Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

[Crick]

1) natural climate change denial

false

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

n/a

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

false

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

false

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

laughably false

6) denial that ipcc scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

false

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

False

of course there are a plethora of other things you guys deny, but those cover the basics pretty well.

false

 

[ScienceRocks]

Two things that make me wonder...
1. The fact we didn't know about the oceans ability to take in the heat and change regime. Causing the pause!
2. The fact that the IPCC 1st and 2nd couldn't of seen China and India exploding in economic growth. = HUGE amounts of co2 added to the system. YET, somehow we still have the same general thinking of temperature as those. Weird.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hide the Decline

Mann's Nature Trick

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..." -- IPCC

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Doug Ross? You've got to be kidding. That's right. The best minds on the planet are all in on a vast conspiracy, and nutty fringe-right blogger Doug Ross know the real truth. The real truth being mixed in there with stories of the Benghazi conspiracy and similar right-wing kook rants.

This does, however, help confirm that denialism is purely a right-wing political cult that has nothing to do with actual science.

Hey, if all the data says you're wrong, just declare the data is a conspiracy. It's the denier way. It's not like any of 'em can do science or logic.

And Hillary is still gonna win.

 

[JimH52]

Doug Ross? You've got to be kidding. That's right. The best minds on the planet are all in on a vast conspiracy, and nutty fringe-right blogger Doug Ross know the real truth. The real truth being mixed in there with stories of the Benghazi conspiracy and similar right-wing kook rants.

This does, however, help confirm that denialism is purely a right-wing political cult that has nothing to do with actual science.

Hey, if all the data says you're wrong, just declare the data is a conspiracy. It's the denier way. It's not like any of 'em can do science or logic.

And Hillary is still gonna win.

There you go again! Drug stores nationwide will once again be mobbed by repubs who need refills of their sleeping pills! The Hillary nightmares begin again!

 

[jillian]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

anti-science science deniers are not experts.

wackadoodles.

to pick people who pretend there is no climate change would be to ignore 98% of the scientific community.

 

[ScienceRocks]

3c of warming should be a lock with what China and india has done the past 20 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

Doug Ross? You've got to be kidding. That's right. The best minds on the planet are all in on a vast conspiracy, and nutty fringe-right blogger Doug Ross know the real truth. The real truth being mixed in there with stories of the Benghazi conspiracy and similar right-wing kook rants.

This does, however, help confirm that denialism is purely a right-wing political cult that has nothing to do with actual science.

Hey, if all the data says you're wrong, just declare the data is a conspiracy. It's the denier way. It's not like any of 'em can do science or logic.

You warmest wackos are the true deniers. Roy Spencer just did a short piece outlining the denial of alarmists.

1) natural climate change denial

2) denial that coal and petroleum work better than unicorn farts as fuels,

3) denial that a small amount of warming is better than killing millions of poor people by restricting access to inexpensive energy,

4) denial that the human-induced component of climate change is anything but catastrophic and an emergency,

5) denial that an increasing number of scientists are becoming skeptics,

6) denial that IPCC scientists were caught red-handed trying to silence the opposition and “hide the decline”,

7) denial of the observations, which show much less warming than any of the climate models can explain over the last 30+ years.

Of course there are a plethora of other things you guys deny, but those cover the basics pretty well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

anti-science science deniers are not experts.

wackadoodles.

to pick people who pretend there is no climate change would be to ignore 98% of the scientific community.

THere is no consensus on what the Global Temperature anomaly will be even for 2100..
Never was. Most ALL deniers will TELL YOU that climate is ALWAYS changing. And that the Earth is getting warmer. To call names and appeal to 97% authority -- you're gonna need a year or two to study the REAL DISAGREEMENTS and understand why this issue is getting ZERO political traction. It's ain't because of me and the deniers. And it aint because of the GOP.. The science is NOT Settled.. Not when the IPCC gives a 5 or 6 DegC variation in the temp projections just 70 years from now and didn't catch a 15 year lull in the rate of warming since 2000.

 

[Crick]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

Remember when Einstein called Relativity "Steeled Science"? Yeah, me neither

Michio Kaku said that even today, if Relativity failed on one data point it would have to be rejected as a Theory. Why do the Warmers and the Imaginary Theory of "ManMade Global Climate Change Disruption" get to Hide the Decline, how is that in the same hemisphere as real science?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam

This laughably misleading report is the predictable result when hard-core environmental activists are chosen to write up a climate assessment for, and subject to the approval and revisions of, the Obama administration. It is like the punch line to a bad joke: "How many environmental activists does it take to put together an alarmist global warming report?"

Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, The Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously. Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report. The only real surprise in the report is it didn’t take the opportunity to trumpet the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

anti-science science deniers are not experts.

wackadoodles.

to pick people who pretend there is no climate change would be to ignore 98% of the scientific community.

Wow. The standard boilerplate lie has jumped up a whole percentage point!

Must be getting awfully desperate out there in warmerland!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Guest post by David M. Taylor @ Doug Ross @ Journal: THUNDER: Experts Shred Obama Administration's Laughably Fraudulent Climate Scam



So, Obama choses to select a clearly pro-Globull Warming group to tout his latest political ploy the destroy America's energy infrastructure? Anyone surprised? And, would any of you defenders care to try to refute this?

anti-science science deniers are not experts.

wackadoodles.

to pick people who pretend there is no climate change would be to ignore 98% of the scientific community.

Wow. The standard boilerplate lie has jumped up a whole percentage point!

Must be getting awfully desperate out there in warmerland!

^ Denier!! ^ Racist!!

How the AGWCult does real science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

#AGWScam

 

[Crick]

Wow. The standard boilerplate lie has jumped up a whole percentage point!

The lie is your implication that it's NOT 97%.

Why don't you show us a recent and statistically valid survey/poll/study that does NOT show an overwhelming majority of climate scientists believing that human activity is the primary cause of global warming? Show us the "growing number" of climate scientists who - in the face of CRU's stolen emails and the pause in surface warming - now reject AGW, as your brethren have repeatedly claimed they are doing. When you can do that, then you might have the right to question someone else's integrity. Until then, you are being a complete and utter dupe of industry interests and are spouting the lies they haven't the balls to try to push themselves.

 

[Old Rocks]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

It is settled science that GHGs cause warming. It is not settled at what rate the warming will progress. Even less settled is what kind of feedbacks we will get from such things as increased atmospheric water, permafrost, ocean clathrates, and the warming of the oceans. Throw in aerosols from dirty industrial development, and it gets very hard to predict not only what will happen, but the rate at which it is going to happen. I am quite sure we have some inevitable surprises in store. Some of which may not be all that pleasant.

 

[jc456]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

It is settled science that GHGs cause warming. It is not settled at what rate the warming will progress. Even less settled is what kind of feedbacks we will get from such things as increased atmospheric water, permafrost, ocean clathrates, and the warming of the oceans. Throw in aerosols from dirty industrial development, and it gets very hard to predict not only what will happen, but the rate at which it is going to happen. I am quite sure we have some inevitable surprises in store. Some of which may not be all that pleasant.

Please show your proof that GHGs cause warming. I'm still waiting as are many others here. Still nadda.

here a link of a failed attempt to prove it.

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/...-fair-project/

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

It is settled science that GHGs cause warming. It is not settled at what rate the warming will progress. Even less settled is what kind of feedbacks we will get from such things as increased atmospheric water, permafrost, ocean clathrates, and the warming of the oceans. Throw in aerosols from dirty industrial development, and it gets very hard to predict not only what will happen, but the rate at which it is going to happen. I am quite sure we have some inevitable surprises in store. Some of which may not be all that pleasant.

Blah blah blah blahblah is not science

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

Mr Crusader, nothing I have ever seen you post bears the slightest resemblance to anything having to do with science. "Science and Crusader Frank" is a complete oxymoron.

 

[Old Rocks]

Were the science, in your view, settled, how accurately do you believe the ought to be able to predict the global temperature of 2100?

How much do you know about turbulence and chaotic systems? Enough to explain your answer? Perhaps the problem is in our various interpretations of the term "settled science".

It is settled science that GHGs cause warming. It is not settled at what rate the warming will progress. Even less settled is what kind of feedbacks we will get from such things as increased atmospheric water, permafrost, ocean clathrates, and the warming of the oceans. Throw in aerosols from dirty industrial development, and it gets very hard to predict not only what will happen, but the rate at which it is going to happen. I am quite sure we have some inevitable surprises in store. Some of which may not be all that pleasant.

Please show your proof that GHGs cause warming. I'm still waiting as are many others here. Still nadda.

here a link of a failed attempt to prove it.

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/...-fair-project/

It has been posted many times, silly ignoramous.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is a site of the Amercan Institute of Physics, a scientific society composed of scientific socities.