Climate alarmists, watch this explanation of my beliefs.

[Robert W]

A famous man talks to a woman about global climate. Listen intently to both sides and you will get why I have the beliefs they have.

What happened to you? Did you change your mind?

 

[Crick]

A famous man talks to a woman about global climate. Listen intently to both sides and you will get why I have the beliefs they have.

What happened to you? Did you change your mind?

Are you familiar with Patrick Moore?

 

[Muhammed]

Are you familiar with Patrick Moore?

Is he a blasphemer?

What is the official decree from the Global Warming Doomsday Cult? Has he been excommunicated? Is he a witch?

 

[Crick]

Is he a blasphemer?

What is the official decree from the Global Warming Doomsday Cult? Has he been excommunicated? Is he a witch?

Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Paid by Coal Lobbyists EURACOAL To Speak To EU Officials and Members of Parliament

Europe’s coal lobby association EURACOAL paid for climate science denier Patrick Moore to speak to members of the European Parliament (MEP) and EU officials at an intimate dinner-debate last month, DeSmog UK can reveal. As a March newsletter sent out by the European Energy Forum (EEF) details...

www.desmog.com

Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Under Attack From Fellow Nuclear Energy Advocates

Climate science denialist Patrick Moore is all about “consensus building.” We know this because it says so on his biography at the think tank Frontier Centre for Public Policy. And so, fresh from delivering a coal-funded talk in Brussels where he told the audience to “celebrate CO2”, the...

www.desmog.com

What President Trump, Fox and Breitbart Are Not Saying About Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore

What does it take to become a legitimate spokesperson on climate change science and energy policy in the eyes of President Donald Trump and partisan conservative media like Fox News and Breitbart? If the current worshipping of non-expert and climate science denier Patrick Moore is anything to go...

www.desmog.com

Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore Credentials *Note: Patrick Moore has listed himself with a “Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia” in his profile at EcoSense and at the Heartland Institute, among others. However, Moore’s thesis at UBC was submitted for a Doctor of […]

www.desmog.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick can't address what Dr. Moore is talking about in the video which requires being honest which he doesn't have which is why he makes excuses to avoid him instead.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Is he a blasphemer?

What is the official decree from the Global Warming Doomsday Cult? Has he been excommunicated? Is he a witch?

Greenpeace lied about his being a founding member of the organization after Dr. Moore left it in 1986.

LINK 2002


The University of British Columbia think he was granted a PHD which it states on their website.

LINK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick can't address what Dr. Moore is talking about in the video which requires being honest which he doesn't have which is why he makes excuses to avoid him instead.

He’s a Denier!!

He dares to question! He cannot be trusted

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A famous man talks to a woman about global climate. Listen intently to both sides and you will get why I have the beliefs they have.

What happened to you? Did you change your mind?

I’ve had serious questions for three decades since it was supposed that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM “raises temperatures” but there zero experimental evidence to support it

 

[Crick]

Crick can't address what Dr. Moore is talking about in the video which requires being honest which he doesn't have which is why he makes excuses to avoid him instead.

I made no excuses and I did not lie about anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I made no excuses and I did not lie about anything.

You just lied again since your source claims he isn't Dr. Moore a lie I destroyed by showing the University showing he has the PHD.

 

[Crick]

You just lied again since your source claims he isn't Dr. Moore a lie I destroyed by showing the University showing he has the PHD.

Perhaps you should have ACTUALLY read what you chose to comment on. My source did NOT say he did not have a PhD. It said he did not have a PhD in Ecology, as Moore claimed, but rather a doctorate in Forestry, which is what your source indeed confirms. Thanks.

From my link

Credentials​

• Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University (2005).1
• Ph.D., Forestry*, University of British Columbia (1974).2 3Note: UBC independently confirmed via email that Patrick Moore’s degree could be best described as in forestry.
• Honors B.Sc. in Forest Biology, University of British Columbia.4

*Note: Patrick Moore has listed himself with a “Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia” in his profile at EcoSense5 and at the Heartland Institute,6 among others. However, Moore’s thesis at UBC was submitted for a Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Forestry. UBC confirmed by email that Dr. Moore received his Ph.D. from the Faculty of Forestry in 1974. When asked if that degree would be best described as in ecology or forestry, UBC replied: “It would be safer to say Forestry.” 7

From YOUR UBC link. See "Program" and "Affiliation"

 

[Sunsettommy]

I’ve had serious questions for three decades since it was supposed that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM “raises temperatures” but there zero experimental evidence to support it

They are basing it on a mathematical formula of a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm would generate additional 3.8 W/m2 which is about 1.2C warming but it is misleading since there is already about a 508 W/m2 downwelling already in progress thus a very little change overall.


Here is a snippet from a blog article that destroys the many warmist/alarmist narratives all based on official data.


=============


"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"


LINK

 

[Crick]

They are basing it on a mathematical formula of a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm would generate additional 3.8 W/m2 which is about 1.2C warming but it is misleading since there is already about a 508 W/m2 downwelling already in progress thus a very little change overall.

Wrong. Or should I call it a lie?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity. Paleoclimate data provide evidence to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS15) (Section
TS.3.2.1). In AR6, refinements in paleo data for paleoclimate reference periods indicate that ECS is very likely greater than 1.5°C and
likely less than 4.5°C, which is largely consistent with other lines of evidence and helps narrow the uncertainty range of the overall
assessment of ECS. Some of the CMIP6 climate models that have either high (>5°C) or low (<2°C) ECS also simulate past global
surface temperature changes outside the range of proxy-based reconstructions for the coldest and warmest reference periods. Since
AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that
sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases (Section TS.3.2.2). {7.4.3.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.6, Table 7.11}

AR6, "The Physical Science Basis", pg 43.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Wrong. Or should I call it a lie?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity. Paleoclimate data provide evidence to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS15) (Section
TS.3.2.1). In AR6, refinements in paleo data for paleoclimate reference periods indicate that ECS is very likely greater than 1.5°C and
likely less than 4.5°C, which is largely consistent with other lines of evidence and helps narrow the uncertainty range of the overall
assessment of ECS. Some of the CMIP6 climate models that have either high (>5°C) or low (<2°C) ECS also simulate past global
surface temperature changes outside the range of proxy-based reconstructions for the coldest and warmest reference periods. Since
AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that
sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases (Section TS.3.2.2). {7.4.3.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.6, Table 7.11}

AR6, "The Physical Science Basis", pg 43.

WE have been over this many times as you continue to refuse the well-known doubling estimates have posted the many published papers showing this was seriously being addressed for years.

160 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity​

(a) Quantified Low Climate Sensitivity to Doubled CO2​

Smirnov, 2018 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C) (2X AnthroCO2 = 0.02°C)​

From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.​

LINK


Your reliance on the IPCC is making you stupid and ignorant.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

LINK

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WE have been over this many times as you continue to refuse the well-known doubling estimates have posted the many published papers showing this was seriously being addressed for years.

160 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity​

(a) Quantified Low Climate Sensitivity to Doubled CO2​

Smirnov, 2018 (2X CO2 = 0.4°C) (2X AnthroCO2 = 0.02°C)​

From this, it follows for the change of the global temperature as a result at doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 molecules [is] ∆T = (0.4 ± 0.1) K, where the error accounts for the accuracy of used values, whereas the result depends on processes included in the above scheme. Indeed, we assume the atmospheric and Earth’s albedo, as well as another interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere and Earth, to be unvaried in the course of the change of the concentration of CO2 molecules, and also the content of atmospheric water is conserved. Because anthropogenic fluxes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulted from combustion of fossil fuels is about 5% [Kaufman, 2007], the contribution of the human activity to ECS (the temperature change as a result of doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount) is ∆T = 0.02 K, i.e. injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.​

LINK


Your reliance on the IPCC is making you stupid and ignorant.

IPCC is the Jack Smith of scientific research, it was never done properly in the first place and therefore invalid

 

[ReinyDays]

Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero


View attachment 981717


LINK

Wow ... that's a rather extensive list of Climate Change Deniers ... goes back to assuming carbon dioxide has supernatural powers ... like witchcraft or alchemy ... or perhaps Jamaican voodoo ...

Hocus pocus ... see now see now ... see how CO2 is magic !!! ...

 

[Crick]

WE have been over this many times as you continue to refuse the well-known doubling estimates have posted the many published papers showing this was seriously being addressed for years.



Your reliance on the IPCC is making you stupid and ignorant.

Which is to say your data is a decade or more old. The AR6 estimate from multiple lines was made in 2021.

 

[Muhammed]

Wrong. Or should I call it a lie?

Equilibrium climate sensitivity. Paleoclimate data provide evidence to estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS15) (Section
TS.3.2.1). In AR6, refinements in paleo data for paleoclimate reference periods indicate that ECS is very likely greater than 1.5°C and
likely less than 4.5°C, which is largely consistent with other lines of evidence and helps narrow the uncertainty range of the overall
assessment of ECS. Some of the CMIP6 climate models that have either high (>5°C) or low (<2°C) ECS also simulate past global
surface temperature changes outside the range of proxy-based reconstructions for the coldest and warmest reference periods. Since
AR5, independent lines of evidence, including proxy records from past warm periods and glacial–interglacial cycles, indicate that
sensitivity to forcing increases as temperature increases (Section TS.3.2.2). {7.4.3.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.6, Table 7.11}

AR6, "The Physical Science Basis", pg 43.

You are citing the IPCC. The IPCC has 0 credibility. It's corrupt to the core. Junk science

It has been over a fucking decade since the climategate emails were leaked by a whistleblower. Yet Global Warming Doomsday Cult dupes like you still cite the very thoroughly discredited IPCC.

You're an easily brainwashed idiot. You belong to a classic doomsday cult.

 

[Robert W]

I’ve had serious questions for three decades since it was supposed that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM “raises temperatures” but there zero experimental evidence to support it

I have looked at this mess as follows. First what is the alarm? Second is anybody to blame? Who decided who to blame? What happens if those people get ignored? Do I want to be part of making a major mistake? What about all of the evidence and not just part of it?
After being in contact by email with Professor Lindzen, a climate expert, and having his papers made available to me, and me reading some of his papers, it seemed we were being scammed. I concluded politicians scam us for several important to them reasons. First it is a good system by them to get massive spending on this by politicians. OK, but if warranted, it is needed. I judged it is not warranted. Common sense plus having studied weather to be a pilot gave me some understanding of climate and models. Then after never hearing of this as a major problem for way more than 50 years of my life on this planet, It seemed to me to be a sudden emergency. Why wasn't this talked about say by 1960 under Kennedy? Climate is pretty important globally. If all this science proves we do this to Earth, surely the smart scientists 50 years ago knew it. But nobody talked about it until Gore showed his colors. It pissed me off to have our own government behind this mess. Then word got out that as one increases CO2, the rate of change it created is smaller and smaller. Emergency ended. That sums up my system of seeing this.