Global Warming Update

[frigidweirdo]

You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo. The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth. Its a fuckin lie. I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.

I know you want to believe it and get the entire world to dance around the may pole singing 'we are the world' but its not going to happen, its bullshit

pollution is bad, but pollution is not changing the climate. AGW is a hoax and algore is a fraud.

But who gives a shit, believe whatever you want.

Yes, the chart shows that the vast majority agree that it is "largely caused by humans", not totally, but largely caused by.
You said there was agreement, "scientific community agreement", which I have taken for 100% agreement. This is not true.

You sourced the SAME page I got the chart from.
The chart shows there are SOME scientists who don't agree, and they would make up the around 5% of scientists who don't seem to agree, according to the chart.

But you've made some claims.

1) That 50% more or less of scientists don't agree it's mainly man made.
2) That pollution doesn't cause global warming.

Prove it.

All I see is claims. It's easy to make claims. It's not easy to back them up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The incomes of global warming liars in various liberal think tanks and universities relies on keeping the lies alive....that is why they manipulated the data and why they build models to spit out what they want to see.

It would be like a madman on campus claiming the sky is really red and that his models prove it, just keep sending him more research money so that he can fix it.

Can you prove this?

Also, surely those who deny global warming is man made must also get paid, right?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The AGW scam and the Hack-in-Chief's ensuing energy policy has cost every American household thousands of dollars annually since he's been in office. So anyone who attempts to defend the hack or AGW is a hypocrite of the first order -- unless -- they are willing to admit they like wasting everyone's money, including their own.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."

This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.

So, not only does he go against man made global warming, which if he has a good case okay, he even has a case for showing that solar activity and temperatures go hand in hand

What this shows is that in the late 1600s sunspot activity was low and there was a mini ice age. The correlation of the stats isn't amazing, for example the ice age started before 1600 when sunspot activity was above 30, in 1800 when sunspot activity was at the same level, temperatures were quite high.
However BE concentration was low at this time but was not particularly low in 1600 when the mini-ice age started.

But the question here is, does the sun affect global temperatures? Of course it does. Does the sun cause global warming and cooling? Of course it does.
However, you need to bear in mind there is s difference between global warming and cooling, which is a natural process, and man made global warming which isn't natural. To decide only on of these is the cause of anything is ridiculous.
As I've suggested we had natural global warming over the 100,000 year cycle, and now we should be seeing natural global cooling. We're not. We're seeing global warming still. It's difficult to say exactly when something like this should happen. It's only been going on for 400,000 years or so.

Timothy Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[25] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[26] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[27] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[28]

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[29] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[26] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[28] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

So this guy is just a liar.

Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robert Merlin "Bob" Carter is a climate change skeptic who came to prominence in 2006 by arguing that global warming trends had ceased in 1998.[1] Not formally qualified in climate science, he has been a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist[2][3], but currently holds no academic post.

In 2006, he argued against climate change being "man-made" by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.

Like I've said before, there is natural warming and cooling, and there is man made influence. To deny man made influence just because temperatures didn't rise is quite ridiculous.

In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[30] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[30] Carter has denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought.[31]

 

[frigidweirdo]

The AGW scam and the Hack-in-Chief's ensuing energy policy has cost every American household thousands of dollars annually since he's been in office. So anyone who attempts to defend the hack or AGW is a hypocrite of the first order -- unless -- they are willing to admit they like wasting everyone's money, including their own.

I love it when the right come on here and talk about waste of money.

You know your healthcare scam costs you BILLIONS?

For a start, healthcare spends 30% on administration, compared to Canada's 15%.

Then about 20-30% goes on corruption.

So, of the 50% that is paid for through health insurance, almost all of it goes on either corruption or unnecessary administration (ie, administering the health insurance).

Ever wondered why the US spends twice as much as anyone else? Now you know.

But who complains about the rising costs of fuel AND the high cost of healthcare?

Probably not you, do you feel happy with the corruption in healthcare?

 

[frigidweirdo]

continued:

I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark_(geologist)

In the 2007 UK television documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", he states that changes in global temperature correlate with solar activity, saying "Solar activity of the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years correlates very nicely on a decadal basis, with sea ice and Arctic temperatures."

Well I've discussed this previously.

Chris de Freitas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2013 De Freitas said the devastating heatwave and wildfires that ravaged New South Wales in January were not linked to climate change, and said the Earth hasn't warmed at all in a decade.[3]

And this one previously too.

David Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 2005 study by Douglass and fellow University of Rochester physicist Robert S. Knox argued that global climate models underestimated the climate response to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The study also contended that global temperature returned to normal much faster after the eruption than the models had predicted.[1][2]

A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3] [4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.

So this one is more about the way models work. And he may be right, he may not be right. His paper was rebutted however. He isn't necessarily against the view that climate change isn't man made.

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr. Easterbrook holds that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."[1]

He actually supports my view that global temperatures should be dropping. They should cool, but they're not cooling at all. He said this in 2006. Well, 8 years later and temperatures are not cool.

While IPCC was predicting global warming, Easterbrook (2001) predicted three decades of cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from its warm to cool phase.[5] He correlated PDO with climatic changes over the last 500 years.[6]

"The IPCC has predicted a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3–0.5°C by 2040."

And he said this should start around 2007.

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Written in 2006.

So, another scientist who said that global temperatures SHOULD be getting cooler. But they're not.

William Happer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In February 2009 Happer testified before the U.S. Congress, "I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind", for among other reasons because of its beneficial effects on plant growth.[9]

He also claimed that global warming has stopped in the last 10 years.

So another person who is taking views of temperatures not rising massively as a sign that man made global warming isn't happening, which i find ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And there are some who claim man made global warming will have few negative effects.

Craig D. Idso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idso is a lead author of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),[8][9] a project sponsored by the Heartland Institute.[10] An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.[11]

The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[

So the guy works for a company which generally promotes money over health. Clearly tobacco doesn't cause cancer, and clearly there is no need for healthcare reforms (who doesn't love corruption and over spending?).

Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades.

He stated in 2000:[9]

cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]

Well they've risen 0.1 -ish since then. And that's including the reality that temperatures should have dropped.

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.

Damn, this seems to be good business. Get on the side of the people with money and interest in making sure global warming is not seen as man made, and hey presto, a ton of money in your account.

 

[Freewill]

And Australia has been seeing record heat. So what's your point? Australia's 2014 Heat Wave Picks Up Where 2013 Left Off | Climate Central

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

I mean, I know you don't. They don't teach those types of things at the Monster Truck Rally.

Isn't a heat wave weather? Isn't Australia's climate normally hot and dry? What is changing?

 

[Ame®icano]

Its only been that way for a 3 decades.

It's been that way since they're busted for lying and since data doesn't support their story.

By the way, there is nothing that will stop liberal from their transference.

Check this out... can't make this shit up.

No its been that way for 3 decades

Google It For Me!

There! Now you dont even have to google it. Started in 1975 despite what the talking points have told you

So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again.

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?

 

[ClosedCaption]

It's been that way since they're busted for lying and since data doesn't support their story.

By the way, there is nothing that will stop liberal from their transference.

Check this out... can't make this shit up.

No its been that way for 3 decades

Google It For Me!

There! Now you dont even have to google it. Started in 1975 despite what the talking points have told you

So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again.

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?

Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!

 

[Ame®icano]

No its been that way for 3 decades

Google It For Me!

There! Now you dont even have to google it. Started in 1975 despite what the talking points have told you

So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."

How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again.

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?

Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!

The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming".

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:



How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again.

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?

Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!

The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming".

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?

Look just stop saying Climate Change is a new term because its not.

To answer your question: I dont know, but that doesnt change the science of Global Warming.

 

[Pete7469]

So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:



How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again.

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?

Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!

The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming".

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?

Don't worry, this summer after a few wild fires make huge headlines GW will be brought back, until September and ice storms cause massive damage in what's left of Detroit. Then it will be "climate change" again. I wonder if there were bed wetter Neanderthals that demanded their fellow cave dwellers put out their fires due to the glaciers slowly moving in on them. Maybe that's why they disappeared. Moonbat Neanderthals convinced everyone the witch doctor's "science" was settled, and that they needed to make sacrifice to "protect mother earth".

 

[Pete7469]

Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!

The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming".

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?

Look just stop saying Climate Change is a new term because its not.

To answer your question: I dont know, but that doesnt change the science of Global Warming.

It's a bullshit term. We already had a "term" for it. It was called "Seasons" and it had nothing to do with Santa, or any of the religious holidays you hate.

It is a "new term" in the sense that you bed wetters adopted it and promoted it to shift attention from the fact that "global warming" was bullshit. The "science" you're so convinced is "settled", is little more than "political science" where you study polls and popular opinion manipulation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming".

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?

Look just stop saying Climate Change is a new term because its not.

To answer your question: I dont know, but that doesnt change the science of Global Warming.

It's a bullshit term. We already had a "term" for it. It was called "Seasons" and it had nothing to do with Santa, or any of the religious holidays you hate.

Yes thats what Climate Change is...Its the Seasons

*wipes tear from eye*

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes.

Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?

 

[Redfish]

You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo. The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth. Its a fuckin lie. I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.

I know you want to believe it and get the entire world to dance around the may pole singing 'we are the world' but its not going to happen, its bullshit

pollution is bad, but pollution is not changing the climate. AGW is a hoax and algore is a fraud.

But who gives a shit, believe whatever you want.

Yes, the chart shows that the vast majority agree that it is "largely caused by humans", not totally, but largely caused by.
You said there was agreement, "scientific community agreement", which I have taken for 100% agreement. This is not true.

You sourced the SAME page I got the chart from.
The chart shows there are SOME scientists who don't agree, and they would make up the around 5% of scientists who don't seem to agree, according to the chart.

But you've made some claims.

1) That 50% more or less of scientists don't agree it's mainly man made.
2) That pollution doesn't cause global warming.

Prove it.

All I see is claims. It's easy to make claims. It's not easy to back them up.

The data that has been presented, some of it by you, proves what I have said.

But even if man is causing climate change (which he isn't) there is nothing we can do about it short of executing about 3 billion people.

But you were asked earlier how putting a carbon tax on individuals and industries will stop man made climate change. It won't. What it will do is cause an inflationary rise in prices, recessions and depressions, poorer quality of life, death to a lot of poor people, and possibly a world war.

in short, you whole rhetoric on this topic is based on ignorance.

 

[Redfish]

The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes.

Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?

cow farts----------we must ban cow farts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes.

Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?

According to science right? Isnt that ironic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder, if we said Yep, the climate is changing because of our actions, but there's nothing we can do about it, would the climate change deniers suddenly change their tune say, Yep, it's gettin' hot around these parts that's for sure. That Climate Change could be trouble after all...