Green Deal Price Tag...93,000,000,000,000.00

[SSDD]

He's old, fixed in his ways and kind of senile. All denier scientists are that way. There are no young denier scientists. It requires the stupidity of age to embrace denialism. Science advances one funeral at a time.

Why is it hairball, that every thing you say about others is actually a description of yourself...

And what young scientists is going to buck the system and get denied research funding and have his career ended?

In SSDD's loopy cult world, climate scientists go to a community college and major in "climate science".

It really should be taught in community colleges...it is a waste of resources to put climate science in universities...hell, they could be using that space better teaching social sciences..

Meanwhile, in the real world, climate scientists are hard science (usually physics) PHDs and postdocs.

You think because they get a PhD that makes it a hard science? So a PhD in political science is practicing the hard sciences as well? Climate science is a soft science at any level...

Poor SSDD, so butthurt because the 300-level Statistical Mechanics course that physics majors all take totally destroys his loopy theories.

guess you wish that were true...they teach the same second law, and the same boatsman law and all the other same physical laws I subscribe to...to bad you guys don't accept them but prefer to interpret them...add to them and generally change their meaning in order to maintain belief in your cult..

 

[watchingfromafar]

Lol....s0n...you'll be a long time in your box and coal will still be the most prolific source of energy in the world.

Money, is that what drives your needs--?

Coal is formed if dead plant matter decays into peat and over millions of years the heat and pressure of deep burial converts the peat into coal.[2]

The extraction and use of coal causes many premature deaths and much illness.[4] Coal damages the environment; including by climate change as it is the largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide, 14 Gt in 2016[5] which is 40% of the total fossil fuel emissions.[6] As part of the worldwide energy transition many countries have stopped using or use less coal.

In 2017 38% of the world's electricity came from coal, the same percentage as 30 years previously.[66] In 2018 global installed capacity was 2TW (of which 1TW is in China) which was 30% of total electricity generation capacity.[67] The most dependent major country is South Africa, with over 80% of its electricity generated by coal.[68]

The total known deposits recoverable by current technologies, including highly polluting, low-energy content types of coal (i.e., lignite, bituminous), is sufficient for many years. On the other hand,-----

maximum use could be reached sometime in the 2020s.
Coal - Wikipedia

If you, skookerasbil, only care for yourself then your point is well taken; if you care for your children's future you need to rethink your views.

just a suggestion -

 

[skookerasbil]

Funny....Happer is one of the sharpest knives in any drawer...you wack jobs are terrified of him because he zeroes in on every single weakness and inadequacy in your narrative....no climate scientist has the cojones to enter into a debate with him for fear of walking away with permanent feelings of inadequacy....

He is a crackpot with no climatology experience!

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

He is a world renouned physicist.....he grasps energy movement through the atmosphere better by far then any practitioner of the soft science of climate science....you do realize, don't you that climate science is a soft science? The sort of science you take if you can't get into a physics, chemistry, or engineering program? Any masters level physicist, chemist, or engineer could teach any course available in a climate science course...but a PhD climate scientists would be lost teaching 300 level physics, chemistry, or engineering courses...

You guys just don't seem to grasp what a joke climate science is...that is why the field has been very active now for about 3 decades and still can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...

This all more of your opinions being presented as fact. Another appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. "Soft Sciences" are the social sciences and economics .You don't get it! All of these people have a political agenda and the deniers are a small faction of the scientific community

Not my opinion...hard fact...go grab yourself a syllabus from any university with a climate science program...compare that course of education to a physics, chemistry, or engineering program....there isn't even a comparison after the first year....3 of the courses take you into the depths of the hard sciences...one teaches rainbows and unicorns when compared to the other 3. Or don't look and maintain your ignorance...you would probably be more comfortable with that option...no thinking required.

I see now. So climatologists are all full of shit, unless they are someone like Judith Curry who says what you want to hear. Got it!

Yeah but the public policy makers have been embracing Dr. Curry's theories for well over 10 years s0n so you aren't winning! Its not even debatable though I will concede that you and the climate crusaders do own the billboard you like to take bows in front of. Happy now!

 

[skookerasbil]

Lol....s0n...you'll be a long time in your box and coal will still be the most prolific source of energy in the world.

Money, is that what drives your needs--?

Coal is formed if dead plant matter decays into peat and over millions of years the heat and pressure of deep burial converts the peat into coal.[2]

The extraction and use of coal causes many premature deaths and much illness.[4] Coal damages the environment; including by climate change as it is the largest anthropogenic source of carbon dioxide, 14 Gt in 2016[5] which is 40% of the total fossil fuel emissions.[6] As part of the worldwide energy transition many countries have stopped using or use less coal.

In 2017 38% of the world's electricity came from coal, the same percentage as 30 years previously.[66] In 2018 global installed capacity was 2TW (of which 1TW is in China) which was 30% of total electricity generation capacity.[67] The most dependent major country is South Africa, with over 80% of its electricity generated by coal.[68]

The total known deposits recoverable by current technologies, including highly polluting, low-energy content types of coal (i.e., lignite, bituminous), is sufficient for many years. On the other hand,-----

maximum use could be reached sometime in the 2020s.
Coal - Wikipedia

If you, skookerasbil, only care for yourself then your point is well taken; if you care for your children's future you need to rethink your views.

just a suggestion -

Lol....nobody uses Wiki for a source on coal use. C'mon now!

Worries over China coal power boom

 

[skookerasbil]

China Building New Coal Plants Equal to Entire US Capacity

 

[skookerasbil]

The number of new coal plants worldwide is shrinking, but not nearly fast enough

 

[skookerasbil]

China’s provinces are secretly building coal plants in defiance of the national governmentChina’s provinces are secretly building coal plants in defiance of the national government

 

[skookerasbil]

Why Is China Still Building New Coal Plants?

But whatever you guys say!

 

[SSDD]

Yes...you are a dupe...how do you suppose all the life in the oceans managed to live during the holocene optimum when temperatures were considerably warmer than they are today.

If you weren't such a total ignoramus concerning chemistry, you'd know why. Climate scientists, being very familiar with the hard science of chemistry, do know why.

Over ten of thousands of year, the buffering effect of carbonate runoff from the land prevents the pH from dropping as CO2 levels rise. On short time scales, that buffering doesn't happen.

You didn't know such a basic thing, and you screamed an idiot conspiracy theory based on your ignorance. Same old same old.

As far as the hard data, it's everywhere. We directly measure the lowering pH in the oceans.

Climate Change Indicators: Ocean Acidity | US EPA

So tell us hairball...which proxy did you use that tells us that all changes in the ocean's ph happened over thousands of years...you guys are always saying that in the old days changes happened over thousands of years, but the fact is that you have no evidence whatsoever to back that up....there are no proxy that give that sort of resolution beyond ice cores and the ice cores tell us that changes happen that are both larger and faster regularly... it is nothing but an unsubstantiated assumption that changes took longer in the past, and our best evidence is that they happened faster than what we are seeing...

 

[skookerasbil]

The moral if the story?

Only climate crusader types think it's a good idea to cut off one leg to run faster!

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum!

 

[jc456]

Well...…..there goes that idea!!!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion

No commentary needed except......top story on DRUDGE right now!!

What is the price of doing nothing to curb climate change?
What is the price of loosing millions of miles of coastal property?
What is the price of more frequent and worsening wild fires?
What is the price of more frequent superstorms that devastate entire regions"?
What is the price of more frequent and severe droughts the lead to famine and social/political unrest ?
What is the price of loosing most of the fish in the ocean as a source of food?

Just like with health care, all you people want to do is talk about the cost of what is proposed but never ever about the cost 0r consequences of ignoring the problem

All consequences that are bogus left wing talking points.. None of which is happening by empirical evidence. You want us to accept killing our economies and millions of people for a non-existent problem. That takes a special kind of stupid... Do you idiots ever use cognitive thought before you spew crap?

Horseshit!!

Yep...that about describes your claims....want to revise them or are you going to stick with horse shit??

There is a whole lot more that I could say but I know that none of it would do any good with you knuckle heads

No there isn’t! You haven’t said anything yet!

 

[jc456]

What is the price of doing nothing to curb climate change?

The cost of doing nothing about a climate that is doing business as usual.....zero

What is the price of loosing millions of miles of coastal property?

Priceless....pure alarmism...there are about 325,000 miles of coastline in the world...not millions of miles...and we are losing it at a rate of about 3 mm per year....a fraction of the rate sea level has been rising for most of the past 10,000 years..

What is the price of more frequent and worsening wild fires?

The amount of forest lost to fire is on the decrease...

What is the price of more frequent superstorms that devastate entire regions"?

Storm energy and cyclone intensity have declined sharply since 1979

What is the price of more frequent and severe droughts the lead to famine and social/political unrest ?

Drought today is far less severe worldwide that it has been in the past...and there is no connection between drought and climate change other than to say that cooler climates produce harsher drought.

What is the price of loosing most of the fish in the ocean as a source of food?

Nothing whatsoever to do with climate change... Seems that everything you believe is a falsehood promoted by handwaving hysterics with a political agenda..how did you become such a dupe?

I'm a dupe?? Seems that you are the one with a political agenda. Everything that you believe flies in the face of the vast majority of scientific research . Each of your responses is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy devoid of documentation.

Effects of Climate Change on Marine Life
​

didn't dinosaurs disappear? was that on man too? We have history on our side, you don't.

 

[jc456]

Today on “Fox & Friends,” Vice President Mike Pence lavished praise on President Trump for withdrawing from the Paris climate change agreement, repeating Trump’s nonsensical line that he “was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
Mike Pence: ‘For Some Reason’ Liberals Care About Climate Change | Right Wing Watch

People, FOX NEWS is not a news source, it is a tabloid masquerading as a news source. The public should force them to change their name or drop the crap.

-

did they report what Pence said? did they alter what Pence said? They do report news. Maybe not the news you like, but still news. They are also an opinion's network. They have always qualified themselves to that. so, you are living someone else's talking points and not yours. sucks to be you. I am no mans outlet.

 

[jc456]

Here is what sea level has looked like for about the past 8,000 years...

Your graph is so poorly made that it is hard to determine where the dates are and the direction of the rising or falling?

Here is a better graph--
View attachment 248476
Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level | US EPA

The graph I provided is measuring sea level increase in terms of meters...yours is measuring inches across more than 100 years...and isn't particularly accurate...it is the product of some very shady measuring systems such as tacking satellite numbers onto data collected via physical tide gages...


Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner, one of the worlds leading sea level experts examined sea levels between Denmark and Sweden and found that contrary to the reports by alarmists, sea level is actually dropping. The tide record in Stockholm is the longest in Europe and he found that the mean long-term change in sea level is a decline of 3.8 mm per year. The land mass itself is rising 49mm per year due to post glacial rise of the land mass...the difference leaves actual sea level rise at about 1.1m per year...

Then there are the multiple papers which find that sea levels were considerably higher 6000 years ago than they are at present.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218306023

Clip:“~6000 cal yr B.P. old oysters can be found from between 3.8 ± 0.1 m to 2.5 ± 0.1 m above present day mean sea level. … Dead (fossil) oysters were collected from between 1 and 3 m above the centre of the live oyster band in a more sheltered cleft inside the notch. The oldest sample with an age of 5270–4950 cal yr B.P. was collected at an elevation of 3.01 ± 0.1 m above the apex of the notch. The ages decrease with elevation down to 920–710 cal yr B.P. at 1.03 m.”
• “In all the sites, the 14C age of the dead oysters inside the notches increases with increasing elevation above present day MSL. Clearly, relative sea level was 2 to 3 m higher than present between 6000 and 3000 B.P. and has steadily fallen since.”

• “There was a progressive warming from ~13,500 years ago to a peak at 6500 ± 200 years ago followed by a cooling of −2.6 °C to the present day.”

“[A]t a more sheltered site inside a bay on Ko Pha Nak, the highest preserved oyster shell is at 3.2 ± 0.1 m above MSL and has a younger 14C calibrated age of 5845–5605 cal yr B.P. Furthermore, oysters from 3.8 ± 0.1 m above present day MSL, encrusted on a stalactite in a cave at West Railay Beach has a 14C calibrated age of 6176–6041 cal yr B.P.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”

“[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”

The State of the World’s Beaches

Clip: The application of an automated shoreline detection method to the sandy shorelines thus identified resulted in a global dataset of shoreline change rates for the 33 year period 1984–2016. Analysis of the satellite derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, while 28% are accreting and 48% are stable.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379116303304

Clip: We present a Holocene relative sea-level (RSL) database for the Caribbean region (5°N to 25°N and 55°W to 90°W) that consists of 499 sea-level index points and 238 limiting dates. The database was compiled from multiple sea-level indicators (mangrove peat, microbial mats, beach rock and acroporid and massive corals). We subdivided the database into 20 regions to investigate the influence of tectonics and glacial isostatic adjustment on RSL. We account for the local-scale processes of sediment compaction and tidal range change using the stratigraphic position (overburden thickness) of index points and paleotidal modeling, respectively. We use a spatio-temporal empirical hierarchical model to estimate RSL position and its rates of change in the Caribbean over 1-ka time slices. Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka. Following complete deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) by ∼7 ka, mid-to late-Holocene rates slowed to < 2.4 ± 0.4 m/ka.The hierarchical model constrains the spatial extent of the mid-Holocene highstand. RSL did not exceed the present height during the Holocene, except on the northern coast of South America, where in Suriname and Guyana, RSL attained a height higher than present by 6.6 ka (82% probability).The highstand reached a maximum elevation of +1.0 ± 1.1 m between 5.3 and 5.2 ka. Regions with a highstand were located furthest away from the former LIS, where the effects from ocean syphoning and hydro-isostasy outweigh the influence of subsidence from forebulge collapse.”

And it goes on and on and on...published papers indicating that the models upon which alarmism is based are wrong...that sea levels were considerably higher thousands of years ago than they are today...that your alarmist handwaving is nothing more than uninformed hysterics.

Dang man.....that graph you posted is daunting. Just goes to show either these climate crusaders are just these hysterical assholes OR a bunch of fakes!

Great post!

or both!!!

 

[jc456]

Your graph is so poorly made that it is hard to determine where the dates are and the direction of the rising or falling?

Here is a better graph--
View attachment 248476
Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level | US EPA

The graph I provided is measuring sea level increase in terms of meters...yours is measuring inches across more than 100 years...and isn't particularly accurate...it is the product of some very shady measuring systems such as tacking satellite numbers onto data collected via physical tide gages...


Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner, one of the worlds leading sea level experts examined sea levels between Denmark and Sweden and found that contrary to the reports by alarmists, sea level is actually dropping. The tide record in Stockholm is the longest in Europe and he found that the mean long-term change in sea level is a decline of 3.8 mm per year. The land mass itself is rising 49mm per year due to post glacial rise of the land mass...the difference leaves actual sea level rise at about 1.1m per year...

Then there are the multiple papers which find that sea levels were considerably higher 6000 years ago than they are at present.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018218306023

Clip:“~6000 cal yr B.P. old oysters can be found from between 3.8 ± 0.1 m to 2.5 ± 0.1 m above present day mean sea level. … Dead (fossil) oysters were collected from between 1 and 3 m above the centre of the live oyster band in a more sheltered cleft inside the notch. The oldest sample with an age of 5270–4950 cal yr B.P. was collected at an elevation of 3.01 ± 0.1 m above the apex of the notch. The ages decrease with elevation down to 920–710 cal yr B.P. at 1.03 m.”
• “In all the sites, the 14C age of the dead oysters inside the notches increases with increasing elevation above present day MSL. Clearly, relative sea level was 2 to 3 m higher than present between 6000 and 3000 B.P. and has steadily fallen since.”

• “There was a progressive warming from ~13,500 years ago to a peak at 6500 ± 200 years ago followed by a cooling of −2.6 °C to the present day.”

“[A]t a more sheltered site inside a bay on Ko Pha Nak, the highest preserved oyster shell is at 3.2 ± 0.1 m above MSL and has a younger 14C calibrated age of 5845–5605 cal yr B.P. Furthermore, oysters from 3.8 ± 0.1 m above present day MSL, encrusted on a stalactite in a cave at West Railay Beach has a 14C calibrated age of 6176–6041 cal yr B.P.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”

“[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”

The State of the World’s Beaches

Clip: The application of an automated shoreline detection method to the sandy shorelines thus identified resulted in a global dataset of shoreline change rates for the 33 year period 1984–2016. Analysis of the satellite derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, while 28% are accreting and 48% are stable.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379116303304

Clip: We present a Holocene relative sea-level (RSL) database for the Caribbean region (5°N to 25°N and 55°W to 90°W) that consists of 499 sea-level index points and 238 limiting dates. The database was compiled from multiple sea-level indicators (mangrove peat, microbial mats, beach rock and acroporid and massive corals). We subdivided the database into 20 regions to investigate the influence of tectonics and glacial isostatic adjustment on RSL. We account for the local-scale processes of sediment compaction and tidal range change using the stratigraphic position (overburden thickness) of index points and paleotidal modeling, respectively. We use a spatio-temporal empirical hierarchical model to estimate RSL position and its rates of change in the Caribbean over 1-ka time slices. Because of meltwater input, the rates of RSL change were highest during the early Holocene, with a maximum of 10.9 ± 0.6 m/ka in Suriname and Guyana and minimum of 7.4 ± 0.7 m/ka in south Florida from 12 to 8 ka. Following complete deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (LIS) by ∼7 ka, mid-to late-Holocene rates slowed to < 2.4 ± 0.4 m/ka.The hierarchical model constrains the spatial extent of the mid-Holocene highstand. RSL did not exceed the present height during the Holocene, except on the northern coast of South America, where in Suriname and Guyana, RSL attained a height higher than present by 6.6 ka (82% probability).The highstand reached a maximum elevation of +1.0 ± 1.1 m between 5.3 and 5.2 ka. Regions with a highstand were located furthest away from the former LIS, where the effects from ocean syphoning and hydro-isostasy outweigh the influence of subsidence from forebulge collapse.”

And it goes on and on and on...published papers indicating that the models upon which alarmism is based are wrong...that sea levels were considerably higher thousands of years ago than they are today...that your alarmist handwaving is nothing more than uninformed hysterics.

Dang man.....that graph you posted is daunting. Just goes to show either these climate crusaders are just these hysterical assholes OR a bunch of fakes!

Great post!

You want to talk about assholes? Remember the National Climate Assessment that Trump tried to burry? He is so afraid of the truth that now he has to do this:

Meet The Ostriches Under Consideration For Trump’s Anti-Science Climate Panel | HuffPost

Funny....Happer is one of the sharpest knives in any drawer...you wack jobs are terrified of him because he zeroes in on every single weakness and inadequacy in your narrative....no climate scientist has the cojones to enter into a debate with him for fear of walking away with permanent feelings of inadequacy....

He is a crackpot with no climatology experience!

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

So is Judith Curry

PEOPLE: Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

It's beginning to look like this panel is just a little lopsided

too funny

 

[jc456]

He is a crackpot with no climatology experience!

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

He is a world renouned physicist.....he grasps energy movement through the atmosphere better by far then any practitioner of the soft science of climate science....you do realize, don't you that climate science is a soft science? The sort of science you take if you can't get into a physics, chemistry, or engineering program? Any masters level physicist, chemist, or engineer could teach any course available in a climate science course...but a PhD climate scientists would be lost teaching 300 level physics, chemistry, or engineering courses...

You guys just don't seem to grasp what a joke climate science is...that is why the field has been very active now for about 3 decades and still can't produce the first piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...

This all more of your opinions being presented as fact. Another appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. "Soft Sciences" are the social sciences and economics .You don't get it! All of these people have a political agenda and the deniers are a small faction of the scientific community

Not my opinion...hard fact...go grab yourself a syllabus from any university with a climate science program...compare that course of education to a physics, chemistry, or engineering program....there isn't even a comparison after the first year....3 of the courses take you into the depths of the hard sciences...one teaches rainbows and unicorns when compared to the other 3. Or don't look and maintain your ignorance...you would probably be more comfortable with that option...no thinking required.

I see now. So climatologists are all full of shit, unless they are someone like Judith Curry who says what you want to hear. Got it!

Nobody says all of them are full of shit, the problem centers on a small number of scientists who promotes pseudoscience for money and prestige, with the Media's culpability of promoting what is not there. Now that the few short term climate models have all failed and still no "Troposphere "hotspot" showing up, AGW conjecture is DEAD!

Judith Curry is a Lukewarmer, who believes in the AGW conjecture, but doesn't accept the "doomsday" scenario. That is the distinction you miss.

she still accepts back radiation. sadly. Never proven by one body. NEVER. And one needs it to play the narrative.

 

[jc456]

He is a world renouned physicist.....

Yet his climate science views are stupid.

He's old, fixed in his ways and kind of senile. All denier scientists are that way. There are no young denier scientists. It requires the stupidity of age to embrace denialism. Science advances one funeral at a time.

Any masters level physicist, chemist, or engineer could teach any course available in a climate science course..

In SSDD's loopy cult world, climate scientists go to a community college and major in "climate science".

Meanwhile, in the real world, climate scientists are hard science (usually physics) PHDs and postdocs.

.but a PhD climate scientists would be lost teaching 300 level physics, chemistry, or engineering courses...

Poor SSDD, so butthurt because the 300-level Statistical Mechanics course that physics majors all take totally destroys his loopy theories.

funny you can call a renowned physicist stupid. And any of us say anything about the decorative batch of want to be's stupid you go off half cocked. funny shit.

BTW, I'd take that one guy over crick's tens of thousands.

 

[mamooth]

Why is it hairball, that every thing you say about others is actually a description of yourself...

Mindless insults, check.

And what young scientists is going to buck the system and get denied research funding and have his career ended?

Helpless conspiracy flailing, check.

It really should be taught in community colleges...it is a waste of resources to put climate science in universities...hell, they could be using that space better teaching social sciences..

Panicked retreat from loopy claim, check.

You think because they get a PhD that makes it a hard science?

No, dumbass. Physics is a hard science because physics is a hard science, not because people gets PhDs in physics.

guess you wish that were true...they teach the same second law, and the same boatsman law and all the other same physical laws I subscribe to...

Being that I took the courses, I know with 100% certainty that you're lying about what is taught in physics courses.

And you still haven't backed up your claim about the curriculum of supposed schools that have a supposed climate science program. I think everyone correctly takes that as your admission that you faked that claim.

 

[mamooth]

So tell us hairball...which proxy did you use that tells us that all changes in the ocean's ph happened over thousands of years

You seem very confused again, as those graphs charted tens of years, and were based on direct measurements.

it is nothing but an unsubstantiated assumption that changes took longer in the past,

They didn't take longer. They didn't happen at all, because of the carbonate buffering. That's where you did your faceplant.

As an evasion, you cried "but how do you know sudden pH spikes didn't occur at intervals less than what proxies can detect?".

Being that's an idiot "You can't absolutely prove magic didn't happen, so you have to assume magic did happen!" line of reasoning, it's discarded by non-stupid people.