Climate Change Has Run Its Course

[Confounding]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

 

[TNHarley]

Keep reading your Nazi sites.

"pay me to pollute the earth or else!!!" - Hitler 1935

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

Why do they believe we are a "major contributor?"

 

[Flash]

This increase in the Industrial Age of .00015% more CO2 in the atmosphere didn't exactly produce the catastrophic effects on the climate that these stupid environmental wacko scammers predicted, did it? Meanwhile we are beginning a solar minimum, which means colder for the next few decades.

Life must really suck to be a Moon Bat and nothing ever goes like you want it to.

 

[mudwhistle]

No but the anti crowd is getting smaller and smaller in the scientific community...

If you keep reading from your NAZI friends you might think the Jews came up with it...

Nope. Muslims blame everything on the Jooose.

 

[Confounding]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

Why do they believe we are a "major contributor?"

You should try listening to what actual scientists are saying. They know what they're talking about. It's not a conspiracy. There are lots of resources out there if you're actually interested in learning, but you're not.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

Why do they believe we are a "major contributor?"

You should try listening to what actual scientists are saying. They know what they're talking about. It's not a conspiracy. There are lots of resources out there if you're actually interested in learning, but you're not.

Learning about their assumptions and models?
I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you? Because someone told you? Whats the reasons?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Global Warming" is, and always has been, a global communist wealth redistribution scheme designed to allow communist/socialist countries to compete with, and eventually suppress, a free-market economy.

There's a reason the U.S. has an economy that is 2x bigger that China, with 1/3 the population.

 

[Confounding]

I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you?

Because all of the evidence seems to point in that direction.

Because someone told you?

I have no problem admitting I don't have an expert understanding of the climate and its functions. For the most part, yes. When scientists and scientific institutions all over the world are all saying the same thing I tend to believe them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you?

Because all of the evidence seems to point in that direction.

Because someone told you?

I have no problem admitting I don't have an expert understanding of the climate and its functions. For the most part, yes. When scientists and scientific institutions all over the world are all saying the same thing I tend to believe them.

Here is how you can tell if it's a scam.

Ask the politicians pushing this agenda what they intend to do about climate change. You'll learn a lot from that alone.

 

[TNHarley]

I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you?

Because all of the evidence seems to point in that direction.

Because someone told you?

I have no problem admitting I don't have an expert understanding of the climate and its functions. For the most part, yes. When scientists and scientific institutions all over the world are all saying the same thing I tend to believe them.

What evidence? The "evidence" with holes in it bigger than stormy daniels asshole?
You would have been one of the people that was giggling when galileo got sentenced to permanent house arrest. You know, because so many people said he was full of shit..

 

[Confounding]

I am asking you why they believe that. Why do you?

Because all of the evidence seems to point in that direction.

Because someone told you?

I have no problem admitting I don't have an expert understanding of the climate and its functions. For the most part, yes. When scientists and scientific institutions all over the world are all saying the same thing I tend to believe them.

What evidence? The "evidence" with holes in it bigger than stormy daniels asshole?
You would have been one of the people that was giggling when galileo got sentenced to permanent house arrest. You know, because so many people said he was full of shit..

What you said is funny because the people that were denying his work and persecuting him weren't scientists. They were people that didn't trust or believe in scientists. People like you.

 

[TNHarley]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I get tired of debating the "evidence" because there is always an excuse from the proponents. It is almost exactly like a religion. Excuses explain away inconsistencies and evidence to the contrary. So, I tend to deal with the AGW gang like I would a religious organization, and I ask them what they want from me. What are my obligations and burdens if I become a part of their religious organization? That's when the fun begins.

So....

Even if we assume all the "evidence" is conclusive, what's the plan to deal with it?

What is required of me?

...and the answer is......

 

[Flash]

[Q


You should try listening to what actual scientists are saying. They know what they're talking about. It's not a conspiracy. There are lots of resources out there if you're actually interested in learning, but you're not.

LOL! If these jackasses "know what they are talking about" then why do they do so much data manipulation?

The answer is very simple. It is a scam and they have to produce false data or else they have nothing.

 

[cnm]

Not one of the global warming/climate change THEORIES has proven true.

Where is your falsification of the greenhouse gas theory? I must have missed it.

And again, for the scientifically illiterate, science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Hoho, and consensus.

 

[BlindBoo]

Meanwhile we are beginning a solar minimum, which means colder for the next few decades.

In reality we're at the end of Solar Cycle 24 which was about half as strong as 23.

Solar Cycle 24 Status and Solar Cycle 25 Upcoming Forecast | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

"Just like hurricane season forecasts, solar cycle predictions have improved; however, there are still notable deviations in prediction versus actual activity. The previous solar cycle prediction panel’s forecast for solar cycle 24 called for a maximum average sunspot number of 90 to occur in May, 2013. After looking at the actual sunspot numbers and solar activity, it was determined the solar cycle 24 maximum was reached in April, 2014 and peaked at an average sunspot number of 82. While the peak value was within the expected range of error, the maximum occurred significantly later than the panel’s prediction."

 

[cnm]

I get tired of debating the "evidence" because there is always an excuse from the proponents.

What is the excuse for this evidence? I'm behind the times...

Global Temperature

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, what is the AGW gang wanting from me to "reverse" this "planet-destroying" phenomenon? What will be my obligations and burdens?

 

[Confounding]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. That's a pretty healthy salary by many standards, but it's hardly a racket.