Climate alarmists, watch this explanation of my beliefs.

[Crick]

You are citing the IPCC.

Yes I am.

The IPCC has 0 credibility.

Perhaps with you, but it has enormous credibility with the rest of humanity. That tells us more about you than the IPCC.

It's corrupt to the core. Junk science

Hardly.

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.

The climategate emails didn't discredit anyone and since they were stolen from the University of East Anglia and not the UN, they did nothing whatsoever to the reputation of the IPCC.

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

Is that the same opinion you hold of the world's scientists? Do you think all those actively publishing, professionally researching PhDs are "easily brainwashed idiots" who "belong to a classic doomsday cult"? Because it is their conclusions I put out here.

And, what ARE your science qualifications? Do you have a graduate degree in any STEM field? Undergraduate STEM? Any undergraduate? High school? What is it that makes you think you're qualified to criticize thousands of scientists?

 

[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

Some think it is very easy to measure climates all over the world. Take this local area and this is not my basis solely of being called a denier. I do not deny climate changes. It is not possible for it to always remain now what it was 50 years back or 50 more years into the future. But nature tinkers with it. We do not see enormous changes currently. Earth has so many climates it simply can't be predicted easily. Take my area, today it will be maybe 107 degrees. A month back it was a lot cooler. A month from now it more than likely will be cooler again. So what is the big deal? Why take several days of hot weather and conclude we must rush to put an end to CO2? I know that in 3 days or 4 it will be 10 or more degrees colder. If climate has run amuck, how can it be 107 in the same week it is only 85? That rapid change can't be done by man then undone by the same men.

 

[Muhammed]

Yes I am.

Perhaps with you, but it has enormous credibility with the rest of humanity. That tells us more about you than the IPCC.

Hardly.

The climategate emails didn't discredit anyone and since they were stolen from the University of East Anglia and not the UN, they did nothing whatsoever to the reputation of the IPCC.

Is that the same opinion you hold of the world's scientists? Do you think all those actively publishing, professionally researching PhDs are "easily brainwashed idiots" who "belong to a classic doomsday cult"? Because it is their conclusions I put out here.

And, what ARE your science qualifications? Do you have a graduate degree in any STEM field? Undergraduate STEM? Any undergraduate? High school? What is it that makes you think you're qualified to criticize thousands of scientists?

Being an academic is not the same thing as being a scientist, Mr. Global Warming Doomsday Cult dupe.

Can you tell the USMB forum. in your own words, the difference between an academic and a scientist?

THINK!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

The IPCC itself said that it’s not about the climate but it’s to redistribute wealth

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some think it is very easy to measure climates all over the world. Take this local area and this is not my basis solely of being called a denier. I do not deny climate changes. It is not possible for it to always remain now what it was 50 years back or 50 more years into the future. But nature tinkers with it. We do not see enormous changes currently. Earth has so many climates it simply can't be predicted easily. Take my area, today it will be maybe 107 degrees. A month back it was a lot cooler. A month from now it more than likely will be cooler again. So what is the big deal? Why take several days of hot weather and conclude we must rush to put an end to CO2? I know that in 3 days or 4 it will be 10 or more degrees colder. If climate has run amuck, how can it be 107 in the same week it is only 85? That rapid change can't be done by man then undone by the same men.

Exactly!!

At noon Earth’s Moon is 250F, at night it’s -210F, so it’s like saying the average temperature on Moon is 40F

 

[Crick]

I have looked at this mess as follows.

Mess? What mess?

First what is the alarm?

That there is a VERY high probability that it is already too late for us to prevent the Earth's climate from exceeding several tipping points in which systems move from one stable state to another. Do you understand the significance of such a thing Robert?

Second is anybody to blame?

To blame for what?

Who decided who to blame?

To blame for what?

What happens if those people get ignored?

What people? Ignored by whom?

Do I want to be part of making a major mistake?

The vast majority of the world and an even larger majority of its scientists tell us that the side you ARE on is the one making a major mistake.

What about all of the evidence and not just part of it?

An overwhelming majority of the evidence supports AGW. What evidence can you even identify pointing in the other direction?

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.

Can you explain why you think one scientists has the right answers when 99% of other scientists completely disagree with him? WHAT makes you think that he's right and all the rest are wrong?

I concluded politicians scam us for several important to them reasons.

Concluded based on what? Lindzen's comments?

First it is a good system by them to get massive spending on this by politicians.

What is a good system? How does this "system" allow politicians to scam us to get politicians to spend massive amounts of money on... what?

OK, but if warranted, it is needed.

"Warranted" and "needed" are synonymous. I assume what you actually mean if that if AGW is true, action to stop it is needed.

I judged it is not warranted.

Based on what? The opinion of one man?

Common sense plus having studied weather to be a pilot gave me some understanding of climate and models.

Common sense is generally worthless. Almost none of the training you had in meteorology is applicable to AGW and I'm fairly certain that you have zero experience in computer languages or the differential calculus with which climate models are filled.

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.

The discovery that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would raise the planet's temperature took place in 1856 Robert. The reason you never heard of this issue is that you had no interest in the topic nor the science background to understand it if you did.

Why wasn't this talked about say by 1960 under Kennedy?

How much climate science were you reading in 1960 Robert?

Climate is pretty important globally. If all this science proves we do this to Earth, surely the smart scientists 50 years ago knew it.

They did know about but the effect was much smaller and we had experienced a long hiatus in warming between 1945 and 1972 so there was little evidence to point at. Look at the following graph, Robert, and put yourself at 1960 or even 1975, looking back. The evidence simply wasn't as clear as it is today.

But nobody talked about it until Gore showed his colors.

Gore was right, Robert.

It pissed me off to have our own government behind this mess.

Again, what mess and how was the government behind it?

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.

Both the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and the Transient Climate Response values take that logarithmic relationship into account and it is not that far from linear. For example, Y = X^1 is a linear relationship. When X = 10,000, Y = 10,000. Y = X^1.000001 is a logarithmic relationship. When X = 10,000, Y = 10,000.0921. Please read the brief article at this link to learn more. How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?

 

[Crick]

Being an academic is not the same thing as being a scientist, Mr. Global Warming Doomsday Cult dupe.

I never mentioned academics and never described myself, so I don't know what you're talking about. But I repeat the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists - people actively researching and publishing their results in refereed science journals. You seem to think those scientists are all easily brainwashed idiots in a doomsday cult. I just want to know what your qualifications are for holding such an opinion on such a group.

Can you tell the USMB forum. in your own words, the difference between an academic and a scientist?

THINK!

Since I never mentioned academics, there is no point. If you have some point to make, feel free. A scientist in this context is a professional with a graduate degree, normally a doctorate, conducting research and publishing results in peer reviewed science journals. Oxford languages says "a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"a research scientist""

 

[Robert W]

The vast majority of the world and an even larger majority of its scientists tell us that the side you ARE on is the one making a major mistake.

Name them!!! Why do you believe them? Did you always believe them?

 

[Robert W]

Both the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and the Transient Climate Response values take that logarithmic relationship into account and it is not that far from linear. For example, Y = X^1 is a linear relationship. When X = 10,000, Y = 10,000. Y = X^1.000001 is a logarithmic relationship. When X = 10,000, Y = 10,000.0921.

All you are discussing is about 1.5 degrees C and honestly that is exceeded daily in most warm areas on this planet from Sun up to noon. And none of those places on Earth report they are worried about a small amount of change. Worse, it took 150 years or more.

 

[Robert W]

The discovery that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would raise the planet's temperature took place in 1856 Robert. The reason you never heard of this issue is that you had no interest in the topic nor the science background to understand it if you did.

How much climate science were you reading in 1960 Robert?

The reason then was it was not considered a problem. The problem did not get mentioned prior to Al Gore talking it over.
I was not reading climate science in 1960 at all. I started being interested when the Government stuck me with climate and weather issues to be a pilot. Even in 1980 as a pilot the Feds did not talk about this to we pilots. Pilots are charged with climate understanding by the Government.

 

[Robert W]

Since I never mentioned academics, there is no point. If you have some point to make, feel free. A scientist in this context is a professional with a graduate degree, normally a doctorate, conducting research and publishing results in peer reviewed science journals. Oxford languages says "a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"a research scientist""

I have no degrees in any topic but have a pilots license which we were instructed in weather and to a lesser degree climate issues. Such as being taught what changes climate.
My understanding of getting a Doctorate is as a teacher having students carry out the bulk of research. But when I present such men, you quarrel over them. Not sure why some doctors you like and others you hate.

 

[Crick]

I have no degrees in any topic but have a pilots license which we were instructed in weather and to a lesser degree climate issues. Such as being taught what changes climate.
My understanding of getting a Doctorate is as a teacher having students carry out the bulk of research. But when I present such men, you quarrel over them. Not sure why some doctors you like and others you hate.

My opinion of Richard Lindzen is based on the opinions of other climate scientists. Your understanding of getting a doctorare is incorrect. It requires conducting, analyzing and reporting on original research - finding out something previously unknown.

 

[Robert W]

My opinion of Richard Lindzen is based on the opinions of other climate scientists. Your understanding of getting a doctorare is incorrect. It requires conducting, analyzing and reporting on original research - finding out something previously unknown.

You mean those wanting a Doctorate do not use students to do research? Hope you were joking.

 

[Robert W]

Bill Colley​

Published: July 22, 2024

WARNING: IDAHO’S CLIMATE APOCALYPSE FIZZLES OUT​

The Democrats staffing America’s newsrooms would have us believe man-made activities cause our summer heatwave. I would post the latest scaremongering from the New York Times, but it’s behind a paywall. Also, you already know the routine. Blame farming, cattle, and efficient automobiles.

None of This is New​

Many old-timers will tell you that what we’re seeing this year is called summer. They can recount many very hot months of July and August (and even September).



A quick search on the Internet doesn’t yield much when looking for comparisons, however. I did come across a link from the National Weather Service. It’s a large bureaucratic office promising lifetime employment. You can see the link by clicking here.

It appears we can find hot summers going back over the last 150 years. Before any of you tree-huggers claim that measurements weren’t always accurate in the past, let me say “Exactly”. We simply don’t know, because we don’t know the provenance of the measuring instruments.



Read More: WARNING: Idaho’s Climate Apocalypse Fizzles Out | WARNING: Idaho’s Climate Apocalypse Fizzles Out