I truly wonder in what year climate change deniers will figure out how dumb they've been along

[westwall]

Climate change has ALWAYS been real. What is not real is anthropogenic global warming. That is a total failure as a theory. You'll figure it out soon enough as you start to freeze your butt off.

The ONLY reason you even believe that is because of republicans. They declare something and the rightwing media blindly follows the narrative.

Nope. The reason I believe it is because I am a scientist. I have looked at the theory and it fails every test. It has zero empirical data to back it up and is wholly created in computer derived fictional models. That's it, and that ain't science no matter how much you want it to be.

What you are saying is so insane that it blows my mind. ZERO empirical data huh? I don't care what you think you are, you are so wrong and you're stupid to suggest you're an authority on the subject.

Yes ZERO. Your mind is easy to blow because your understanding of science is so low. Consensus is a term of politicians. Not scientists. I would love to educate you one science and the scientific method but I truly don't think you're smart enough to understand the basics.

How about this? Explain - with specifics and examples - why climate change research hasn't been created through the scientific method.

It has already been done. Feel free to look at the Environment Threads and you will find all you need.

 

[Billy000]

The ONLY reason you even believe that is because of republicans. They declare something and the rightwing media blindly follows the narrative.

Nope. The reason I believe it is because I am a scientist. I have looked at the theory and it fails every test. It has zero empirical data to back it up and is wholly created in computer derived fictional models. That's it, and that ain't science no matter how much you want it to be.

What you are saying is so insane that it blows my mind. ZERO empirical data huh? I don't care what you think you are, you are so wrong and you're stupid to suggest you're an authority on the subject.

Yes ZERO. Your mind is easy to blow because your understanding of science is so low. Consensus is a term of politicians. Not scientists. I would love to educate you one science and the scientific method but I truly don't think you're smart enough to understand the basics.

How about this? Explain - with specifics and examples - why climate change research hasn't been created through the scientific method.

It has already been done. Feel free to look at the Environment Threads and you will find all you need.

lol that's such a lame reply and you know it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I wouldn't say never as it was all melted 35 million years ago all the way back to snowball earth times.

Here is how it would look like

 

[westwall]

Nope. The reason I believe it is because I am a scientist. I have looked at the theory and it fails every test. It has zero empirical data to back it up and is wholly created in computer derived fictional models. That's it, and that ain't science no matter how much you want it to be.

What you are saying is so insane that it blows my mind. ZERO empirical data huh? I don't care what you think you are, you are so wrong and you're stupid to suggest you're an authority on the subject.

Yes ZERO. Your mind is easy to blow because your understanding of science is so low. Consensus is a term of politicians. Not scientists. I would love to educate you one science and the scientific method but I truly don't think you're smart enough to understand the basics.

How about this? Explain - with specifics and examples - why climate change research hasn't been created through the scientific method.

It has already been done. Feel free to look at the Environment Threads and you will find all you need.

lol that's such a lame reply and you know it.

No, the fact is you have been presented the facts numerous times. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you. You are simply not smart enough to even begin.

 

[Norman]

The conservatives will accept that it's real after the liberals have accepted that the field is populated by scam and faulty science.

 

[Billy000]

The conservatives will accept that it's real after the liberals have accepted that the field is populated by scam and faulty science.

You believe that to be true without any evidence. Sure some science is faulty, it's completely wrong to say the entire field is compromised by scams.

 

[westwall]

The conservatives will accept that it's real after the liberals have accepted that the field is populated by scam and faulty science.

You believe that to be true without any evidence. Sure some science is faulty, it's completely wrong to say the entire field is compromised by scams.

Never claimed the entire field was bad. Only those pushing the AGW fraud are bad. There are some very, very good climatologists out there. You never hear about them though because they aren't hysterical alarmists.

 

[Spare_change]

Probably when the sea level rises so much that Miami or some other east coast citie goes under for good.

Actually, some of us are kind of looking forward to that .... do we get to pick the city?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The OP is 30. He's a product of this "education" system.

To answer the question, maybe when your side quits falling on its face making so many embarrassingly bad predictions

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

 

[Little-Acorn]

The climate has been changing for as long as the Earth has existed. Or for as long as it's had a climate, at least.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer. And sometimes it gets cooler.

People have been "researching" this supposed manmade climate change for forty-five years. And after all that researching, all that screaming, all that denigration of those who don't see any evidence for it...

...not a single report proving that man has had any impact on climate change, or can ever have any in the foreseeable future, has ever been published.

Not one. In forty-five years.

Lots of stuff has been published saying that man has had an effect on climate change. and lots of it claims to "prove" it, or at least support it, by "logic" such as:

1.) Increased levels of (CO2, methane, hydrogen, pick your favorite "greenhouse gas") can change the climate.

2.) Man can create more greenhouse gases by paving too much land, or burning fossil fuels, or exhaling really heavily (insert the activity you want to demonize here).

3.) Man is doing that activity, so man is changing the climate.

No attempt to establish what increase in gases is necessary to actually change the climate in whatever way you are fearing this week. No attempt to find if man is actually creating that much. No attempt to find if such increases do or don't trigger other events that might absorb or use up more of those gases (more plants growing or oceans absorbing or whatever). Etc. etc.

And a great deal of publishing has been done, of documents that purport to "prove" that man is affecting the climate, by referring to long bibliographies of learned documents and other "studies". But if you actually look into those bibliographies and open up the documents they cite, you find... you guessed it, more bibliographies, pointing to yet more documents. No actual studies or experiments that demonstrate what the publishers say is true. Just references to even more studies... which in turn refer to even more studies... none of which ever actually prove the original assertion.

FORTY-FIVE YEARS. And not a single actual proof.

There's a reason for this. And it's similar to the reason why no chemical has ever been found that can turn lead into gold... something that has been "researched" for thousands of years.

And the reason is, because there just plain isn't any.

Go peddle your papers, manmade-global-whatever hysterics. You HAVE succeeded in convincing the rest of us of one thing: that you're selling snake oil, no matter how high a price you're charging for it. Nothing else could account for your complete failure to produce even ONE piece of proof, after all the resources you have expended (usually from other peoples' pockets) and forty-plus years of trying.

Why not join the Flat Earth Society? You'll find some people there, who have the mindset needed to believe you.

 

[Clementine]

Will it be the year when it is so clearly obvious the world is in climate turmoil that it took shoving the evidence down the deniers' throats to convince them? Them living in the environmental chaos?

For the sake of convenience and downplaying, climate deniers like to pretend that climate change is purely a Democratic Party issue when it isn't. People who believe climate change is real don't give a shit what Al Gore says about the subject. They care what science says. It is a global scientific issue with a broad consensus. Every leader on Earth currently in office believe it is a legitimate threat.

Republicans, I think, refuse to believe life on the earth has an impending expiration date. The idea scares them. They have to kid themselves into believing civilization will thrive the next couple hundred of years. Plus, they don't like admitting they are wrong.

I'm wondering when you guys will realize that the proposed solutions won't change a damn thing with the climate but will cost you dearly. More businesses will be lost and more people will desperately turn to government, who will continue to steal from a shrinking pool of tax payers.

Instead of talking about whether any minor climate change is manmade, look closely at the bogus solutions. It's nothing but the most massive wealth redistribution in history. Some countries are relying on that money coming their way and they have everything invested in this. Goldman Sachs is behind this 100% because they will profit in an obscene way. They will make bank on the 'trade' part of the cap and trade. Making them wealthier and allowing them to control all the money won't make any difference with the climate. They'll just have total control. The very 1% that the left claims to hate would become even wealthier and more powerful than ever.

And many wonder if HAARP is being used to manipulate weather to push the global warming theory.

Are Microwave Transmission Weapons Of Mass Destruction Being Used To Trigger Catastrophic Earthquakes?

 

[kevinleejackson]

Climate Change does exist. We believe rain follows drought. Cold follows heat, cycles do cycle.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[owebo]

Will it be the year when it is so clearly obvious the world is in climate turmoil that it took shoving the evidence down the deniers' throats to convince them? Them living in the environmental chaos?

For the sake of convenience and downplaying, climate deniers like to pretend that climate change is purely a Democratic Party issue when it isn't. People who believe climate change is real don't give a shit what Al Gore says about the subject. They care what science says. It is a global scientific issue with a broad consensus. Every leader on Earth currently in office believe it is a legitimate threat.

Republicans, I think, refuse to believe life on the earth has an impending expiration date. The idea scares them. They have to kid themselves into believing civilization will thrive the next couple hundred of years. Plus, they don't like admitting they are wrong.

Climate change has ALWAYS been real. What is not real is anthropogenic global warming. That is a total failure as a theory. You'll figure it out soon enough as you start to freeze your butt off.

The ONLY reason you even believe that is because of republicans. They declare something and the rightwing media blindly follows the narrative.

Nope. The reason I believe it is because I am a scientist. I have looked at the theory and it fails every test. It has zero empirical data to back it up and is wholly created in computer derived fictional models. That's it, and that ain't science no matter how much you want it to be.

What you are saying is so insane that it blows my mind. ZERO empirical data huh? I don't care what you think you are, you are so wrong and you're stupid to suggest you're an authority on the subject.

You mean he's not a settled scientist....

 

[SSDD]

What you are saying is so insane that it blows my mind. ZERO empirical data huh? I don't care what you think you are, you are so wrong and you're stupid to suggest you're an authority on the subject.

You seem surprised that he would make the claim that there is zero empirical data supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions....the fact is that he is correct. I challenge you to provide a single shred of observed, measured, empirical data supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. You have all of climate science and the results of billions upon billions upon billions of dollars that they have spent on the topic...one would think that there would be some observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...I haven't found it....if you have, then bring it here...lets see it...or at least lets see you be grown up enough to acknowledge that you can't find it either.

 

[Old Rocks]

Will it be the year when it is so clearly obvious the world is in climate turmoil that it took shoving the evidence down the deniers' throats to convince them? Them living in the environmental chaos?

For the sake of convenience and downplaying, climate deniers like to pretend that climate change is purely a Democratic Party issue when it isn't. People who believe climate change is real don't give a shit what Al Gore says about the subject. They care what science says. It is a global scientific issue with a broad consensus. Every leader on Earth currently in office believe it is a legitimate threat.

Republicans, I think, refuse to believe life on the earth has an impending expiration date. The idea scares them. They have to kid themselves into believing civilization will thrive the next couple hundred of years. Plus, they don't like admitting they are wrong.

Climate change has ALWAYS been real. What is not real is anthropogenic global warming. That is a total failure as a theory. You'll figure it out soon enough as you start to freeze your butt off.

Oh, I see. CO2 is a GHG, but increasing the amount in the atmosphere by over 40% has no affect, right? Lordy, lordy, some people's children.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change is a natural thing, certainly not man-made… Fact

And your proof is? Other the the rants of an obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

According to Global Warming Scientists / predictors that should have alreafy happened...

2 words - 'Hockey Stick'

'Nuff said.

LOL You are a dumb ass. 'Nuff said. More than a dozen independent studies have confirmed the Hockey Stick. Including one by the National Academy of Science.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate change is a natural thing, certainly not man-made… Fact

So in 60 years or so from now, how do you think the gobal population will turn out? Will humanity be thriving? Do you actually believe the earth's environment will be habitable to large populations?

Man made Climate change all about control… Fact

People like you are all about ignorance and stupidity. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Rustic]

Climate change is a natural thing, certainly not man-made… Fact

So in 60 years or so from now, how do you think the gobal population will turn out? Will humanity be thriving? Do you actually believe the earth's environment will be habitable to large populations?

Man made Climate change all about control… Fact

People like you are all about ignorance and stupidity. All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Old Rocks]

The conservatives will accept that it's real after the liberals have accepted that the field is populated by scam and faulty science.

You believe that to be true without any evidence. Sure some science is faulty, it's completely wrong to say the entire field is compromised by scams.

Never claimed the entire field was bad. Only those pushing the AGW fraud are bad. There are some very, very good climatologists out there. You never hear about them though because they aren't hysterical alarmists.

Really? Then link the articles that they have published in peer reviewed journals that disprove AGW. And how about some videos of their lectures at the AGU and GSA conferences? How about it, Mr. Westwall, you do know how science is done, don't you?

And when are you going to make your presentation at the AGU conference that blows AGW out of the water?

2016 AGU Fall Meeting - 2016 AGU Fall Meeting

What day can we expect that presentation? The 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, or 16th?