the GHG effect from CO2 be 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

ding said:


> How can the feedback from the GHG effect from CO2 be 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?



It's magic.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2022)

ding said:


> How can the feedback from the GHG effect from CO2 be 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?


Water vapor.

This is basic stuff. Why are all deniers so bad at it?


----------



## surada (Aug 26, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



Are you aware of recycling refrigerant gases and the ozone?


----------



## surada (Aug 26, 2022)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming has not been a concern for over 100 years and, of course, is not a scam.  The people most often "buying in" are those with even a basic foundation in physical science and that you should characterize the world's PhDs as "low info types" simply identifies the depth of your own personal DK-ism.  AGW denialism is the home of the ignorant.  When you choose to use a cartoon to make your point, rather than attempting to refute the science assessment of, say, AR5 or 6, it is obvious that you lack both the ability and the resources to mount an effective argument supporting your claims.
> 
> PS:  Ayn Rand's character John Galt has the intellectual standing of the Cat in the Hat.



Lol. True. Nobody reads Ayn Rand after high school.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Water vapor.
> 
> This is basic stuff. Why are all deniers so bad at it?



Higher CO2 causes more water vapor which makes it warmer and causes more water vapor?

We're doomed!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

surada said:


> Lol. True. Nobody reads Ayn Rand after high school.



Or Marx, after they can't get a real job after college.

Or do they read more Marx?


----------



## surada (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or Marx, after they can't get a real job after college.
> 
> Or do they read more Marx?



Nobody reads Marx.


----------



## ding (Aug 26, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Water vapor.
> 
> This is basic stuff. Why are all deniers so bad at it?


I know that's what they claim.  It's a ridiculous claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

surada said:


> Nobody reads Marx.



Liar
georgephillip


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Higher CO2 causes more water vapor which makes it warmer and causes more water vapor?
> 
> We're doomed!!!


Well, no. Positive feedback doesn't mean unbounded feedback.

For example, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ... -> 2. That's an infinite positive feedback sequence, but it's bounded.

This is basic stuff, and deniers all fail at it.


----------



## surada (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liar
> georgephillip



Marx's ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. Didn't you know that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Well, no. Positive feedback doesn't mean unbounded feedback.
> 
> For example, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ... -> 2. That's an infinite positive feedback sequence, but it's bounded.
> 
> This is basic stuff, and deniers all fail at it.



*Well, no. Positive feedback doesn't mean unbounded feedback.*

How else are we gonna get to runaway global warming?

We have less than 9 years left............


----------



## mamooth (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How else are we gonna get to runaway global warming?


So long, troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

surada said:


> Marx's ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. Didn't you know that?



Don't tell CommunistFront or George, they may harm themselves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

mamooth said:


> So long, troll.



Don't let the fossil fueled door hit you in your methane emitter on the way out!


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 26, 2022)

surada said:


> Marx's ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. Didn't you know that?



That's bad thinking, you need to reassess your approach to critiquing Marxism. It's a disingenuous assertion that Marxism has failed.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 26, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> That's bad thinking, you need to reassess your approach to critiquing Marxism. It's a disingenuous assertion that Marxism has failed.



*Marxism's stunning success:  North Korea
Cuba*
*Please go to either one.  Worship North Korea's fat, megalomaniacal tyrant.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> That's bad thinking, you need to reassess your approach to critiquing Marxism. It's a disingenuous assertion that Marxism has failed.



What are your 3 favorite Marxism success stories?


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> The shear length of this post speaks to your lying tongue ...


Chem Engineer posted a number of purported statements and factoids without links as I thought this forum required.  I was providing refutation for all of them.  If you can't handle the traffic, stay off the fucking road child.  This reminds me of the earlier contention from a different denier that no evidence of a crime was evidence of a crime.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What are your 3 favorite Marxism success stories?


Nations that identify as having a Marxist, socialist economy and political system are like flowers growing in a field of weeds that are trying to strangle them to death. Every single Marxist success story is always accompanied by economic sanctions, embargoes, threats, coups, and wars with major capitalist powers like the United States. However, the rationale behind your question is flawed. I've already explained why in previous posts but nevertheless I'll be repetitive and I'll say it again.

Just because an economic system or mode of production, wasn't successful in the past or in the present, doesn't imply that it won't be in the future when material conditions permit. That's the first point. Secondly, on what grounds do you pretend that an economic system or mode of production has to replace its predecessors overnight, in one definitive, victorias, instant swoop? Capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, it took centuries for the merchants to overpower the kings and nobles of Europe and become industrialists. Material conditions and technology had to be developed that allowed merchants to industrialize and establish republics in place of absolute monarchies. To continue with this line of rhetoric, this polemic that socialism failed hence it will ALWAYS FAIL, and hence it will supposedly never replace capitalism, is just misleading at best, if not dishonest. As uncle joe says...









"How many pushups you want to do here pal?"​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Nations that identify as having a Marxist, socialist economy and political system are like flowers growing in a field of weeds that are trying to strangle them to death. Every single Marxist success story is always accompanied by economic sanctions, embargoes, threats, coups, and wars with major capitalist powers like the United States. However, the rationale behind your question is flawed. I've already explained why in previous posts but nevertheless I'll be repetitive and I'll say it again.
> 
> Just because an economic system or mode of production, wasn't successful in the past or in the present, doesn't imply that it won't be in the future when material conditions permit. That's the first point. Secondly, on what grounds do you pretend that an economic system or mode of production has to replace its predecessors overnight, in one definitive, victorias, instant swoop? Capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, it took centuries for the merchants to overpower the kings and nobles of Europe and become industrialists. Material conditions and technology had to be developed that allowed merchants to industrialize and establish republics in place of absolute monarchies. To continue with this line of rhetoric, this polemic that socialism failed hence it will ALWAYS FAIL, and it hasn't been able to replace capitalism yet, is just misleading at best, if not dishonest. As uncle joe says...
> 
> ​



*Nations that identify as having a Marxist, socialist economy and political system are like flowers growing in a field of weeds that are trying to strangle them to death.*

Yeah, Marxist flowers smell like shit. No one wants them growing in their country.

*Every single Marxist success story is always accompanied by economic sanctions, embargoes, threats, coups, and wars with major capitalist powers like the United States.*

You can't even come up with 1 success story? Hilarious!

*However, the rationale behind your question is flawed.*

I know. "Marxist" and "success" don't go together.

*Just because an economic system or mode of production, wasn't successful in the past or in the present, doesn't imply that it won't be in the future when material conditions permit. *

When will "material conditions permit"?

*Secondly, on what grounds do you pretend that an economic system or mode of production has to replace its predecessors overnight, in one definitive, victorias, instant swoop?*

Overnight? Instant? 

Marx wrote his crap over 150 years ago.
Russia tried it over 100 years ago. Russia still sucks today.
What happened to Marxism's inevitable victory over capitalism?

You're going backward. And I don't mean just the economies of Cuba and North Korea. LOL!


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Nations that identify as having a Marxist, socialist economy and political system are like flowers growing in a field of weeds that are trying to strangle them to death.*
> 
> Yeah, Marxist flowers smell like shit. No one wants them growing in their country.
> 
> ...


Those nations you mentioned are heavily sanctioned. I could spend an hour here providing you with all of the success stories and stats, but you will dismiss it all with a simple wave of your magical capitalist wand, flippantly dismissing everything I present you with. The flower analogy that I gave in my last post is very applicable. The weeds that are always trying to strangle the socialist flowers are the capitalists, primarily the US and its allies. As advanced technology contines to replace wage labor and unemployment increases there will be a moment where it will become obvious that we have to adopt socialism (a non-profit oriented mode of production focused on meeting our needs, rather than our greed). Socialism and the communism that follows it, is inevitable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Those nations you mentioned are heavily sanctioned. I could spend an hour here providing you with all of the success stories and stats, but you will dismiss it all with a simple wave of your magical capitalist wand, flippantly dismissing everything I present you with. The flower analogy that I gave in my last post is very applicable. The weeds that are always trying to strangle the socialist flowers are the capitalists, primarily the US and its allies. As advanced technology contines to replace wage labor and unemployment increases there will be a moment where it will become obvious that we have to adopt socialism (a non-profit oriented mode of production focused on meeting our needs, rather than our greed). Socialism and the communism that follows it, is inevitable.



*Those nations you mentioned are heavily sanctioned. *

The pinnacle of human development, the inevitable historical evolution of mankind can 
be stopped by the decadent, corrupt capitalist economies simply deciding not to play?

Why is Marxism so fragile?

*The flower analogy that I gave in my last post is very applicable.*

More like your piles of Marxist shit kept killing the flowers and we stopped letting you in the garden.

*Socialism and the communism that follows it, is inevitable.*


----------



## Crick (Aug 26, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Socialism and the communism that follows it, is inevitable.



Most of western Europe has been predominantly socialist since before WWII.  Who there has become communist?


----------



## ReinyDays (Aug 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Higher CO2 causes more water vapor which makes it warmer and causes more water vapor?
> 
> We're doomed!!!



Runaway greenhouse effect ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Runaway greenhouse effect ...



The only thing that can save us is Krakatoa or SMOD.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Are you aware of recycling refrigerant gases and the ozone?


Yes, there is a hole in the ozone over the only continent that has, for all intents and purposes, no refrigerant gases ! [or permanent human population]...but everyone knows that right?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Most of western Europe has been predominantly socialist since before WWII.  Who there has become communist?



Communism is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money.


*" Communism*_ (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order based on the idea of common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] *It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the *_*state "

Source:*






						Communism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




There is "primitive communism", which is the communism of our ancestors when they lived as hunter-gatherers, in tribes, before the advent of mass agriculture.










Then there is "high communism", a modern, high-tech communism, that only exists when the individual consumer has complete control over the means (technology, machines, equipment, facilities, materials) of production. That implies that the individual consumer is able to produce all of the goods and services that they need and want to consume, without anyone else's help, participation, contribution, or input. Socialism is the process of socializing, democratizing, and eventually personalizing production (i.e. high communism = personalization of production). To give you an example of what type of technology is going to be required to establish high communism, I present you with the following:

*ATOMIC PRECISION MANUFACTURING MACHINES (APMMs)*




​
Socialism is the process that leads not just to a socialization (i.e. non-privatization/non-monetization/non-exploitative/non-capitalist), and democratization (non-authoritarian) mode of production, but also the "personalization" (individualization) of production. Socialism employing 21st century, advanced technology:

_*Automated Systems, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Machines, Self-Driving Vehicles, Supercomputing, Space/LEO Manufactured Materials, Nanotechnology..etc



*_
​Leads to high communism. Prof Eric Drexler from MIT considered one of the fathers and first pioneers of nanotechnology says that if he had the funding he could produce APMMs within the next 15 years. Why does he struggle to even get ten million dollars from the US government or the billionaires, to develop what amounts to Star Trek "replicator" technology? If the public gets access to highly developed atomic precision manufacturing technology, that will completely dethrone the current exploitative, authoritarian power structure that depends upon wage labor and people depending upon government infrastructure, social services..etc. Advanced technology will completely liberate the working class and all of humanity from coercive, authoritarian power structures. rendering all human interactions and relationships 100% voluntary.


*HIGH COMMUNISM = NO STATE, NO SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES, NO NEED FOR MONEY.

The state was originally created to protect "The Haves" / "owner class" and maintain their control/ownership over lands, crops, slaves, and livestock from "The HaveNots"/ The Exploited classes. Technology frees humanity from these exploitative systems of production and social dynamics, hence dissolving the state. *​The state becomes superfluous and so does land, and real estate, and anchoring yourself to one location like a planted vegetable. No, not when you become a tech-lord. Landlordism is obsolete, it's the past, I don't want to be stuck with the burden of locationism, because as a master of production, I produce everything that I need and want without anyone else's assistance or input. I am a seafarer, earthfarer, spacefarer, I live on a ship or that giant vehicle I created, with every modern amenity imaginable, and I explore the world and seas, or even the solar system with my family on our ship. My spouse and I, and our children, might choose to live with other families, on a colony in space...














Or we can live at sea...


















Or on land..






And on account of the fact that you and I own the means of production, if there's a community that is managed by an incompetent egomaniac or tyrannical fool, we leave and go somewhere else. How can a state or government impose its will upon us, when we own the means of producing everything that we consume? I don't need to live under the authority of a particular government, or in a certain community, I just go wherever I want and I only live in communities that reflect my values, vibe, and character. etc.

THAT IS HIGH COMMUNISM.
STATELESS, NO SOCIOECONOMIC CLASSES, NO NEED FOR MONEY.
*REQUIREMENT: VERY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. *


Socialism is the process that leads to high communism. *Why? *Why can't we arrive there through "free market capitalism"? Why not?​*Short Answer: The capitalists who own the means of production * (machines, equipment, facilities, vehicles, technology/patents/licenses/permits/charters.etc), only produce the goods that we all consume for a profit, hence it's not in their financial interest to empower the consumer to produce everything that they consume without depending upon them (i.e. capitalist business enterprises). In socialism, the goods/products/services that we use are produced not for monetary gain or to be sold in a marketplace, but rather to simply be consumed. The capitalist middleman is eliminated from the equation of production and the people (working class) collectively own the means of production, producing everything to meet their needs. In a worker-run state under the authority of the worker-councils, every opportunity is taken to research and develop technology that will empower the workers and consumers to the greatest extent possible. 

​


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Those nations you mentioned are heavily sanctioned. *
> 
> The pinnacle of human development, the inevitable historical evolution of mankind can
> be stopped by the decadent, corrupt capitalist economies simply deciding not to play?
> ...



You obviously don't understand what it means to be economically sanctioned by the US.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Yes, there is a hole in the ozone over the only continent that has, for all intents and purposes, no refrigerant gases ! [or permanent human population]...but everyone knows that right?



What continent is that?


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Yes, there is a hole in the ozone over the only continent that has, for all intents and purposes, no refrigerant gases ! [or permanent human population]...but everyone knows that right?



What continent?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> What continent is that?


You don't know where the hole in the ozone is su?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> What continent?


OK almost everyone


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> What continent is that?


Atlantis


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 27, 2022)

*The grinding reality/poverty of Marxist Cuba:*













Cuba's forgotten eastern provinces​



Poverty in Cuba​








Communism Caused Cuba's Poverty, Not U.S. Embargo | National Review​



Communism Caused Cuba's Poverty
Economic Reforms Increase Poverty in Cuba - The Borgen Project​



Priest says worst poverty in Cuba is 'lack of freedom' | Catholic News Agency​





















​



​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> You obviously don't understand what it means to be economically sanctioned by the US.



It means communism is awesome, but it can easily be destroyed by yucky capitalists 
simply by not trading with you. Why can't awesome commie countries beat capitalism by  just
trading with other awesome commie countries? Yucky capitalist countries thrive when they 
only trade with capitalist countries. Weird.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *The grinding reality/poverty of Marxist Cuba:*
> 
> View attachment 687781
> 
> ...



It's been over 50 years. Why do you care what kind of government they have?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> It's been over 50 years. Why do you care what kind of government they have?



Free the Cuban people, hang the commissars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Marx's ideas have failed everywhere they have been tried. Didn't you know that?



You disagree? Communism is inevitable? LOL!


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It means communism is awesome, but it can easily be destroyed by yucky capitalists
> simply by not trading with you. Why can't awesome commie countries beat capitalism by  just
> trading with other awesome commie countries? Yucky capitalist countries thrive when they
> only trade with capitalist countries. Weird.



Again, you disingenuously fail to acknowledge the influence and power the American empire has over the world's economy, including trade. The Cuban government or any Cuban company or citizen living in Cuba is unable to open bank accounts with any bank outside of the Island, hence can't open lines of credit. Any company in the world that does business in Cuba, can't do business with the US. Any merchant ship that docks in a Cuban port, can't dock in any American port in the United States mainland, or in any of its territories for at least six months.





__





						Free AIS Ship Tracker - VesselFinder
					

VesselFinder is a FREE AIS vessel tracking web site. VesselFinder displays real time ship positions and marine traffic detected by global AIS network.




					www.vesselfinder.com
				












						779
					






					home.treasury.gov
				



Any product that has 10% or more American-made, owned or patented parts, can not be sold to Cuba from any country. If any country or company sells such products to Cuba, it can't trade with the United States and may be sanctioned itself. There is also a long list of raw materials that Cuba can't purchase, and any ship found with those materials heading to a Cuban port will be barred from the US indefinitely and even seized by US authorities. Venezuela has already had more than one of its oil tankers prevented from docking in Cuba by the US Navy. The United States through Guantanamo has its navy monitoring all Cuban ports and identifying the merchant ship traffic around Cuba, not to speak of the fact that every one of these ships is registered into a GPS tracking network controlled by the United States. You can't run a shipping company without your fleet being registered.

There is also the problem of the United States freezing assets of sanctioned countries. Cuba, Venezuela, and Afghanistan, all of these sanctioned countries have billions of dollars of their gold, cash, and resources frozen by the United States empire, in banks around the world. Venezuela has nine billion dollars in gold frozen in London. Afghanistan has 7 billion dollars frozen in Western European banks. Cuba just lost 250 million dollars in one of the US government's latest asset-seizure campaigns. Cuba is an Island in the shadow of a capitalist empire that won't allow it to adopt socialism, out of fear that if it succeeds, the American working class will start getting some "bad ideas" about socialism and try to establish it here in the United States. The American ruling class, hates socialism and makes sure that every nation that identifies as having a Marxist, socialist economy and government, is severly punished, financially and otherwise.

US politicians also threaten Cuba with war. In the latest CIA orchestrated protests in Cuba, about a year ago, Senator Rubio and others were threatening to invade Cuba. So Cuba has to deal with the economic impact of the sanctions plus a possible invasion by the US. It's essentially a nation under siege by the United States empire. HELLO? Wake up.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *The grinding reality/poverty of Marxist Cuba:*
> 
> View attachment 687781
> 
> ...



This is another one of those silly arguments. You need to think before you adopt a line of argumentation because that same argument may be used against you. Don't you realize that? Cuba is sanctioned, and under seige by the United States yet there are nations with capitalist economies that are not sanctioned or under siege by the US and yet are in worse condition than Cuba...





CAPITALIST HAITI




CAPITALIST HAITI




*Haitians trying to escape from Capitalist run and exploited Haiti.*






CAPITALIST UGANDA
​You need to ask yourself* "can the argument that I am about to post, be used against me?"*.....You need to ask those types of questions. Can your opponent turn the table and use the same, exact line of argumentation, against you? This is a classical debate principle taught in schools that have debate clubs. Basic stuff. Think before you post.
​


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Free the Cuban people, hang the commissars.



The Cuban people need to be freed from US bullying and sanctions.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> It's been over 50 years. Why do you care what kind of government they have?


Perhaps you should address matters in the context they were intended...if you try to see that his post is proof of the miserable failure left wing politics creates you would understand the post, instead you are trying to send the message that there is no need to look at its results.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Perhaps you should address matters in the context they were intended...if you try to see that his post is proof of the miserable failure left wing politics creates you would understand the post, instead you are trying to send the message that there is no need to look at its results.



Lol that's idiotic. Democrats don't want a Cuban style government. Is that the crap you're pushing? We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. How old are you?


----------



## Flash (Aug 27, 2022)

Crick said:


> Chem Engineer posted a number of purported statements and factoids without links as I thought this forum required.  I was providing refutation for all of them.  If you can't handle the traffic, stay off the fucking road child.  This reminds me of the earlier contention from a different denier that no evidence of a crime was evidence of a crime.


You didn't refute anything.  You posted garbage from sources that have been exposed to have created fraudulent data.

You need to start thinking for yourself kid.  Spouting this silly ass AGW crap from sources that have been exposed time and time again for lying to us just makes you look like an idiot.

Pull your head out of your ass.

Climate change is natural and it is real.  Man made climate change is a scam.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Lol that's idiotic. Democrats don't want a Cuban style government. Is that the crap you're pushing? We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. How old are you?


context su! context!


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> The Cuban people need to be freed from US bullying and sanctions.


eliminating communism would free cubans from whatever it is that ails them...but of course communism comes before the people


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> context su! context!



Read up on the sugar beet lobby. The Soviets saved Cuba by buying up their whole sugar crop.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Read up on the sugar beet lobby. The Soviets saved Cuba by buying up their whole sugar crop.


proving that marxist/communist cuba needs to be propped up to survive...it was once a beautiful thriving capitalist paradise, it is now a coummnist patch of dirt....

...and as for the Soviet Union, well even cuba out lasted them.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> proving that marxist/communist cuba needs to be propped up to survive...it was once a beautiful thriving capitalist paradise, it is now a coummnist patch of dirt....
> 
> ...and as for the Soviet Union, well even cuba out lasted them.



The US bought their sugar cane until the sugar beet lobby stopped that. Were you 3 years old?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Again, you disingenuously fail to acknowledge the influence and power the American empire has over the world's economy, including trade. The Cuban government or any Cuban company or citizen living in Cuba is unable to open bank accounts with any bank outside of the Island, hence can't open lines of credit. Any company in the world that does business in Cuba, can't do business with the US. Any merchant ship that docks in a Cuban port, can't dock in any American port in the United States mainland, or in any of its territories for at least six months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Again, you disingenuously fail to acknowledge the influence and power the American empire has over the world's economy, including trade. *

More power than the Soviet Union? Weird.

* The Cuban government or any Cuban company or citizen living in Cuba is unable to open bank accounts with any bank outside of the Island, hence can't open lines of credit. *

I know. Commies don't like their citizens to have the ability to move money out of the country.

*There is also a long list of raw materials that Cuba can't purchase, and any ship found with those materials heading to a Cuban port will be barred from the US indefinitely*

That's awful! Cuba should do the same to ships heading to US ports. 
Stick it to those greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

*It's essentially a nation under siege by the United States empire. *

So much for historical inevitability.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> This is another one of those silly arguments. You need to think before you adopt a line of argumentation because that same argument may be used against you. Don't you realize that? Cuba is sanctioned, and under seige by the United States yet there are nations with capitalist economies that are not sanctioned or under siege by the US and yet are in worse condition than Cuba...
> 
> 
> View attachment 687880
> ...



*Haitians trying to escape from Capitalist run and exploited Haiti.*

The Cuban government should let them in. Teach them the wonders of communism.
I hear the streets in Cuba are paved with gold.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> The US bought their sugar cane until the sugar beet lobby stopped that. Were you 3 years old?


Is there a point of any kind to this su? so what? there was a time we did all kinds of business with cuba. your posts seem to just go from pillar to post as though they're/you're looking for an escape hatch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> The Cuban people need to be freed from US bullying and sanctions.



Awwwww.....poor commies, everybody is always picking on them.
Then they go home and use their jackboots to kick the Cuban people.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Is there a point of any kind to this su? so what? there was a time we did all kinds of business with cuba. your posts seem to just go from pillar to post as though they're looking for an escape hatch.



Esso had a refinery there. Cuba had the very rich minority and the very poor majority. Remember Castro asked for help from the US.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Lol that's idiotic. Democrats don't want a Cuban style government. Is that the crap you're pushing? We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. How old are you?



How'd that work out for Cuba? Are they a shining beacon for Commies worldwide?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Cuba had the very rich minority



But enough about the nomenklatura.


----------



## surada (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But enough about the nomenklatura.











						Castro and the Cold War | American Experience | PBS
					

For four decades, Castro stood at the center of a dangerous game for political pre-eminence in the Third World.



					www.pbs.org


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Esso had a refinery there. Cuba had the very rich minority and the very poor majority.


and now the rich are no more


surada said:


> Remember Castro asked for help from the US.


yes, I have read several biographies on Castro and his animal husbandry "degree", Castro was ignored because he took power by force without regard for American interests on the Island, the favor is being returned in spades.

If castro had been anything but communist the liberals in this country would have treated him like Pinochet...or Nixon


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> Castro and the Cold War | American Experience | PBS
> 
> 
> For four decades, Castro stood at the center of a dangerous game for political pre-eminence in the Third World.
> ...



*Cuba had the very rich minority and the very poor majority.*

Thank goodness Castro fixed that problem. What did Cuba have after the Revolution?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 27, 2022)

*How many immigrants are making their way to Cuba?
How many to the *awful* United States that Leftists hate so much but will not leave, to go to Cuba, or North Korea?

Now back to global warming liars.  They have reached a new low.*
*http://JustStopOil.org*

*Noam Chomsky says of crude oil and natural gas, "What we face is the greatest imposition of suffering and injustice in the history of humanity." 

My suffering and inhumanity consisted of flying to Europe for many vacations, taking my five sisters in law and wife to Europe, flying to Hawaii and taking my inlaws, Mother and sisters in law, driving to Mammoth to snow ski, being pulled behind my ski boat on a slalom, riding a 120 foot fishing boat out 200 miles to catch large tuna and yellowtail, wahoo and dorado, go scuba diving, ride a 490 YZ Yamaha across the desert at 110 MPH, and drive to relatives' and friends' homes and entertainment venues my entire, busy life.   

Oh the suffering.  Oh the injustice. That oil needs to remain underground, foever..... why?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

surada said:


> It's been over 50 years. Why do you care what kind of government they have?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Again, you disingenuously fail to acknowledge the influence and power the American empire has over the world's economy, including trade. *
> 
> More power than the Soviet Union? Weird.
> 
> ...


The kings and nobles had more power than the merchant-republicans for centuries before the merchant defenders of republics and capitalism became wealthy industrialists, acquiring more power and wealth than monarchs and feudal lords. Were the merchant republicans doomed to an inferior position forever? No. Todd your line of reasoning and arguments can very easily be turned against your own position.

There are Cuban privately owned companies and entrepreneurs, who are barred from using the international banking system, not by the Cuban socialist government but by US sanctions. The international banking cartel doesn't want to risk offending the American empire and hence avoids Cuba like avoiding a lepper.

The US is an empire with 325 million people and the largest economy in the world. It's the primary world hegemon and consumer, with 700+ military bases and installations around the world. How would Cuba, an Island nation with ten million people, with a tiny navy, prevent the US from importing raw materials? It's the US that is blocking the Island of Cuba from importing the raw materials that it needs to develop its infrastructure. You don't have much of an argument against socialism in Cuba when the US is doing everything possible to undermine Cuba's economy and ability to develop.

Can you further elaborate on what you mean by "historical inevitability"?

Usually I ignore people who behave like you but for the sake of others I will respond to your dishonest, silly troll like comments and arguments.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> The kings and nobles had more power than the merchant-republicans for centuries before the merchant defenders of republics and capitalism became wealthy industrialists, acquiring more power and wealth than monarchs and feudal lords. Were the merchant republicans doomed to an inferior position forever? No. Todd your line of reasoning and arguments can very easily be turned against your own position.
> 
> There are Cuban privately owned companies and entrepreneurs, who are barred from using the international banking system, not by the Cuban socialist government but by US sanctions. The international banking cartel doesn't want to risk offending the American empire and hence avoids Cuba like avoiding a lepper.
> 
> ...


*
There are Cuban privately owned companies and entrepreneurs, who are barred from using the international banking system, not by the Cuban socialist government but by US sanctions. *

That sounds awesome!

You have a list?

*How would Cuba, an Island nation with ten million people, and a tiny navy, prevent the US from importing raw materials?*

You think we prevent Cuba from importing raw materials? Which ones? How do we stop them?

*You don't have much of an argument against socialism in Cuba *

Enslaving their people. Stopping them from leaving. Do I need more?

*Can you further elaborate on what you mean by "historical inevitability"?*

Didn't Marx say communism was going to defeat capitalism? It couldn't be stopped?
Has that changed recently?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *There are Cuban privately owned companies and entrepreneurs, who are barred from using the international banking system, not by the Cuban socialist government but by US sanctions. *
> 
> That sounds awesome!
> 
> ...



A few private Cuban companies:









						List of companies of Cuba - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Companies and countries often don't sell materials and spare parts, to Cuba out of fear of being barred from doing business with the US (not just selling to the US market but buying from the US as well). Shipping companies also risk losing millions of dollars by being refused to port in Cuba, which happens quite often, not to speak of the fact that they're prohibited from docking at any American port for at least six months when they dock in Cuba. What company or nation wants to have its merchant fleet prohibited from docking in the US, the nation with the largest economy in the world and prime consumer?

Again your last comment is absurd. You keep falling into the same flawed reasoning, asserting that an economic or political system has to replace its predecessor overnight or within a certain arbitrarily set period of time in order to be considered a viable and successful successor or alternative. It must also do it without committing any mistakes or suffering any defeats. Advancing this idea is just silly, because it can be used against capitalism. As I mentioned in my previous post and in many others before that, capitalism didn't replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, in one decisive, victorias revolution or battle.  The power and wealth of monarchs and feudal lords wasn't replaced with the money and power of capitalist industrialists in a few years, it took centuries for them to rise to prominence. Why do you apply different standards of success to socialism than you do to capitalism? Why do you continue resorting to these misleading, irrational arguments?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> A few private Cuban companies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*A few private Cuban companies:*

Two is _very_ few.

*Companies and countries often don't sell materials and spare parts, to Cuba out of fear of being barred from doing business with the US (not just selling to the US market but buying from the US as well)*

Really? We have a law against other countries trading with Cuba? Link?

*Again your last comment is absurd. You keep falling into the same flawed reasoning, asserting that an economic or political system has to replace its predecessor overnight or within a certain arbitrarily set period of time*

Well, you guys were feeling pretty confident 100 years ago. 
You stopped advancing while Reagan was president and then you started going backward.
So when is it gonna happen?

*Why do you apply different standards of success to socialism than you do to capitalism? *

Socialism? What happened to communism?

*Why do you continue resorting to these horrible, irrational arguments?*

Communism is irrational, what sort of arguments should I use?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2022)

What we learn from this thread is that denialism and bitter-kook-loser-right-wing-fringe extremism are the same thing. You don't get one without the other.

Denialism is entirely political. Deniers literally care nothing about the science. They say whatever their political cult tells them to say, whatever the topic is. If right wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it.

In contrast, if left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit. That's because it's actual science, and not political dogma.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

mamooth said:


> What we learn from this thread is that denialism and bitter-kook-loser-right-wing-fringe extremism are the same thing. You don't get one without the other.
> 
> Denialism is entirely political. Deniers literally care nothing about the science. They say whatever their political cult tells them to say, whatever the topic is. If right wing politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it.
> 
> In contrast, if left-wing politics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit. That's because it's actual science, and not political dogma.



If we wanted to fix the problem, without politics, how many new nuclear reactors should we build?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If we wanted to fix the problem, without politics, how many new nuclear reactors should we build?


Given how renewables are so much cheaper, why would we build new reactors?

If you want to invest in new nuclear reactors, no one is stopping you.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A few private Cuban companies:*
> 
> Two is _very_ few.
> 
> ...



You continue with the same disingenuous, dishonest arguments, completely ignoring the points that I made in previous posts which already answered your objections and questions.

If communism is irrational, that doesn't justify you resorting to irrational arguments to refute it. Your thinking process and troll like behavior is what is actually absurd and ridiculous. What is irrational is the fact that we have 17,000,000 vacant homes in America and yet still have 700,000 homeless people. When production technology reaches a certain level of efficiency and automation, it's completely irrational for society to continue producing what it consumes through capitalist middlemen. The socialization and democratization of productive forces becomes the only rational solution to addressing the crisis of technology, replacing wage labor. It's not UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income, a monthly government bailout for capitalists in order to keep capitalism on life support. The rational solution is SOCIALISM, then High Communism when technology permits. Read my previous post (433), where I describe exactly what socialism and high communism is:

 (433)​
More, why would you a supposed champion of personal freedom and liberty be so gung-ho about an economic system and mode of production that is based on autocratically run business enterprises that exploit human labor for a profit? You insist on democracy in politics, but not in the workplace, where human beings spend most of their waking hours? Socialism is irrational? No, capitalism and its defenders are irrational, especially today in the 21st century. Technology could make production incredibly simple, efficient and completely independent of capitalists, owned by the workers, who do the actual work (with much less drudgery, if we actually took advantage of all of the technology available to us today).

Money fetishism, consumerism/commodity fetishism, producing for money, rather than to meet human needs, that is irrational. You don't see it because you've been brainwashed or you're one of the capitalists who is doing the brainwashing. We need to transcend capitalism and adopt a socialized, democratized, and eventually, when technology permits, a personalized mode of production.

The alternative to modern socialism is modern, techno-feudalism. I prefer socialism to feudalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Given how renewables are so much cheaper, why would we build new reactors?
> 
> If you want to invest in new nuclear reactors, no one is stopping you.


*Given how renewables are so much cheaper*

Reliable power is kind of important and renewables aren't.

*why would we build new reactors?*

Reliable, large scale and no CO2.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Given how renewables are so much cheaper*
> 
> Reliable power is kind of important and renewables aren't.
> 
> ...


Wow I agree with Todd. Yes nuclear is the solution to our energy needs. We can use MSRs, i.e. Molten Salt Reactors, that are unpressurized, hence will never suffer a meltdown or explode as LWRs i.e. Light Water Reactors, have done in the past.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> You continue with the same disingenuous, dishonest arguments, completely ignoring the points that I made in previous posts which already answered your objections and questions.
> 
> If communism is irrational, that doesn't justify you resorting to irrational arguments to refute it. Your thinking process and troll like behavior is what is actually absurd and ridiculous. What is irrational is the fact that we have 17,000,000 vacant homes in America and yet still have 700,000 homeless people. When production technology reaches a certain level of efficiency and automation, it's completely irrational for society to continue producing what it consumes through capitalist middlemen. The socialization and democratization of productive forces becomes the only rational solution to addressing the crisis of technology, replacing wage labor. It's not UBI i.e. Universal Basic Income, a monthly government bailout for capitalists in order to keep capitalism on life support. The rational solution is SOCIALISM, then High Communism when technology permits. Read my previous post, it's about one or two posts before this one, where I describe exactly what socialism and high communism is.
> 
> ...



*You continue with the same disingenuous, dishonest arguments, completely ignoring the points that I made in previous posts which already answered your objections and questions.*

You were whining about all the private Cuban companies that couldn't access the international banking system and then you only came up with two?

Are there only two privately owned companies in Cuba?

*If communism is irrational, that doesn't justify you resorting to irrational arguments to refute it.*

I pointed out communism's universal failure to date and you said that was irrational.

* What is irrational is the fact that we have 17,000,000 vacant homes in America and yet still have 700,000 homeless people.*

Link?

*When production technology reaches a certain level of efficiency and automation, it's completely irrational for society to continue producing what it consumes through capitalist middlemen.*

Efficiency and automation don't come from government. Especially a communist one.

*Technology could make production incredibly simple, efficient and completely independent of capitalists, owned by the workers,*

You should do that. Don't borrow from any banks. Post your progress here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Wow I agree with Todd. Yes nuclear is the solution to our energy needs. We can use MSRs, i.e. Molten Salt Reactors, that are unpressurized, hence will never suffer a meltdown or explode as LWRs i.e. Light Water Reactors, have in the past.



Keep your stupid commie hands off the nuclear reactors.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Keep your stupid commie hands off the nuclear reactors.


The commies will be the ones who will build nuclear reactors in this country, meeting all of the country's energy needs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> The commies will be the ones who will build nuclear reactors in this country, meeting all of the country's energy needs.



God, I hope not.
We don't need more bad commie designs.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You continue with the same disingenuous, dishonest arguments, completely ignoring the points that I made in previous posts which already answered your objections and questions.*
> 
> You were whining about all the private Cuban companies that couldn't access the international banking system and then you only came up with two?
> 
> ...



More disingenuous and pointless criticism. I mentioned the fact that Cuban companies, whether public or private, can't conduct business due to the sanctions and you asked me to name some private companies and I did. Then you start griping about there only being two private companies listed in the reference I provided as if that matters to the point I originally made. It doesn't, the companies can be private, or public, the point is that the US sanctions seriously undermine Cuba's ability to conduct business. 

The fact that there are still nations identifying as Marxist despite the US and its sanctions, imperialist warmongering..etc, is a testament to the power of socialism. Socialism exists in several forms throughout the world, and it will eventually replace capitalism. Efficiency and automation come from technology and that's what will eliminate capitalism.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> God, I hope not.
> We don't need more bad commie designs.







__





						Nuclear power in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Soviet designs were just as good as ours. If you whine about Chornobyl, realize that American designs also melted down and had their accidents, not just here in the states but in other countries as well. I'm helping you avoid another silly argument that can be turned against you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> More disingenuous and pointless criticism. I mentioned the fact that Cuban companies, whether public or private, can't conduct business due to the sanctions and you asked me to name some private companies and I did.



Two private ones. That's a lot.

Did you ever post proof that the US prevents Cuba from importing raw materials?

Or is my question irrational?

*The fact that there are still nations identifying as Marxist despite the US and its sanctions, imperialist warmongering..etc, is a testament to the power of socialism. *

The power to impoverish their people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Soviet designs were just as good as ours.*

Stop it.....you're killing me!!!
*
If you whine about Chornobyl, realize that American designs also melted down and had their accidents*

Which of our designs used graphite as a moderator with no containment structure?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Soviet designs were just as good as ours.*
> 
> Stop it.....you're killing me!!!
> 
> ...


Stop pretending you're a nuclear engineer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Stop pretending you're a nuclear engineer.



As long as you stop pretending communism can work.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Two private ones. That's a lot.
> 
> Did you ever post proof that the US prevents Cuba from importing raw materials?
> 
> ...




​_"In 2013, according to state figures, more than 424,000 Cubans (8.6% of all workers) were classified as self-employed; as recently as 2009, fewer than 144,000 Cubans (2.8%) were. __The “microenterprise” sector may be even bigger due to the hiring of unregistered full- and part-time workers. Ted Henken and Archibald Ritter, researchers at Baruch College and Carleton University, respectively, estimate that as many as half of small enterprises employ at least one unregistered worker."  https://www.ascecuba.org/c/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/v24-henkenritter.pdf_

Yes, there are obviosly more than just two privately owned businesses in Cuba, but that's irrelevant. I personally wish there wasn't even one privately owned company and it was all own by the people's government, but that's besides the point. The point is that the US embargo greatly undermines the Cuban economy, a fact you continue to deny. 

An example of restrictions in the import of raw materials:









						US Prevents Cuba From Acquiring Pharmaceutical Raw Materials
					

Some shipping companies return supplies purchased by Cubans for fear of U.S. sanctions.




					www.telesurenglish.net
				












						US Sanctions Six Tankers For Shipping Oil From Venezuela To Cuba - Diálogo Américas
					

On December 3, the United States imposed economic sanctions on six ships for transporting oil from Venezuela to Cuba, as part of Washington’s campaign to force out Venezuelan ruler Nicolás Maduro, whose government the United States considers to be a dictatorship. The U.S. Department of the...




					dialogo-americas.com
				












						New U.S. Sanctions Seek to Block Venezuelan Oil Shipments to Cuba (Published 2019)
					

The sanctions, senior administration officials said, could force a “recalibration” of Venezuela’s relationship with Cuba, which has been defending the government of President Nicolás Maduro.




					www.nytimes.com
				





It's the United States, the big capitalist bully empire that impoverishes people all around the world.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> As long as you stop pretending communism can work.


It worked for tens of thousands of years (when we were hunter-gatherers) and it will work in the future when technology permits. Socialism is the process that leads to high communism. There are two types of communism, primitive and high-tech/high communism. Socialism and high communism are inevitable due to the advancement of technology.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> View attachment 688186​_"In 2013, according to state figures, more than 424,000 Cubans (8.6% of all workers) were classified as self-employed; as recently as 2009, fewer than 144,000 Cubans (2.8%) were. __The “microenterprise” sector may be even bigger due to the hiring of unregistered full- and part-time workers. Ted Henken and Archibald Ritter, researchers at Baruch College and Carleton University, respectively, estimate that as many as half of small enterprises employ at least one unregistered worker."  https://www.ascecuba.org/c/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/v24-henkenritter.pdf_
> 
> Yes, there are obviosly more than just two privately owned businesses in Cuba, but that's irrelevant. I personally wish there wasn't even one privately owned company and it was all own by the people's government, but that's besides the point. The point is that the US embargo greatly undermines the Cuban economy, a fact you continue to deny.
> 
> ...



OMG! That's awful!

But where does that show that the US stops Cuba from importing raw materials?

* The point is that the US embargo greatly undermines the Cuban economy, a fact you continue to deny. *

Communist economies are very fragile.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> It worked for tens of thousands of years (when we were hunter-gatherers)



I'm talking about Marx-communism.
This failed journalist wrote all about it in the 1800s.
He said the workers would revolt because capitalism would get worse and worse.
I guess journalism wasn't the only thing he was bad at, eh comrade?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 27, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OMG! That's awful!
> 
> But where does that show that the US stops Cuba from importing raw materials?
> 
> ...


Your comprehension


Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm talking about Marx-communism.
> This failed journalist wrote all about it in the 1800s.
> He said the workers would revolt because capitalism would get worse and worse.
> I guess journalism wasn't the only thing he was bad at, eh comrade?



You don't have to be fragile to be negatively affected by American-enforced sanctions.

Marx defined communism as:

*" Communism*_ (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order based on the idea of common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] *It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the *_*state "

Source:*
Communism - Wikipedia​
The original primitive communism of our ancestors is defined by Marx as primitive, due to its material conditions. it is stateless, without socioeconomic classes or money. High communism is high-tech, requiring advance technology, hence it is in our future. Like primitive communism it is also stateless, without socioeconomic classes or money. There has never been a communist state, but there have been and there are today, socialist states. The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics. The word "communist" is not there. It's oxymoronic to identify a state as communists, because communism is stateless. Socialism is the process that leads to high-communism.


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2022)

So, do communists lie about global warming more or less than non-communists?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Given how renewables are so much cheaper, why would we build new reactors?
> 
> If you want to invest in new nuclear reactors, no one is stopping you.



Actually, yes, the government is stopping you


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> So, do communists lie about global warming more or less than non-communists?



*"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Your comprehension
> 
> 
> You don't have to be fragile to be negatively affected by American-enforced sanctions.
> ...



*You don't have to be fragile to be negatively affected by American-enforced sanctions*

Apparently communism is the future. Unless one country doesn't want to trade with you.
If only there were more countries in the world that Cuba could trade with.

* The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics. The word "communist" is not there.*

OMG! I never noticed. Did the heads of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party know
that their country wasn't communist?


----------



## surada (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> More disingenuous and pointless criticism. I mentioned the fact that Cuban companies, whether public or private, can't conduct business due to the sanctions and you asked me to name some private companies and I did. Then you start griping about there only being two private companies listed in the reference I provided as if that matters to the point I originally made. It doesn't, the companies can be private, or public, the point is that the US sanctions seriously undermine Cuba's ability to conduct business.
> 
> The fact that there are still nations identifying as Marxist despite the US and its sanctions, imperialist warmongering..etc, is a testament to the power of socialism. Socialism exists in several forms throughout the world, and it will eventually replace capitalism. Efficiency and automation come from technology and that's what will eliminate capitalism.



Which nations identify as Marxist?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore...." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC*


Seriously, the faked quote _again_?

Have you no shame at all? At least come up with some new fraud.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

surada said:


> Which nations identify as Marxist?



Look at the really crappy ones.


----------



## surada (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Look at the really crappy ones.



Laos, Vietnam??






						List of socialist states - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Seriously, the faked quote _again_?
> 
> Have you no shame at all? At least come up with some new fraud.


Not faked, it's a direct quote from the interview


----------



## mamooth (Aug 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Not faked, it's a direct quote from the interview



If you're not lying, I'm sure you can show us that interview. Not just a denier lying about it, but the actual full interview from a primary source. Do so right here:

Now, I can point to that interview. That's how I know you're lying  You're just parroting what you saw on a cult web page.

And how do I know absolutely that you're lying here? Because you claimed it was a direct quote ... and the original interview is in German.

Oops.

Frank, given how many decades you've spent lying, you have no excuse for sucking so badly at it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Not faked, it's a direct quote from the interview



Outrageous!!
AGW fanatics don't want to take money from anybody and the don't want to give money to anybody. They don't want to touch money. They don't even want to think about money.
Money is dirty and awful and causes global warming.


Now give us your money.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You don't have to be fragile to be negatively affected by American-enforced sanctions*
> 
> Apparently communism is the future. Unless one country doesn't want to trade with you.
> If only there were more countries in the world that Cuba could trade with.
> ...



If your sarcasm was making a valid point I would be impressed but it, unfortunately, doesn't. It's just pretentious, disingenuous, dishonest, and deluded. If that one country was Argentina or Thailand, big deal, I agree. That's not the case, however, you know that. You're not an idiot. The United States is currently (hopefully not for long), the imperialist world hegemon and strongman bully. It's the 800-pound gorilla, financially and otherwise. If Cuba was being sanctioned by Argentina or Thailand, big deal, no problem. You flippantly dismiss the fact that the US is a capitalist-run empire that controls the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc. To expend energy trying to argue what is self-evident is a waste of my time. Cuba is in the shadow of a capitalist, imperialist empire, so of course, it's going to suffer.

Yes, socialism is the future and that is also self-evident. Advanced 21st-century technology is going to replace practically all blue-collar, menial jobs and many professional, white-collar jobs as well. It's not just me saying this, it's most experts, including the billionaires (lords of capital). Elon Musk even identified himself as a socialist on the Joe Rogan show a couple of years ago. Explicitly said, "I'm a socialist". Does he now behave like one? No, but that's what he said nonetheless. They see the writing on the wall and recognize that we're going to have to socialize and democratize production in the not-too-distant future.











						Why Truck Drivers Are About To Lose Their Jobs - Tony Robbins
					

Subscribe For Daily Inspirational/Educational Videos about Finance, Business & Investing!Follow us on:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/savetoinvest/Twitt...




					www.youtube.com
				





​
UBI would cost trillions yearly and is insane. There's absolutely no reason to hand everyone a free income, that they don't have to work for. Why do the well informed capitalist insist that eventually there's going to be the need for the government to bailout capitalism on a monthly basis by giving everyone a monthly income? It's because they want to remain in power and protect their assets and wealth. The capitalist system needs paying consumers and technology is going to dramatically reduce human labor hence socializing and democratizing production is inevitable, through a peaceful transition or through pitchforks when people go to bed hungry. They know that a government UBI bailout is needed to save capitalism. Of course, this isn't going to save capitalism in the long-term , it's going to create a modern feudal state where people depend upon a government monthly check and yet still don't own the means of production. The billionaires will own everything and you and I will remain renters forever, and dependent upon them (this will eventually lead to a violent socialist revolution).

Last point. Communism is:

*" Communism*_ (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3][4][5] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order based on the idea of common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—allocating products to everyone in the society.[6][7][8] *It also involves the absence of social classes, money,[9] and the *_*state "

Source:*
Communism - Wikipedia​
A society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money. NO STATE - NO CLASSES - NO NEED FOR MONEY. To say that the USSR was a "communist state" is a misnomer, that even the Soviets themselves didn't use. The USSR was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics. Soviet = Worker Councils/Democratic People's Councils. Socialism = Process that leads to high communism. The USSR was communist only in the sense that it was en route or in the process of becoming communist. It was socialist, not communist. I call myself a communist because that's the goal and objective, hence I identify with the revolutionary purpose of my socialism. To reach communism, a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Socialism has a state, it may even have socioeconomic classes (a residue of its capitalist past, hence still in transition), and use money as a means of exchange. Socialism is the process that leads to high communism (i.e. high-tech, modern communism).

​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> If your sarcasm was making a valid point I would be impressed but it, unfortunately, doesn't. It's just pretentious, disingenuous, dishonest, and deluded. If that one country was Argentina or Thailand, big deal, I agree. That's not the case, however, you know that. You're not an idiot. The United States is currently (hopefully not for long), the imperialist world hegemon and strongman bully. It's the 800-pound gorilla, financially and otherwise. If Cuba was being sanctioned by Argentina or Thailand, big deal, no problem. You flippantly dismiss the fact that the US is a capitalist-run empire that controls the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc. To expend energy trying to argue what is self-evident is a waste of my time. Cuba is in the shadow of a capitalist, imperialist empire, so of course, it's going to suffer.
> 
> Yes, socialism is the future and that is also self-evident. Advanced 21st-century technology is going to replace practically all blue-collar, menial jobs and many professional, white-collar jobs as well. It's not just me saying this, it's most experts, including the billionaires (lords of capital). Elon Musk even identified himself as a socialist on the Joe Rogan show a couple of years ago. Explicitly said, "I'm a socialist". Does he now behave like on? No, but that's what he said nonetheless. They see the writing on the wall and recognize that we're going to have to socialize and democratize production in the not-too-distant future.
> 
> ...


*
You flippantly dismiss the fact that the US is a capitalist-run empire that controls the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc.*

If communism was so awesome, the USSR would control the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc.

*Cuba is in the shadow of a capitalist, imperialist empire, so of course, it's going to suffer.*

Communists are too stupid to realize they can still trade with the other 191 countries? 

*The USSR was communist only in the sense that it was en route or in the process of becoming communist. *

And on the way, they landed on the ash heap of history.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *You flippantly dismiss the fact that the US is a capitalist-run empire that controls the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc.*
> 
> If communism was so awesome, the USSR would control the most prominent centers of economic power in the world, including the world banking system. etc.
> 
> ...



I already explained why what you're saying is absurd and dishonest. You just continue repeating the same nonsensical arguments. First, why does socialism have to replace capitalism in one, definitive, quick swoop for it to be capitalism's eventual successor? I'll just stop there. For the sake of our audience, we'll examine your reasoning one piece and point at a time. On what grounds do you insist that socialism must replace capitalism overnight or within a certain time span if it is a viable, valid mode of production that will replace capitalism? Present us with your reason/s for demanding this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> First, why does socialism have to replace capitalism in one, definitive, quick swoop



Or at all?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Actually, yes, the government is stopping you


*And the environmental wackos (but I repeat myself) stop the government at every opportunity.
No new nuclear power plants, no new gasoline powered cars, no new electric generating plants. 
They are SO CRAZY that they organized Stop Oil Now and are lying down in front of any car or truck.
Their next logical step is to murder every car and truck driver behind the wheel of an ICE, and then destroy the vehicle with their bloody pitchforks.*

*http://StopOilNow.org*


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or at all?



I'm going to ask you again:

_On what grounds do you insist that socialism must replace capitalism overnight or within a certain time span if it is a viable, valid mode of production that will replace capitalism? Present us with your reason/s for demanding this._


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> I'm going to ask you again:
> 
> _On what grounds do you insist that socialism must replace capitalism overnight or within a certain time span if it is a viable, valid mode of production that will replace capitalism? Present us with your reason/s for demanding this._



Again, it's not capitalists who are insisting capitalism will be replaced.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, it's not capitalists who are insisting capitalism will be replaced.



Again, it's you who are asserting that socialism is forever, a failure and will never replace capitalism on the grounds that it failed in the past. You are the one asserting that because the USSR did not defeat the United States, in the 20th century, socialism failed and will always continue to fail in its struggle against capitalism. Why do you believe that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Again, it's you who are asserting that socialism is forever, a failure and will never replace capitalism on the grounds that it failed in the past. You are the one asserting that because the USSR did not defeat the United States, in the 20th century, socialism failed and will always continue to fail in its struggle against capitalism. Why do you believe that?



Communism, not a great winning percentage.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Communism, not a great winning percentage.



Let's see if you can answer the question with a logical, rational argument. The USSR failed in the 20th century to defeat capitalism and the United States capitalist empire. On what grounds do you assert that socialism will never replace capitalism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Let's see if you can answer the question with a logical, rational argument. The USSR failed in the 20th century to defeat capitalism and the United States capitalist empire. On what grounds do you assert that socialism will never replace capitalism?



On what grounds do you assert that communism will ever replace capitalism?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> On what grounds do you assert that communism will ever replace capitalism?



That's a legitimate question that I have been answering throughout this thread and others as well. Your response to the answer to the question you've just asked is that I am wrong because the USSR failed to defeat the US capitalist-run empire in the 20th century. Socialism has not yet replaced capitalism, hence, according to you, everything that I've proposed with respect to why socialism will replace capitalism is wrong. My question is why do you believe that I am wrong on the basis of the USSR not defeating the United States in the 20th century or socialism not replacing capitalism in the past?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> That's a legitimate question that I have been answering throughout this thread and others as well. Your response to the answer to the question you've just asked is that I am wrong because the USSR failed to defeat the US capitalist-run empire in the 20th century. Socialism has not yet replaced capitalism, hence, according to you, everything that I've proposed with respect to why socialism will replace capitalism is wrong. My question is why do you believe that I am wrong on the basis of the USSR not defeating the United States in the 20th century or socialism not replacing capitalism in the past?



Communism, not a great winning percentage.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Communism, not a great winning percentage.



Not communism, socialism. Communism is stateless, without classes or the need for money. We haven't seen that type of society yet, what we have attempted is socialism. Can you define what it would mean for socialism to "win" or beat capitalism?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Communism, not a great winning percentage.


In your opinion what would constitute a decisive victory for socialism over capitalism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Not communism, socialism. Communism is stateless, without classes or the need for money. We haven't seen that type of society yet, what we have attempted is socialism. Can you define what it would mean for socialism to "win" or beat capitalism?



So all the non-stateless communist states failed, but that's not the fault of communism.
Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> In your opinion what would constitute a decisive victory for socialism over capitalism?



Well, if any of the commie shitholes weren't such shitholes would be a step in the right direction.

Maybe not prohibiting their prisoners...err...citizens from escaping their commie shithole, another.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So all the non-stateless communist states failed, but that's not the fault of communism.
> Thanks for clearing that up.


There was never a "communist state", that's oxymoronic. A communist society doesn't have a state according to Marx. The USSR was socialist. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS = USSR / SOVIET UNION.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> There was never a "communist state", that's oxymoronic. A communist society doesn't have a state according to Marx. The USSR was socialist. UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS = USSR / SOVIET UNION.



Even the USSR couldn't get communism to work.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, if any of the commie shitholes weren't such shitholes would be a step in the right direction.
> 
> Maybe not prohibiting their prisoners...err...citizens from escaping their commie shithole, another.



So the USSR was a "shithole" and so are other countries that identify as being Marxian socialists. In your opinion, why are these countries shitholes? What makes them "shitholes"?


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Even the USSR couldn't get communism to work.


Communism needs to work after socialism is established, in one year, ten years, perhaps one hundred years? Tell us, in your estimation, when does a socialist society have to transition to communism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Communism needs to work after socialism is established, in one year, ten years, perhaps one hundred years? Tell us, in your estimation, when does a socialist society have to transition to communism?



Maybe a thousand years.
Meanwhile, the slaves...err...prisoners...err...citizens suffer.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe a thousand years.
> Meanwhile, the slaves...err...prisoners...err...citizens suffer.


So in your estimation, it can take up to 1000 years for a socialist society to transition to communism. Why then are you complaining:

_"So all the non-stateless communist states failed, but that's not the fault of communism.
Thanks for clearing that up."_

Post Source: #527
_"Even the USSR couldn't get communism to work."_

Post Source: #530
You are criticizing socialist states for not getting communism to work or transitioning to communism already, but then you say that it can take up to 1000 years for the transition between socialism and communism to take place. Which one is it? Convert to communism ASAP, barabing-baraboom, or are you affording it a 1000-year window of socialist development?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> So in your estimation, it can take up to 1000 years for a socialist society to transition to communism. Why then are you complaining:



I hate to see people enslaved by evil governments.

*You are criticizing socialist states for not getting communism to work *

I'm mocking socialist states for not getting communism to work.

*but then you say that it can take up to 1000 years for the transition between socialism and communism to take place.*

Could be a million years.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I hate to see people enslaved by evil governments.
> 
> *You are criticizing socialist states for not getting communism to work *
> 
> ...



Socialism as well as communism require certain material conditions to be present for them to function and develop. Do you know what the material conditions for high communism to function are?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CommunistFront said:


> Socialism as well as communism require certain material conditions to be present for them to function and develop.



That's unfortunate. As we saw, the Warsaw Pact wasn't very good at producing material goods.


----------



## CommunistFront (Aug 28, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's unfortunate. As we saw, the Warsaw Pact wasn't very good at producing material goods.


The Warsaw Pact was a military alliance. Are you referring to the Soviet Union? For socialism and later communism to exist there has to be certain conditions in place or else, it won't function. It needs the support and participation of most of the people, advanced technology, and adequate. effective defense against its capitalist enemies, militarily and otherwise.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions


Opinions? Fking opinions? I thought science was about science?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Aug 28, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Opinions? Fking opinions? I thought science was about science?


Lord Acton, then president of the Royal Society, said in 1895, "Heavier than air human flight is impossible."
Seven years later, two bicycle mechanics flew at Kitty Hawk, NC.  Neither had a high school diploma.

*THERE IS NO CONSENSUS!!!*
Hundreds of peer reviewed papers published in 2016 were skeptical of the “consensus” of human caused climate change.​Skeptic Papers 2016​
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence.  They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen​
*The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – United Nations International Panel on Climate Control, 2007*​*“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015*​
“The inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon – it’s about capitalism.  … we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better [socialism, of course].” – Naomi Klein, *This Changes Everything:  Capitalism vs. the Climate*​
“If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970.​


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

mamooth said:


> If you're not lying, I'm sure you can show us that interview. Not just a denier lying about it, but the actual full interview from a primary source. Do so right here:
> 
> Now, I can point to that interview. That's how I know you're lying  You're just parroting what you saw on a cult web page.
> 
> ...



This is Boooooooooooooooooooringgggg

I posted Ottmar's quote several hundred times and your excuses have varied from: You're a liar!  Denier!  There's no such person!  Denier!! He wasn't talking as IPCC! Denier!!

take your meds, Biden Loon


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
> 
> There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rye Catcher (Aug 28, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2022)

Rye Catcher said:


>



Oh no!  Ice melts!  This has never happened since the invention of the Internal Combustion Engine!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh no!  Ice melts!  This has never happened since the invention of the Internal Combustion Engine!



There has literally never been an iceberg, before fossil fuels were used.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2022)

Gentlemen, you are on the Environment forum in a thread titled "Global Warming Liars".  I bet their are several, different, more appropriate forums on USMB for the discussion you're having.


----------



## Zincwarrior (Aug 29, 2022)

*Gentlemen, and I use that term loosely!  Lets move the thread back on track - Global Warming, and not the Eastern Front of WW2. If you wish to discuss the fascinating topic of the Eastern Front, you are more than welcome to post a separate thread on that. *


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I posted Ottmar's quote


No, you haven't. You've only posted an out-of-context incorrect mistranslation that you took off of a denier propaganda page.

You have never once posted the original German discussion or linked to it.

That is, you've lied about it hundreds of times.

You've been informed of that over and over, and you still do it, meaning your lie is very deliberate. Satan is the Lord of Lies, and you're constantly down on your knees pleasuring Him.

Now, Satan is calling. He wants another coat of saliva applied. Run along and do what you do best.


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...



An almost unanimous consensus among publishing climate scientists exists that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming and that consensus and has been verified by multiple published studies.  This OP is a very bad joke.


----------



## surada (Sep 7, 2022)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Is there a point of any kind to this su? so what? there was a time we did all kinds of business with cuba. your posts seem to just go from pillar to post as though they're/you're looking for an escape hatch.


Sugar cane was Cuba's most important export.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Sep 7, 2022)

surada said:


> Sugar cane was Cuba's most important export.


Now its people


----------



## ChemEngineer (Sep 7, 2022)

*The 97% figure is a lie.










						Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
					

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?




					www.forbes.com
				



*
Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” *This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position*. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.

An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.

The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here. The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. *The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.

-----------------------  end of Forbes snippet-------*
My observation:

*This is due to the fact that they get paid to lie and support previous liars who are afraid of being blackballed by their Leftist peers.*


----------



## abu afak (Sep 7, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *The 97% figure is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The above article was written by someone in "Construction Management"! (Your plumber) in a business mag.
Who concedes at the very least it's "over 80%.," and maybe "90-100%."
Of course, that WAS a 2016 article talking about even earlier ones (pre-2013), and the consensus has grown steadily for the last 20 years.

Again Wiki:

"...James Lawrence Powell *reported in 2017* that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015[/B], including several of those above, *combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.*[152]
*In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.*[2]

A survey conducted in *2021* found that of a random selection of *3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.*[153]

Depending on expertise, a *2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change.
Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed*, a number that *grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted* (20+ papers published).[4]

`


----------



## ChemEngineer (Oct 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> An almost unanimous consensus among publishing climate scientists exists that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming and that consensus and has been verified by multiple published studies.  This OP is a very bad joke.




*Science is not a function of "consensus."  
Cowards say what their friends say so they won't be ostracized and denied grants to lie.

Leftists need to learn some science, not that they would fairly represent or report it...

Only 1 country on earth is classified as "sustainable."  That lovely Left-wing shithole is.... Cuba.  All you environmental hypocrites should move there to your Nirvana.



*


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Science is not a function of "consensus."  *


What is and is not considered "accepted science" or "widely accepted science" is determined SPECIFICALLY by consensus.


ChemEngineer said:


> *Cowards say what their friends say so they won't be ostracized and denied grants to lie.*


In your universe, why is it that the people who support your view are always cowards?


ChemEngineer said:


> *Leftists need to learn some science, not that they would fairly represent or report it...*


Is it science that tells you it is valid to make unsupported generalizations like that?


ChemEngineer said:


> *Only 1 country on earth is classified as "sustainable."  That lovely Left-wing shithole is.... Cuba.  All you environmental hypocrites should move there to your Nirvana.
> 
> View attachment 713447*


That's quite funny.  Completely irrelevant, but funny.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Only 1 country on earth is classified as "sustainable." That lovely Left-wing shithole is.... Cuba. All you environmental hypocrites should move there to your Nirvana.


And that?  Is precisely how the global oligarchs intend everyone on Earth to live.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 21, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> And that?  Is precisely how the global oligarchs intend everyone on Earth to live.


I hate denier hippies.

Everyone hates denier hippies.

Look, if you denier hippies want to live in caves with a hairy woman and hug trees, just do it. The rest of us like electricity.

And that's why we're working on keeping the lights on when the fossil fuel runs out. Deniers want to leave humanity shivering in the dark -- forever.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> I hate denier hippies.
> 
> Everyone hates denier hippies.
> 
> ...












Hydrocarbons, _*AREN'T*_ going to run out, nor are they going to cause the seas to rise or wipe humanity out.  And calling folks names?  That is the tactic of the dumb and desperate.  Giving folks a thumbs down and everything that triggers you?  Is pretty telling as well.  The ruling global oligarchs, ARE, however, going to face a shortage of energy, because they want to have every car, every house, and every city, completely wired for sensors, because they don't want to use supply and demand to operate economies, they want computers and AI to control a technocracy, so folks are completely controlled.

It's called a scientific dictatorship.  All this "global warming, global disease, and global terror," is just a scare mongering excuse so kings and queens, and billionariare oligarchs can strip folks civil rights and civil liberties.  IN fact the pandemic was just a preview.


You are so dumb, it hurts.  And you HATE people that are smarter, and more intelligent than you. . . it is HILARIOUS!



You actually believe that hydrocarbons, other than coal, come from dead organisms, and not the internal processes of celestial bodies.





						Gas Resources – gasresources.net
					






					www.gasresources.net
				




This is how bad global oligarchs have conned you.  It is hilarious!

Like, Saturn's largest moon Titan once had large forests and animals roaming across it.  

That's golden man, it really is, I rarely meet someone who pretends to be so smart that is so dumb, nice. . . 









						Lakes of Titan - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				











						Hydrocarbon lake on Titan?
					

The NASA/ESA/ASI Cassini spacecraft has identified an intriguing dark feature that may be the site of a past or present lake of liquid hydrocarbons at Titan's south pole.



					www.esa.int
				




It is like you don't pay attention, or even look at FACTUAL REALITY, of the things that are going on around you, if they do not conform to how you want your reality to be.  Well?  That ain't how life works in your little corner of the world. 

When I was twenty years younger?  I too, bought into "peak oil," but then?  It didn't work out, NEW DATA came in pal.  So you revise your thinking, and look for new hypothesis's, and new explanations, and discard that old lies.

*Oil Without End? Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil fuel. That could mean there's lots more of it.*




__





						Oil Without End? Revisionists say oil isn't a fossil             fuel. That could mean there's lots more of it. - February 17, 2003
					





					money.cnn.com
				




". . . Oil and natural gas are being found in places no one expected and in greater quantities than anticipated just a decade ago. In the mid-1990s the world's reserves of oil were thought to total about 890 billion barrels. Today reserves stand at 1.1 trillion barrels; the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that continued reserve growth, along with undiscovered resources, could bring world oil estimates to as much as three trillion barrels. "We're finding there are pretty substantial oil reserves in the world," says Tom Ahlbrandt, world energy project chief at the USGS. "New exploration and drilling technologies are making major new discoveries possible."

The increase in reserve estimates is fueling the offbeat theories of maverick scientists who believe that the expression "fossil fuels" is a misnomer and that the earth contains a virtually endless supply of oil. Their ideas fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that oil and natural gas come from the remains of animals and plants buried millions of years ago. Subterranean heat and pressure, mainstream science says, transformed this organic dreck into coal and oil. Though their theories vary, the upstarts believe instead that wellsprings of oil and gas lie deep within the earth, deeper than most oil companies drill, and that supplies are constantly replenished. "With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong."

If true, the theories may mean we can stress less about running out of oil: There's more where that came from! We can also worry less about tensions in the Middle East or other hot spots cutting off our long-term supply. Problem is, most scientists scoff at such theories. Oil companies maintain that even if the rebels are right, the cost of searching for and extracting deep oil is prohibitive. ConocoPhillips, the $38-billion-a-year giant, is drilling for oil in the basement rock of the Black Lion Field off the coast of Vietnam. The company says the field is "unique," and the project is economically feasible because the oil is found at relatively shallow levels in the basement rock. "If you drill deeper into basement rock, you're probably going to find some hydrocarbons, but the chance of finding giant fields is pretty small," says Roger Pinkerton, ConocoPhillips's recently retired head of global exploration. He argues that there are much more accessible--albeit environmentally controversial--sources that will yield plenty of oil for the foreseeable future: to name two, the East Coast of the U.S. and Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge.

Drilling deep into granite probably will never make economic sense unless the industrialized world runs dangerously low on oil or is cut off from its supply. But in the meantime scientists like Thomas Gold, a retired Cornell astronomy professor, are content with poking holes in traditional theories surrounding fossil fuels. It isn't just that hydrocarbons are being discovered in anomalous places like basement rock; Gold notes that primitive hydrocarbons like methane are also found in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, and other planets.

He laid out his theories, which he believes better address those inconsistencies, in his 1998 book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels. He argues that natural gas and oil were created with the earth's formation and reside deep inside the planet. Intense heat and pressure push them from there toward the surface. As to why biological matter (what some deem fossils) is found in oil, Gold says hydrocarbons attract a primitive type of microbe called archaea that lives deep underground; it feeds on and contaminates the oil.

Controversial yet renowned, Gold is credited with figuring out in the 1960s that pulsars were actually radio emissions from rapidly spinning collapsed stars, or neutron stars. To test his non-fossil-fuel theory, Gold in the 1980s persuaded the Swedish government to drill deep in a region near Siljan Lake, about 150 miles north of Stockholm. The Swedes drilled about four miles into basement rock and produced some 80 barrels of oil before the equipment became hopelessly gummed up with putty-like iron oxide. To Gold and his supporters, those 80 barrels were wet, black evidence that oil is no fossil fuel. Critics countered that the oil was merely regurgitated fluid and contaminants from the drilling operation. Because of equipment failures and ballooning costs, the project was abandoned.

Gold insists that the Siljan Lake results have led Soviet scientists and explorers to drill more than 300 deep wells into basement rock since then, producing some oil--but not vast amounts. (In fact, Russian scientists have entertained theories similar to Gold's for as long as 100 years.) "The U.S. petroleum geological community has a viewpoint firmly opposed to the notion of oil being of nonbiological origin--but not the Russian, Chinese, or Vietnamese," says Gold. "The U.S. has ignored completely the obviously very important Swedish results."

etc. . . you may be smart, but you clearly don't know what you are talking about, you live in an echo chamber, and everyone intelligent, that posts in the sci forums knows it.














						The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking | Manhattan Institute
					

Progressive policymakers promote the idea that America is on the verge of a green revolution that will eliminate hydrocarbon use within the near future—but in reality, this is not possible.




					www.manhattan-institute.org
				










			https://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode024_peak_oil_is_a_fraud.mp3


----------



## mamooth (Oct 21, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> Hydrocarbons, _*AREN'T*_ going to run out


Many denier cranks are abiotic oil loons as well. Why? Because if someone is stupid enough to fall for one idiot conspiracy theory, they're stupid enough to fall for all of them.



MisterBeale said:


> Like, Saturn's largest moon Titan once had large forests and animals roaming across it.


I rest my case.

So, if abiotic oil is real ... why hasn't anyone found any, ever? I mean, besides in trace amounts, which is what the theories from normal people predicted. 

If your theory is right, many trillions of dollars are waiting to me made. And yet ... nada. The oil companies aren't even looking. How do you explain that? Maybe a secret global socialist conspiracy?


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 21, 2022)

mamooth said:


> Many denier cranks are abiotic oil loons as well. Why? Because if someone is stupid enough to fall for one idiot conspiracy theory, they're stupid enough to fall for all of them.
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> ...


*"With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong."*

You need to read these books;














						Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




And then?  Come back to me, and explain why you do not know what you are talking about to me.  Until you have read these books, like I have, and know what I know?  We can't have an intelligent conversation, clearly.  You are so ignorant, it hurts.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> *"With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong."*
> 
> You need to read these books;
> 
> ...






Yup.  Dr. Gold proved that the current theory of oil production is wrong when he drilled into the middle of the continental kraton, pure, unadulterated igneous rock, and found oil.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 21, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> You need to read these books;


There he goes. Look at him run!

I asked you why the oil companies aren't looking for this oil that would make them many trillions. Instead of answering, you deflected with a "BUT MAH BOOK!" evasion.

Answer the question. If you know so much about the topic, it should be easy for you. If you're just a babbling cult crank ... keep on evading.

Needless to say, I can answer the question. That's because I'm not a cult dumbass. There is no abiotic oil, beyond a trace.


----------



## EMH (Oct 21, 2022)

A topic called

Global warming liars

Would not be complete without mamooooooo posting in it.


Mamooooo has been lying about co2 online for two decades


----------



## otto105 (Oct 22, 2022)

mamooth said:


> I hate denier hippies.
> 
> Everyone hates denier hippies.
> 
> ...


Sure maga fuckup quacker, you only love electricity if it’s produced by coal.


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Sure maga fuckup quacker, you only love electricity if it’s produced by coal.


I think you are either confused or suffering exceedingly poor aim.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Oct 22, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> *"With the White Tiger Field in Vietnam, 90% of the production is coming from basement rock, where there were never any fossils," argues C. Warren Hunt, a geologist in Calgary. "What they've been teaching us in school about oil coming from fossils is wrong."*


MistrBeale, this is the first quote I have seen which confirms what I have been saying for the past five years.  It is impossible that crude oil, and natural gas, and coal all formed from dead plants and animals because bacteria and fungi eat them before our very eyes.  Nowhere on earth today are there large piles of dead plants or animals waiting to be compressed under rocks and pushed down several miles, including underneath oceans and seas.  How silly can you get.

I voiced this opinion to a geologist from Canada whom I met at Disneyland.  He agreed with me.  

*I will go one huge step further.  Carbon based fuels were put in place by our Brilliant Creator who made enough to last mankind for our current stint here on earth.  We won't run out.  He'll be back before that that happens.  You heard it from me first.*


----------



## Crick (Oct 22, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *I will go one huge step further.  Carbon based fuels were put in place by our Brilliant Creator who made enough to last mankind for our current stint here on earth.  We won't run out.  He'll be back before that that happens.  You heard it from me first.*


Yes we did.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 22, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> MistrBeale, this is the first quote I have seen which confirms what I have been saying for the past five years.  It is impossible that crude oil, and natural gas, and coal all formed from dead plants and animals because bacteria and fungi eat them before our very eyes.  Nowhere on earth today are there large piles of dead plants or animals waiting to be compressed under rocks and pushed down several miles, including underneath oceans and seas.  How silly can you get.
> 
> I voiced this opinion to a geologist from Canada whom I met at Disneyland.  He agreed with me.
> 
> *I will go one huge step further.  Carbon based fuels were put in place by our Brilliant Creator who made enough to last mankind for our current stint here on earth.  We won't run out.  He'll be back before that that happens.  You heard it from me first.*


Not mentioned in Genesis but the Sun was.
He created the SUN (Solar), Moon and stars on the Fourth day.
When did he create Oil and Fracking?

**** you, you Rigid Dope. Can't even read your only source of myths.
`


----------



## mamooth (Oct 23, 2022)

Now we have a whole pack of denier imbeciles endorsing the abiotic oil crank theory. It's becoming a mandatory belief for their cult. The lack of any evidence for it? That doesn't slow them down a bit. The cult commands, they obey.

At the rate deniers are devolving, it won't be long before the cult orders them to believe in the flat earth. And if the cult commands it, they will obey.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 24, 2022)

mamooth said:


> The lack of any evidence for it?


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


>





			NASA -  Scientists Solve the Mystery of Methane in Titan's Atmosphere


----------



## ChemEngineer (Oct 24, 2022)

Loony Leftist is so proud of flying gas-guzzling commercial jet to Europe that he posts a photo of himself at the glass pyramid of the Louvre.  

theglobalwarmingfraud


----------



## Crick (Oct 24, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Loony Leftist is so proud of flying gas-guzzling commercial jet to Europe that he posts a photo of himself at the glass pyramid of the Louvre.
> 
> theglobalwarmingfraud


Haven't made it to Paris yet, have you?

And to make a very likely futile attempt to get the discussion back on topic and off the endless ad hominems   Fly or Drive from New York to Los Angeles and this  High Density Low Cost Long Haul: An A350-1000 vs 787-10 - What's Best?

Give us a few numbers.  Using them we can calculate the following:
A 25 mpg car driven from NY to LA will consume 111.5 gallons of gasoline
A Boeing 787 fully loaded with 272 passengers plus 50lb luggage each flying from NY to LA will use 28.5 gallons of fuel per passenger

So... what were you saying?


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2022)

*ChemEngineer said:*
Loony Leftist is so proud of flying gas-guzzling commercial jet to Europe that he posts a photo of himself at the glass pyramid of the Louvre.



Crick said:


> Haven't made it to Paris yet, have you?
> 
> And to make a very likely futile attempt to get the discussion back on topic and off the endless ad hominems   Fly or Drive from New York to Los Angeles and this  High Density Low Cost Long Haul: An A350-1000 vs 787-10 - What's Best?
> 
> ...


Additionally, the folks traveling in the car will need to spend at least five nights in hotels, eat fifteen meals at restaurants use bathrooms every couple hours.  And, if one had to get from anywhere in the US to Paris, how would you suggest it be done?  Cruise ship?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 10, 2022)

Crick said:


> *ChemEngineer said:*
> Loony Leftist is so proud of flying gas-guzzling commercial jet to Europe that he posts a photo of himself at the glass pyramid of the Louvre.
> 
> 
> Additionally, the folks traveling in the car will need to spend at least five nights in hotels, eat fifteen meals at restaurants use bathrooms every couple hours.  And, if one had to get from anywhere in the US to Paris, how would you suggest it be done?  Cruise ship?


Just keep fighting for that return to the horse and buggy sycophant.


----------



## Crick (Nov 10, 2022)

sycophant:  
_noun_

a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2022)

Crick said:


> What is and is not considered "accepted science" or "widely accepted science" is determined SPECIFICALLY by consensus.


no such thing as consensus in science.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Just keep fighting for that return to the horse and buggy sycophant.


you have that lead.  You Can't wait to get that job of following the horses to pick up the poop I bet.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> no such thing as consensus in science.


"Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, agnostic, whose memorial service was held in St. John the Divine Cathedral, New York City

Sagan is a believer now.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 14, 2022)

jc456 said:


> no such thing as consensus in science.


Hilarious


----------



## otto105 (Nov 15, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hilarious


So, who has a different point of view on the periodic table?

Carbon dating?

The earth is round?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 15, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, who has a different point of view on the periodic table?
> 
> Carbon dating?
> 
> The earth is round?


So nobody?


----------



## ding (Nov 16, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hilarious


This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “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. 






						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org


----------



## otto105 (Nov 16, 2022)

ding said:


> This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hilarious 

Many what?

Reached a consensus…..?


----------



## ding (Nov 16, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hilarious
> 
> Many what?
> 
> Reached a consensus…..?


Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement

Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 16, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hilarious
> 
> Many what?
> 
> Reached a consensus…..?


no such thing as a consensus in science.


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement
> 
> Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.


Reality is a unique dataset.  Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.

The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists).  The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention.  The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> Reality is a unique dataset.  Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.
> 
> The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists).  The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention.  The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.


What’s the percentage of vast majority? How many out of how many?

Been waiting on you for three months now


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> What’s the percentage of vast majority? How many out of how many?
> 
> Been waiting on you for three months now


I've had you on ignore for several years now jc.  Any point at which I read your posts in one where no one else is playing.  As to the percentage, a series of five different studies by Dr. James L Powell of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.









						Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> no such thing as a consensus in science.


So, the earth isn't round?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement
> 
> Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending on the data sets they use.


The contrary conclusions are usually paid for by the oil industry or the conservative noise machine. Like sun spots are causing our current warming...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, the earth isn't round?


How’s that science?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> I've had you on ignore for several years now jc.  Any point at which I read your posts in one where no one else is playing.  As to the percentage, a series of five different studies by Dr. James L Powell of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015 combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you have no idea. So vast majority is horseshit


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How’s that science?


How is it not?


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2022)

otto105 said:


> The contrary conclusions are usually paid for by the oil industry or the conservative noise machine.


Incorrect. Were oil companies responsible for it being 2C warmer in the part with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?


----------



## ding (Nov 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> Reality is a unique dataset.  Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.


Incorrect. Different datasets.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

otto105 said:


> How is it not?


How is it? Show me all the experiments


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 20, 2022)

"Peer reviewed literature" carries some kind of sacrosanct power with Al Gore's Followers.
A study of peer reviewed literature has shown that it is very often fraught with errors, and probably not
substantially different from non-peer reviewed literature.  By the same token, placebos have been found 
to be effective in a wide variety of medical applications, and the comparison of studied medicines to 
placebos is causing countless problems because there often is not much difference in measured
efficacy.  But those are some pretty difficult words much less concepts for haters on my Ignore List.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect. Were oil companies responsible for it being 2C warmer in the part with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?


When was that again?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> "Peer reviewed literature" carries some kind of sacrosanct power with Al Gore's Followers.
> A study of peer reviewed literature has shown that it is very often fraught with errors, and probably not
> substantially different from non-peer reviewed literature.  By the same token, placebos have been found
> to be effective in a wide variety of medical applications, and the comparison of studied medicines to
> ...


Yeah, we should just base science on GWB’s gut or former 1-term fuckup’s watching of newsmax.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> How is it? Show me all the experiments


You can check with the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 20, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!


*Aren't you sophisticated, erudite and so very classy.*












*
Four hundred private jets flew into Sharm El Sheikh Airport, Egypt, for the climate change hypocrite backslap fest, down from 1,400 at Davos, Switzerland a few years ago.



*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You can check with the Flat Earth Society.


Sounds like you should


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When was that again?


Doesn’t oil exist? It’s nature right?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

Billo_Really said:


> You are nothing but a fossil fuel whore!


What’s that mean? You don’t drive? Things delivered? Buy from stores? Hmmm you be calling yourself a fossil fuel horror if you are any of that


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 20, 2022)

*EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!*


Can’t travel more than 150 miles without a five hour charge


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *EV Cars Catch Fire, Repeatedly!*


While fires in lithium battery powered cars are intense and difficult to extinguish, they are relatively rare.  Fires in vehicles with internal combustion engines occur eleven times as often, per capita, as fires in EVs.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

Crick said:


> While fires in lithium battery powered cars are intense and difficult to extinguish, they are relatively rare.  Fires in vehicles with internal combustion engines occur eleven times as often, per capita, as fires in EVs.


Hahaha hahaha


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Doesn’t oil exist? It’s nature right?



Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good.  Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good.  Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.


But it’s nature


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2022)

jc456 said:


> But it’s nature


I’m still waiting on the alternative resources that can warm people!! Or is it people shouldn’t exist?


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Sanctimonious climate change fanatics think that oil should remain thousands of feet underground, where it does absolutely no good.  Meanwhile they continue to drive and enjoy the good life with all the hypocrisy of Al Gore, John Kerry, the Obamas, Hollywood Glitterati and all the rest of the green hypocrites.


It does enormous good for everyone to leave the oil where it is.  The behavior of celebrities you don't like is completely and obviously irrelevant.  That you think otherwise is just a good indicator of your personal qualities.


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When was that again?


The last interglacial cycle. Why don’t you know this?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Reality is a unique dataset.  Assuming equal competence, your conjection means that the two groups of scientists are not looking at equally accurate data.
> 
> The vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions (unsuprising since those conclusions are based on the work of those scientists).  The vast majority of scientists do not feel that contrary views worthy of attention are being suppressed because, I suppose, they believe that the contrary opinions we've all seen simply AREN'T worthy of attention.  The authors of those contrary opinions undoubtedly have a different point of view.


Their claims have yet to be refuted. 






						ShieldSquare Captcha
					






					iopscience.iop.org


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> 1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey.  They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.
> 
> 2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned,  BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.
> 
> 3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries.  Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.


_BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel._

Are you trying to say that there has been no volcanic eruptions since the industrial revolution began.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> _BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel._
> 
> Are you trying to say that there has been no volcanic eruptions since the industrial revolution began.


Obviously not.  That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted.  But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Obviously not.  That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted.  But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.











						Net Zero Shock: Carbon Dioxide Rises AFTER Temperature Increases, Scientists Find
					

Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a




					dailysceptic.org


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> Obviously not.  That is why you see the word "virtually" in the statement of mine that you quoted.  But humans have produced an order of magnitude more CO2 since the Industrial Revolution than all geological inputs combined.


So, I'm wondering, if we are using resources from the planet that already exist, how is it we're adding?


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Net Zero Shock: Carbon Dioxide Rises AFTER Temperature Increases, Scientists Find
> 
> 
> Dramatic new findings from two climate science professors suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows a
> ...


There are two mechanisms taking place.  1)  Gases dissolve in liquids (ex: the bubbles in your soda).  Unlike the more familiar solution of solids in liquids (like sugar in your coffee) when the liquid temperature increases, gas solubility goes down.  So when something raises the temperature of the Earth. the solubility of CO2 in the oceans is reduced and its levels in the atmosphere rise.  When temperatures fall, its solubility increases and its levels in the atmosphere fall.  2)  CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenouse gas because it absorbs infrared light that all matter emits to radiate heat.  That allows it to capture IR emitted by the land and oceans warmed by the visible light of the sun and slow its escape to space.  That causes the planet to warm and is known as the greenhouse effect.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> It does enormous good for everyone to leave the oil where it is.  The behavior of celebrities you don't like is completely and obviously irrelevant.  That you think otherwise is just a good indicator of your personal qualities.


why does it benefit us?  No cell phones, no computers, well home ones anyway.  No cars.  no heat.  holy fk, what is it you're after?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 21, 2022)

jc456 said:


> I’m still waiting on the alternative resources that can warm people!! Or is it people shouldn’t exist?



"There are too many people!"  > say the Leftists

"Abort those babies!  Especially you black women!" >>> Leftists, at the behest of racist Margaret Sanger
Black women get abortions at five or six times the rate of white women.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> "There are too many people!"  > say the Leftists
> 
> "Abort those babies!  Especially you black women!" >>> Leftists, at the behest of racist Margaret Sanger
> Black women get abortions at five or six times the rate of white women.View attachment 729135



You really need to check stuff before you post.  This makes you look REALLY gullible.

Sanger, a feminist and reproductive rights activist, opened the first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, in 1916, giving access to low-income and minority women (here).

She started “The Negro Project” in 1939, with the aim of expanding birth control services for Black communities in the south, according to the New York University’s project documenting Sanger’s writings. (here)


The quote is real and appears in a Dec. 10, 1939 letter to a program director advocating employing Black physicians and ministers to gain trust of the communities the program was meant to serve (here).

Sanger’s concern was to avoid a suspicion that the program’s objective was to stop Black people having babies, which having white people in charge could create.

She wrote: “The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

In 2015, the Washington Post, addressing accusations of racism levelled against Sanger brought up her 1939 letter, saying that while the passage quoted above was “inartfully written” it was “frequently taken out of context to suggest Sanger was seeking to exterminate blacks.” (here)

TIME magazine re-examined claims that Sanger advocated exterminating Blacks in 2016, saying that Sanger’s oft-cited sentence, “in context, describes the sort of preposterous allegations she feared — not her actual mission.” (here) Factcheck.org reached similar conclusions in 2011 (here).









						Fact Check-Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s 1939 quote on exterminating Black population taken out of context
					

Social media users are sharing a quote from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger without context.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> You really need to check stuff before you post.  This makes you look REALLY gullible.
> 
> Sanger, a feminist and reproductive rights activist, opened the first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, in 1916, giving access to low-income and minority women (here).
> 
> ...


Sanger believed that abortion was an abomination and wouldn’t allow them to be performed in her clinic.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> You really need to check stuff before you post.  This makes you look REALLY gullible.
> 
> Sanger, a feminist and reproductive rights activist, opened the first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, in 1916, giving access to low-income and minority women (here).
> 
> ...


just wow, what you think you actually posted.   wow.


----------



## Crick (Nov 21, 2022)

jc456 said:


> just wow, what you think you actually posted.   wow.


And what do you think that I think I actually posted?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2022)

Crick said:


> And what do you think that I think I actually posted?


what her intentions really were.  thanks,


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 21, 2022)




----------



## otto105 (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> The last interglacial cycle. Why don’t you know this?


When was again?

And where was you temperature recorded from?


----------



## ding (Nov 21, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When was again?
> 
> And where was you temperature recorded from?


You don’t know what an interglacial cycle is or when the last one ended?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 21, 2022)

jc456 said:


> why does it benefit us?  No cell phones, no computers, well home ones anyway.  No cars.  no heat.  holy fk, what is it you're after?



Leftists want everyone else to be as bitter and miserable as they are.  If you are not, they are
contemptibly jealous.  The world has been coming to a rapid end for decades and it's only getting
worse.  Just ask Al Gore or the little 13-year-old harridan from Sweden who bypassed childhood.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 21, 2022)

ding said:


> You don’t know what an interglacial cycle is or when the last one ended?


I want to know the dates, causation and why you think it applies to our current climate change.


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

otto105 said:


> I want to know the dates, causation and why you think it applies to our current climate change.


Why was it 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?

Because temperature does not correlate to CO2 today. It never has. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. Now CO2 correlates to emissions. 

That’s why it’s relevant.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Leftists want everyone else to be as bitter and miserable as they are.  If you are not, they are
> contemptibly jealous.  The world has been coming to a rapid end for decades and it's only getting
> worse.  Just ask Al Gore or the little 13-year-old harridan from Sweden who bypassed childhood.


Have you ever considered the possibility that you're wrong?  Everyone should do that once in a while.  Look at all these fools that bought Trump'ss Big Lie.  They think the country has been stolen when, in fact, it is they who are trying to steal it.  And making derogatory generalizations is logical shit.  And, if you'd like to make derogatory generalizations, from my point of view it is conservatives that tend to be bitter.  I think liberals are worried and concerned and some of them are even frightened, but every time I meet someone at the far right end of the spectrum, I see bitterness, anger and a feeling that they've been unfairly shortchanged by the world around them.  You have always seemed bitter to me.  Angry at the world.  It's as if you want to blame everyone else for all your problems and never consider the possibility that you might have caused some of them or that some of them aren't even real.  Just ask Al Gore or the 19-year old Greta Thunberg.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Why was it 2C warmer with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today?
> 
> Because temperature does not correlate to CO2 today. It never has. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 correlated to temperature. Now CO2 correlates to emissions.
> 
> That’s why it’s relevant.


Show a chart of CO2 and temperature.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 22, 2022)

Crick said:


> Have you ever considered the possibility that you're wrong?  Everyone should do that once in a while.  Look at all these fools that bought Trump'ss Big Lie.  They think the country has been stolen when, in fact, it is they who are trying to steal it.  And making derogatory generalizations is logical shit.  And, if you'd like to make derogatory generalizations, from my point of view it is conservatives that tend to be bitter.  I think liberals are worried and concerned and some of them are even frightened, but every time I meet someone at the far right end of the spectrum, I see bitterness, anger and a feeling that they've been unfairly shortchanged by the world around them.  You have always seemed bitter to me.  Angry at the world.  It's as if you want to blame everyone else for all your problems and never consider the possibility that you might have caused some of them or that some of them aren't even real.  Just ask Al Gore or the 19-year old Greta Thunberg.


I’m not wrong, thanks for asking


----------



## ding (Nov 22, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Show a chart of CO2 and temperature.


You’d learn more if you researched it yourself. The data shouldn’t be hard to find. The sea levels were 26 ft higher in the last interglacial cycle. Imagine that, 26 ft higher seas with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 22, 2022)

ding said:


> The last interglacial cycle. Why don’t you know this?


Then post the dates, causation and atmospheric composition to make your case for 120ppm and temperature.


You know, like actual climate scientists.


----------



## Crick (Nov 22, 2022)

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwcxyz  now is the tinme for all good ment to conme to theia dojhutkrnjejhf.newdlfhwej sadjdljfesr ;szn fjwlefsljs;kfg  sdf ldsgj dslfg jdfmvcgtjk;lfmvlddfljgldf j jmcldf jgl


otto105 said:


> Then post the dates, causation and atmospheric composition to make your case for 120ppm and temperature.
> 
> 
> You know, like actual climate scientists.


I think someone needs to point out that correlation between two trends is not determined by their characteristics at a single point in time.


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Then post the dates, causation and atmospheric composition to make your case for 120ppm and temperature.
> 
> 
> You know, like actual climate scientists.


It’s public record. You will get more from discovering it yourself.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Then post the dates, causation and atmospheric composition to make your case for 120ppm and temperature.
> 
> 
> You know, like actual climate scientists.


so you have data on how warm 120PPM is from climate scientists?  post it please.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 23, 2022)

Many, many "actual" climate scientists have published papers and books on the fraud of climate change.   They are simply dismissed by fearmongering Leftists with a socialist agenda.


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> Many, many "actual" climate scientists have published papers and books on the fraud of climate change.   They are simply dismissed by fearmongering Leftists with a socialist agenda.


Can you name some of these papers?  The books are essentially irrelevant, but I would like to see a paper in a refereed journal presenting evidence of fraud.  Or perhaps a court case of charges being brought against someone for such fraud.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Can you name some of these papers?  The books are essentially irrelevant, but I would like to see a paper in a refereed journal presenting evidence of fraud.  Or perhaps a court case of charges being brought against someone for such fraud.


Who do you think you are?


----------



## Crick (Nov 23, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Who do you think you are?


Poster Crick.  You?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 23, 2022)

Crick said:


> Poster Crick.  You?


Popeye, with the same rights as you! That must suck for your condescending mind


----------



## otto105 (Nov 23, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s public record. You will get more from discovering it yourself.


Why the dodge on something you consider so convincing?


----------



## ding (Nov 23, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Why the dodge on something you consider so convincing?


There’s no dodge at all. I know what the data shows. It will mean more to you if you go and discover it for yourself.

Or if you like you can search for someone who doesn’t believe the previous interglacial cycle was 2C warmer with 26 ft higher seas and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.  Good luck with that because  no one doesn’t believe that.


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Popeye, with the same rights as you! That must suck for your condescending mind


Your last two posts have been incomprehensible.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> Can you name some of these papers?  The books are essentially irrelevant, but I would like to see a paper in a refereed journal presenting evidence of fraud.  Or perhaps a court case of charges being brought against someone for such fraud.



After seeing jc456 go back and forth with you, I clicked on SHOW POST of you because you are on my Ignore List for good reason, viz. your reprehensible dishonesty.

1.  I have compiled papers, graphs, and data for around 20 years on the global warming fraud.  Twenty years.
I have read books by authorities challenging your AlGorian silliness.    The first part of the first page of my notes:

*Unstoppable Global Warming

Every 1,500 Years

S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Rowman & Littlefield

New York

2007

Dedication*​
This book is dedicated to those thousands of highly qualified research scientists who have documented physical evidence of the 1,500-year climate cycle from over the entire globe. Hundreds of their studies endorse the reality of this cycle.

Too often, they have had to work in the face of hostility from their colleagues in the climate modeling community who are "selling CO2.

The public has remained virtually unaware that the 1,500-year cycle offers the only explanation for the modern warming that is supported by physical evidence.

*Prologue*​
Page xii Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming... The ice cores and seabed sediments tell us of six hundred natural 1,500-year climate cycles over the past one million years.

*Modern Climate History*​
Page xv

1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940

1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.

1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt

1979 to present: A large disparity...

____________________________________--

THOUSANDS of papers have been published refuting the nonsense you defend so pretentiously, so condescendingly.
THOUSANDS.  I cite many hundreds of them here:

theglobalwarmingfraud


Stop your lying. You should be embarrassed, but you Leftists never are.  Never.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> Your last two posts have been incomprehensible.


I’d expect nothing less from you!  Condescending is your middle name


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> After seeing jc456 go back and forth with you, I clicked on SHOW POST of you because you are on my Ignore List for good reason, viz. your reprehensible dishonesty.
> 
> 1.  I have compiled papers, graphs, and data for around 20 years on the global warming fraud.  Twenty years.
> I have read books by authorities challenging your AlGorian silliness.    The first part of the first page of my notes:
> ...


Sure sure, can you post an scientific organization which shares your view of AGW denial?

Ya know, since you do so much reading on the subject.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Sure sure, can you post an scientific organization which shares your view of AGW denial?
> 
> Ya know, since you do so much reading on the subject.


Name one climate scientist


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Name one climate scientist


You can read the IPCC report.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You can read the IPCC report.


Have you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> You can read the IPCC report.


Why? Nothing with any evidence in it


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Why? Nothing with any evidence in it


Posts a guy who read lord muckington...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Posts a guy who read lord muckington...


Tough post huh? You Couldn’t find evidence either


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Tough post huh? You Couldn’t find evidence either


Dude the AGW position literally has ALL the facts on it's side.

You have silly paid for oil money doubt that nobody believes.


----------



## ding (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Dude the AGW position literally has ALL the facts on it's side.
> 
> You have silly paid for oil money doubt that nobody believes.


So they explain why having 120 ppm more CO2 in our atmosphere led to our plant being 2C cooler than the past?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

ding said:


> So they explain why having more CO2 in our atmosphere led to our plant being 2C cooler than the past?


When was that again?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 24, 2022)

Do I need to tell you that this graph has *nothing* to do with human emissions of carbon dioxide?


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> View attachment 730475View attachment 730476
> 
> View attachment 730477
> 
> Do I need to tell you that this graph has *nothing* to do with human emissions of carbon dioxide?


Sorry you missed it.  Here's one:












						The Keeling Curve
					

The Keeling Curve is a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration maintained by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.




					keelingcurve.ucsd.edu


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Dude the AGW position literally has ALL the facts on it's side.
> 
> You have silly paid for oil money doubt that nobody believes.


Post one piece of evidence then


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 24, 2022)

*"Oil money" for research pales in comparison to the billions in government handouts to wackos for lying and exaggerating in panic about global warming, renamed climate change after the "warming" wasn't all they swore it would be.  So now it's whatever they say it is (hurricanes, wildfires, and crime too!).*


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> Sorry you missed it.  Here's one:
> 
> View attachment 730479
> 
> ...



You missed it cowboy.

1.  The base is non-zero.  This skews it upward very much to frighten you and make you wet your pants.
2.  Water Vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas.
3.  This graph shows total carbon dioxide. You panickers pretend that it's all man-made.
Only 3.5% of it is.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Post one piece of evidence then


Sorry, not playing the maga fuckup denial game.

You literally have no facts to support your position.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Sorry, not playing the maga fuckup denial game.
> 
> You literally have no facts to support your position.


Yeah, I know. You’re a demofk with crap between your ears. Any day bring in evidence of gw or climate change


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *"Oil money" for research pales in comparison to the billions in government handouts to wackos for lying and exaggerating in panic about global warming, renamed climate change after the "warming" wasn't all they swore it would be.  So now it's whatever they say it is (hurricanes, wildfires, and crime too!).*


What is "oil money" and what billions do you believe the government is handing out?


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Yeah, I know. You’re a demofk with crap between your ears. Any day bring in evidence of gw or climate change


Allow me to repeat what the wise man said "You literally have no facts to support your position".  You keep demanding evidence from others but have presented *NONE *yourself.  And you never accept evidence that others do present to you.  So what's the point?  It would seem you're just another *TROLL *and I'd be pleased as punch if IMDB management gave you the boot.  They should have done it a great long while ago.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> but have presented *NONE *yourself


You want me to present evidence for something you say exists? Hahaha


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> What is "oil money" and what billions do you believe the government is handing out?


Tax money


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 24, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Dude the AGW position literally has ALL the facts on it's side.
> 
> You have silly paid for oil money doubt that nobody believes.



What's missing is the "degree" of change ... ha ha ... and I mean that both ways ... why do you think the single degree of warming has any significance at all? ... and why do you think another degree of warming will have _catastrophic_ results? ...

Continents are moving ten times faster than sea levels are rising ... can't we be realistic about these so-called dangers of a slightly warmer world here? ... the extra rainfall won't be enough to solve our drinking water problems ... shouldn't we be addressing that instead? ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 24, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> What's missing is the "degree" of change ... ha ha ... and I mean that both ways ... why do you think the single degree of warming has any significance at all? ... and why do you think another degree of warming will have _catastrophic_ results? ...


The significance, as you've been told before, is due to the speed with which the Earth warmed 1.1C.  


ReinyDays said:


> Continents are moving ten times faster than sea levels are rising ... can't we be realistic about these so-called dangers of a slightly warmer world here? ... the extra rainfall won't be enough to solve our drinking water problems ... shouldn't we be addressing that instead? ...


False dichotomy.  We can address both, particularly since they are related.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> The significance, as you've been told before, is due to the speed with which the Earth warmed 1.1C.
> 
> False dichotomy.  We can address both, particularly since they are related.


Post your evidence


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 24, 2022)

Crick said:


> The significance, as you've been told before, is due to the speed with which the Earth warmed 1.1C.
> 
> False dichotomy.  We can address both, particularly since they are related.



NOAA's trace only shows a 0.8ºC warming ... you're *LYING* again ... such a nasty habit for you, very unladylike ... like picking your nose, just can't stop can you? ...


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When was that again?


I already told you?  Do you believe the laws of radiative forcing changed or something?


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> NOAA's trace only shows a 0.8ºC warming ... you're *LYING* again ... such a nasty habit for you, very unladylike ... like picking your nose, just can't stop can you? ...


How old are you?  

And, yes, its 1.1C.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> How old are you?
> 
> And, yes, its 1.1C.


How much of that was from the radiative forcing of CO2 alone?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 25, 2022)

FUCK ... Chick has me posting things that caused ChemEngineer to take me off ignore ... that sucks ... what an asshole ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> How old are you?
> 
> And, yes, its 1.1C.



NOAA says 0.8ºC ... *LIAR* ...


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 25, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> FUCK ... Chick has me posting things that caused ChemEngineer to take me off ignore ... that sucks ... what an asshole ...


Let me correct that right now, Mister Hateful Foul Mouth.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 25, 2022)

Whew ... just something about that poster "liking" my posts that just creeps me out ... I feel cleaner knowing he can't read my posts ...


----------



## otto105 (Nov 25, 2022)

ding said:


> I already told you?  Do you believe the laws of radiative forcing changed or something?


When did you post the date?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 25, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When did you post the date?



"Why do you think another degree of warming will have _catastrophic_ results?" ... do you just avoid disturbing questions or something? ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> "Why do you think another degree of warming will have _catastrophic_ results?" ... do you just avoid disturbing questions or something? ...


What's your definition of catastrophe?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When did you post the date?


Look at the ice core data. You know how to use google, right?


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When did you post the date?


He's extremely reluctant to actually identify what he's talking about because he knows he'll get shredded.  As I pointed out earlier, you don't determine correlation between trends with a single set of instantaneous parameters.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> He's extremely reluctant to actually identify what he's talking about because he knows he'll get shredded.  As I pointed out earlier, you don't determine correlation between trends with a single set of instantaneous parameters.


So you too are unaware that the previous interglacial cycle had 26ft higher sea levels with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> As I pointed out earlier, you don't determine correlation between trends with a single set of instantaneous parameters.


Why not? Did the radiative forcing of CO2 change?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 25, 2022)

Crick said:


> What's your definition of catastrophe?



Four deviations ... just to be safe ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 25, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Four deviations ... just to be safe ...


That's a nice safe approach.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 27, 2022)

ding said:


> So you too are unaware that the previous interglacial cycle had 26ft higher sea levels with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2?


When was that again?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2022)

otto105 said:


> When was that again?


At peak interglaciation ... roughly the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago ... that means any effect of global warming would exist in the historical record ... no hypercanes, no hockey sticks ... those who say these will happen are *lying* ... it's never happen before, it won't happen in the future ...


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> At peak interglaciation ... roughly the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago ... that means any effect of global warming would exist in the historical record ... no hypercanes, no hockey sticks ... those who say these will happen are *lying* ... it's never happen before, it won't happen in the future ...


No. The previous interglacial cycle. It’s called Eemian.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 28, 2022)

ding said:


> No. The previous interglacial cycle. It’s called Eemian.


and was followed by the most recent glacial period (Weichselian/Wisconsinan)


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2022)

I think I tripped in the Eocene and bloodied my nose ... sorry about that ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> The significance, as you've been told before, is due to the speed with which the Earth warmed 1.1C


What happened?


----------



## otto105 (Nov 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> At peak interglaciation ... roughly the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago ... that means any effect of global warming would exist in the historical record ... no hypercanes, no hockey sticks ... those who say these will happen are *lying* ... it's never happen before, it won't happen in the future ...


What was the catalyst for the climate event?


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2022)

otto105 said:


> What was the catalyst for the climate event?



A catalyst? ... there's no need for a catalyst for an oscillating system ... a bouncy ball bounces on it's own, like a tigger ... no one knows what the initial impulse was,  though the timing would indicate the splitting of Gondwana and the formation of the Atlantic Ocean thrust the Earth into and life-destroying, dinosaur obliterating Ice Age where only the worst of God's creatures could thrive ... like rodents and their primate cousins ...

You'll need to define what you mean by "climate event" ... we usually have weather events, like rain or snow or hail or wind ... when we average all the weather events together, we get climate ... any single event is blurred beyond recognition in the average we calculate, by design ...

Climatology is the study of averages, not events ...


----------



## otto105 (Nov 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> A catalyst? ... there's no need for a catalyst for an oscillating system ... a bouncy ball bounces on it's own, like a tigger ... no one knows what the initial impulse was,  though the timing would indicate the splitting of Gondwana and the formation of the Atlantic Ocean thrust the Earth into and life-destroying, dinosaur obliterating Ice Age where only the worst of God's creatures could thrive ... like rodents and their primate cousins ...
> 
> You'll need to define what you mean by "climate event" ... we usually have weather events, like rain or snow or hail or wind ... when we average all the weather events together, we get climate ... any single event is blurred beyond recognition in the average we calculate, by design ...
> 
> Climatology is the study of averages, not events ...


10,000 years ago we didn’t have humans burning carbon at the rates we do now.


So, what was the catalyst?

And how does that relate to our environmental concerns today?


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> At peak interglaciation ... roughly the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago ... that means any effect of global warming would exist in the historical record ... no hypercanes, no hockey sticks ... those who say these will happen are *lying* ... it's never happen before, it won't happen in the future ...


You're speaking for Ding here.  Is he okay with that?  Are you confident that you are answering as he would?  I became convinced that he was talking about the current interglacial.  That better matched his description.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2022)

otto105 said:


> 10,000 years ago we didn’t have humans burning carbon at the rates we do now.
> 
> 
> So, what was the catalyst?
> ...



Do you know what a catalyst is? ... it's something that is returned whole to be used again immediately ... like the platinum in catalytic converters ... after the car dies, the platinum can be recovered and used again and again and again and again ... 

Do you know what an oscillating system is? ... it's something that doesn't need a catalyst ... 

*And how does that relate to our environmental concerns today?*

There's the normal ones ... fly ash, oil spills, homes exploding ... and a set of Republicans who think industry can be trusted to manage these environmental issues themselves ... 

My concern is with the dependence on foreign oil supplies ... the United States is too great to have to blow Saudi princes or unappreciative Canucks ... just saying ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 28, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Do you know what a catalyst is? ... it's something that is returned whole to be used again immediately ... like the platinum in catalytic converters ... after the car dies, the platinum can be recovered and used again and again and again and again ...
> 
> Do you know what an oscillating system is? ... it's something that doesn't need a catalyst ...
> 
> ...


Systems do not oscillate spontaneously.


----------



## BS Filter (Nov 28, 2022)

That volcano in Hawaii is acting up again and spewing thousands of tons of toxic gas and lava.  Quick, tax the hell out of that volcano.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 28, 2022)

Crick said:


> Systems do not oscillate spontaneously.



Thus in post 701:


ReinyDays said:


> ... no one knows what the initial impulse was ...



You have to *lie* to sound smart ... otherwise you sound like a failure ... and have to argue against things no one has said ... like you're out in some field argueing with the damn strawman out there ... 

Get back to your homework or you'll never get to high school ... no one likes stupid girls ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2022)

That systems do not oscillate spontaneously is a fact.

ReinyDay said: "no one knows what the initial impulse was"

No one knows that there was an initial impulse.  The primary driver of glacial cycles on this planet are the Milankovich cycles - a complex periodic forcing function, not an impulse.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> That systems do not oscillate spontaneously is a fact.
> 
> ReinyDay said: "no one knows what the initial impulse was"
> 
> No one knows that there was an initial impulse.  The primary driver of glacial cycles on this planet are the Milankovich cycles - a complex periodic forcing function, not an impulse.



Milankovich cycles are not complex ... and you don't know how impulse is defined in physics ... maybe put your childish ideas down for a bit and listen to the adults and learn ...

Which Milankovich cycle has the same period as these glacial cycles? ... if it's a different period, then you have no correlation ... your theory crumbles into dust ... Dr Milankovich didn't violate Kepler's Laws, so you shouldn't either ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Milankovich cycles are not complex


As seems to occur more and more often, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.




"In the 1920s, he [Milankovitch] hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns."








						Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



AND
Theory of ice ages​
Croll was the leading proponent of an astronomical-based theory of climate change, now known as the "Astronomical Theory of Climate Change".[5] Using formulae for orbital variations developed by Urbain Le Verrier (which had led to the discovery of Neptune), Croll developed a theory of the effects of variations of the Earth's orbit on climate cycles. His idea was that decreases in winter sunlight would favour snow accumulation, and for the first time coupled this to the idea of a positive ice-albedo feedback to amplify the solar variations. Croll further argued that the accumulation of snow would change the pattern of trade winds, leading to the deflection of warming currents like the Gulf Stream, and finally a self-sustaining ice age. He suggested that when orbital eccentricity is high winters will tend to be colder when the Earth is farther from the sun in that season and hence, that during periods of high orbital eccentricity, ice ages occur on 22,000-year cycles in each hemisphere, and alternate between southern and northern hemispheres, lasting approximately 10,000 years each.[6]

Croll's theory predicted multiple ice ages, asynchronous in northern and southern hemispheres, and that the last ice ages should have ended about 80,000 years ago. Evidence was just then emerging of multiple ice ages, and geologists were interested in a theory to explain this. Geologists were not then able to date sediments accurately enough to determine if glaciation was synchronous between the hemispheres, though the limited evidence more pointed towards synchronicity than not. More crucially, estimates of the recession rate of the Niagara Falls indicated that the last ice age ended 6,000 to 35,000 years ago – a large range, but enough to rule out Croll's theory, to those who accepted the measurements.








						James Croll - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






ReinyDays said:


> ... and you don't know how impulse is defined in physics ...


I'm afraid I do.


ReinyDays said:


> maybe put your childish ideas down for a bit and listen to the adults and learn ...


The temptation to actually characterize your behavior as it deserves is almost overwhelming.


ReinyDays said:


> Which Milankovich cycle has the same period as these glacial cycles? ... if it's a different period, then you have no correlation ... your theory crumbles into dust ... Dr Milankovich didn't violate Kepler's Laws, so you shouldn't either ...


Oooh... Kepler.  I guess you graduated from middle school.


----------



## ding (Nov 29, 2022)

Crick said:


> As seems to occur more and more often, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> View attachment 732385
> "In the 1920s, he [Milankovitch] hypothesized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced the Earth's climatic patterns."
> 
> ...


----------



## otto105 (Nov 29, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Do you know what a catalyst is? ... it's something that is returned whole to be used again immediately ... like the platinum in catalytic converters ... after the car dies, the platinum can be recovered and used again and again and again and again ...
> 
> Do you know what an oscillating system is? ... it's something that doesn't need a catalyst ...
> 
> ...


So, what was the catalyst?


----------



## ding (Nov 29, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, what was the catalyst?


Bipolar glaciation.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Nov 29, 2022)

*Global Warming Liars can only scream "consensus, consensus, consensus."
Facts be damned.  Their lies are exposed in this 5 1/2 minute video.*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9vGaHQ6Hw


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Global Warming Liars can only scream "consensus, consensus, consensus."
> Facts be damned.  Their lies are exposed in this 5 1/2 minute video.*


Wow.  That's quite a video.  Never mentioned carbon dioxide or the greenhouse effect.  Seems to think the Vikings were up with Egypt, Greece and Rome as a civilization.  Has Holocene temperature graphs that look NOTHING like anything produced in the last two decades.  Claims that temperatures have been warmer than the present on multiple past occasions.  Thinks we should hang on to coal fired power plants.

That's a full-up piece of crap that is.


----------



## otto105 (Nov 30, 2022)

ding said:


> Bipolar glaciation.


What the fuck is that?


----------



## ding (Nov 30, 2022)

otto105 said:


> What the fuck is that?


The catalyst.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 30, 2022)

[giggle]


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2022)

otto105 said:


> What the fuck is that?


That would be glaciation at both poles.  Ding seems to think that he's the only person in human history that's ever noticed the temperature differential between the equator and the poles.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 1, 2022)

ding said:


> The catalyst.


Hilarious


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

Crick said:


> That would be glaciation at both poles.  Ding seems to think that he's the only person in human history that's ever noticed the temperature differential between the equator and the poles.


It has nothing to do with the temperature differential between the poles and the equator, dummy. Bipolar glaciation is the dominant feature which affects the earth’s temperature.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Hilarious


How so?


----------



## JohnDB (Dec 2, 2022)




----------



## otto105 (Dec 2, 2022)

ding said:


> How so?


What causes it?


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

otto105 said:


> What causes it?


The same things that make it a catalyst. So how is that hilarious?

What’s hilarious is you saying it’s hilarious without understanding any part of it.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 2, 2022)

ding said:


> The same things that make it a catalyst. So how is that hilarious?
> 
> What’s hilarious is you saying it’s hilarious without understanding any part of it.


Again, answer the question.


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Again, answer the question.


You can’t explain what you found hilarious without me providing information you should have presumably already known to find it hilarious?


----------



## otto105 (Dec 2, 2022)

ding said:


> You can’t explain what you found hilarious without me providing information you should have presumably already known to find it hilarious?


Dude, your responded "bipolar interglacial" to the Little Ice Age. 

First, your offered no context as to why that happened or that it was global in affect.

So....


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Dude, your responded "bipolar interglacial" to the Little Ice Age.
> 
> First, your offered no context as to why that happened or that it was global in affect.
> 
> So....


No. I responded bipolar glaciation to the question of what is the catalyst of earth’s climate. The earth’s climate is driven by bipolar glaciation.  And has been for the past 3 million years when the ice age began.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 2, 2022)

ding said:


> No. I responded bipolar glaciation to the question of what is the catalyst of earth’s climate. The earth’s climate is driven by bipolar glaciation.  And has been for the past 3 million years when the ice age began.


Sorry, not true when it comes to our present state.

Also, still not an answer about what caused the Little Ice Age.


Try again


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2022)

otto105 said:


> Sorry, not true when it comes to our present state.
> 
> Also, still not an answer about what caused the Little Ice Age.
> 
> ...


It’s been true for the past 3 million years when the planet entered the ice age which was due to bipolar glaciation.

Warming and cooling trends like when the so called  little ice age began and ended are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated planet.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2022)

ding said:


> It’s been true for the past 3 million years when the planet entered the ice age which was due to bipolar glaciation.
> 
> Warming and cooling trends like when the so called  little ice age began and ended are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated planet.


The Little Ice Age as triggered by volcanic active and occurred in Europe.

What is our current catalyst for warming faster than at any time in history?


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 3, 2022)

You two should get a room or something ...


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2022)

otto105 said:


> The Little Ice Age as triggered by volcanic active and occurred in Europe.
> 
> What is our current catalyst for warming faster than at any time in history?


D-O events warmed faster.


----------



## otto105 (Dec 3, 2022)

So, nothing


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 3, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, nothing



Apparently nothing you'd want to understand ... it's complete safe for you to tune out all the climate hysteria ... none of this will happen in your lifetime ... if you don't know who your great-great-grandparents are, don't expect your great-great-grandchildren to remember you ...


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2022)

otto105 said:


> So, nothing


I’d say temperature swings of 5C over several decades is not nothing. Especially since there were a shitload of them.


----------



## Dagosa (Dec 29, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


And don’t forget. So your story is……The US military hires experts to lie to them so they can better defend our nation, while believing made up shit.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And don’t forget. So your story is……The US military hires experts to lie to them so they can better defend our nation, while believing made up shit.


No, the so called experts do that all on their own.  They will all be eating their words soon enough.  Then we can all have a good laugh when you tell us you knew it all along.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 29, 2022)

ding said:


> No, the so called experts do that all on their own.  They will all be eating their words soon enough.  Then we can all have a good laugh when you tell us you knew it all along.



Hot and cold means they're right ... ha ha ha ha ha ... nothing to falsify ...


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2022)

ReinyDays said:


> Hot and cold means they're right ... ha ha ha ha ha ... nothing to falsify ...


True but nobody will care because cold sucks.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2022)

ding said:


> D-O events warmed faster.


That doesn't authorize you to ignore the effect of increasing CO2.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Crick said:


> That doesn't authorize you to ignore the effect of increasing CO2.


What effects?  CO2 does not drive climate change.  You are completely ignoring natural climate variability as a cause for the recent warming trend when the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were cause by natural climate variability.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Does that sound right to you IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT ?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2022)

ding said:


> What effects?  CO2 does not drive climate change.  You are completely ignoring natural climate variability as a cause for the recent warming trend when the geologic record is littered with warming and cooling trends that were cause by natural climate variability.


The geological record does not allow you to ignore CO2 and the greenhouse effect.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Crick said:


> The geological record does not allow you to ignore CO2 and the greenhouse effect.


Sure it does.  It overwhelming confirms that prior to the industrial revolution that CO2 correlated to temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  Which means that the geologic record overwhelming confirms that temperature does not correlate CO2.  In other words, prior to the industrial revolution temperature determined what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be.  That CO2 did not determine what the temperature would be.

That sound right to you Larsky  ?


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Brave Larsky demonstrates his intellectual prowess on the subject with an emoticon as expected.


----------



## Larsky (Dec 31, 2022)

ding said:


> Sure it does.  It overwhelming confirms that prior to the industrial revolution that CO2 correlated to temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  Which means that the geologic record overwhelming confirms that temperature does not correlate CO2.  In other words, prior to the industrial revolution temperature determined what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be.  That CO2 did not determine what the temperature would be.
> 
> That sound right to you Larsky  ?





ding said:


> Sure it does.  It overwhelming confirms that prior to the industrial revolution that CO2 correlated to temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature.  Which means that the geologic record overwhelming confirms that temperature does not correlate CO2.  In other words, prior to the industrial revolution temperature determined what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be.  That CO2 did not determine what the temperature would be.
> 
> That sound right to you Larsky  ?


"Overwhelmingly"

And I'll have to side with real science on this matter. 

So, no. It makes no sense. 
Have a happy new year!


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Larsky said:


> "Overwhelmingly"
> 
> And I'll have to side with real science on this matter.
> 
> ...


Have you looked at the data?  No.

Are you even aware that CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years?  No.

Are you aware that the natural phenomenon that causes a correlation between temperature and CO2 - throughout the long geologic record - is the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature?  No.

Are you aware that no one has proposed any other possible explanation  for the correlation between temperature and CO2 because there is no other way that can explain the correlation?  No.

That you are so ignorant on this subject and hold the opinion that you do means you are a fucking unthinking sheep. 
So yeah, I'm going to have a great New Years because I can think for myself.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2022)

Larsky said:


> And I'll have to side with real science on this matter.


Which you couldn't explain if your life depended upon it because you don't know the first thing about it.  You believe it because your liberal buddies believe it.  That's the only analysis you have ever made.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 31, 2022)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> *Other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are omitted from graphs and discussion.
> If in fact humans were the primary, or even major contributor to carbon dioxide production, then the highest concentrations of CO2 would be industrial and population centers around the globe, instead of the rain forests of Africa and South America:*


If you read about Keeping he knew about CO2 being concentrated near factories and cities. That is the reason to NOT measure there. The whole point is to get a reasonable measure for the whole atmosphere not the concentration at a source that will eventually spread changing the global average.

These arguments that are transparently stupid with a little thought are amazing. It is like debates are only really about manipulating dummies who don't think.


----------



## Dagosa (Jan 2, 2023)

ChemEngineer said:


> *http://GlobalWarmingLiars.blogspot.com*
> 
> *THE LIE: An overwhelming consensus of scientists support global warming.
> 
> ...


Who is the liar ? You claimed the periodic table was misnamed by every “ school “ in the world and only you knew it.


----------

