Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[Grumblenuts]

Ah, that's nuttin'. "At least $219 million in taxpayer-subsidized charitable contributions went to organizations that promote climate disinformation in recent years. The total amount is likely closer to $1 billion when multi-issue organizations that promote climate denial are included."

Fossil Fuel Philanthropy

In this report, we expose how taxpayer-subsidized charities promote climate change disinformation and stall urgent action.

ips-dc.org

 

[ding]

Ah, that's nuttin'. "At least $219 million in taxpayer-subsidized charitable contributions went to organizations that promote climate disinformation in recent years. The total amount is likely closer to $1 billion when multi-issue organizations that promote climate denial are included."

Fossil Fuel Philanthropy

In this report, we expose how taxpayer-subsidized charities promote climate change disinformation and stall urgent action.

ips-dc.org

Can you provide a specific example of the type of climate disinformation?

 

[Dagosa]

"Every climate research facility in the entire world" is dependent on government grants for its existence. Therefore, they MUST keep people misinformed in order to keep the money flowing.

So you’re claim is, you’re smarter than 30,000 climate research facilities and institutes of higher learning, every public high school, every related corporation, the Fortune 500 companies, every military including our own
…..and Mitch McConnell.

 

[ding]

So you’re claim is, you’re smarter than 30,000 climate research facilities and institutes of higher learning, every public high school, every related corporation, the Fortune 500 companies, every military including our own
…..and Mitch McConnell.

If they are saying the atmosphere drives the climate of the planet instead of the ocean, sure. Yes.

 

[Samofvt]

Can you provide a specific example of the type of climate disinformation?

I will interject concerning 'a specific example of the type of climate disinformation': "ALL OF IT".

Not one shred of scientific rationality behind these false claims that "CO2" is bad. Here, I present facts, not emotions:

 

[abu afak]

I will interject concerning 'a specific example of the type of climate disinformation': "ALL OF IT".

Not one shred of scientific rationality behind these false claims that "CO2" is bad. Here, I present facts, not emotions:

View attachment 1015888

Asked and answered Loony Boy.

• Sep 14, 2024

View attachment 1011551
View attachment 1011556

Your graphic's source says it's from 'integrityvermont' a Vanity website of "Seth Adam Manley." It doesn't deal with the current issue at all.

In Fact:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐝 >𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐩𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐎𝟐
"The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago... Although the sun's force was about the same, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝟏𝟓 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 and Arctic summer temperatures were 14° higher than the present day."
Royal Meteorological Society, 2019

The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2​

The Pliocene: >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

www.rmets.org

MY NEXT POST

"His graph says is "Optimal for Plants" - 1200-2000 PPM CO2 - the poles would likely Melt and sea level at 240' Higher.
Which is Not Optimal for humans.. or NYC, London, Florida, East coast, Gulf Coast, and the world largest city Shanghai (13') which is already just waiting overflow at current level when the lag catches up.
`

AND MY NEXT:

I've already put up Sea Level for 400PPM we just blew thru in a century. (50')
We are in the oven waiting for the full consequences now. It takes time to melt.
(and we've gone up in CO2 100+x faster than nature typically would.)

at 2000 PPM.. 5x current clearly we are talking hugely more/complete.
(Google 'Climate Sensitivity')
Like the pole-Less dinosaur world of 200 Million yrs ago. (2000-3000 PPM)
No Polls.
Complete melt.
FYI (and Your welcome) 240' is the complete melt number/FACT I'm sure you did NOT know because you are a low IQ denier who never thought about the consequences of anything but your goofy politics.

Gameover.

`

 

[ding]

Asked and answered Loony Boy.

• Sep 14, 2024

Your graphic's source says it's from 'integrityvermont' a Vanity website of "Seth Adam Manley." It doesn't deal with the current issue at all.

In Fact:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐝 >𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐩𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐎𝟐
"The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago... Although the sun's force was about the same, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝟏𝟓 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 and Arctic summer temperatures were 14° higher than the present day."
Royal Meteorological Society, 2019

The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2​

The Pliocene: >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

www.rmets.org

MY NEXT POST

"His graph says is "Optimal for Plants" - 1200-2000 PPM CO2 - the poles would likely Melt and sea level at 240' Higher.
Which is Not Optimal for humans.. or NYC, London, Florida, East coast, Gulf Coast, and the world largest city Shanghai (13') which is already just waiting overflow at current level when the lag catches up.
`

AND MY NEXT:

I've already put up Sea Level for 400PPM we just blew thru in a century. (50')
We are in the oven waiting for the full consequences now. It takes time to melt.
(and we've gone up in CO2 100+x faster than nature typically would.)

at 2000 PPM.. 5x current clearly we are talking hugely more/complete.
(Google 'Climate Sensitivity')
Like the pole-Less dinosaur world of 200 Million yrs ago. (2000-3000 PPM)
No Polls.
Complete melt.
FYI (and Your welcome) 240' is the complete melt number/FACT I'm sure you did NOT know because you are a low IQ denier who never thought about the consequences of anything but your goofy politics.

Gameover.

`

CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

 

[Samofvt]

In Fact:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐝 >𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐩𝐩𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐭𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐎𝟐
"The last time carbon dioxide was so plentiful in our planet's atmosphere was in the Pliocene era, around 3 million years ago... Although the sun's force was about the same, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝟏𝟓 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 and Arctic summer temperatures were 14° higher than the present day."
Royal Meteorological Society, 2019

The Pliocene: The Last Time Earth had >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2​

The Pliocene: >400 ppm of Atmospheric CO2

www.rmets.org

This information you cite is great. It represents the best guess of what the climate was like based on fossil and geological evidence. Bravo!

However, it contains NOTHING that shows any rationality that would lead one to the conclusion that CO2 at these trace levels (400ppm = 0.04%) causes increased temperatures.

MY NEXT POST

"His graph says is "Optimal for Plants" - 1200-2000 PPM CO2 - the poles would likely Melt and sea level at 240' Higher.
Which is Not Optimal for humans.. or NYC, London, Florida, East coast, Gulf Coast, and the world largest city Shanghai (13') which is already just waiting overflow at current level when the lag catches up.
`

Currently, there is very little observable change in sea levels. The sea level may well rise. If it does, the only effect would be that people living in coastal dwellings and cities would need to move to higher ground.

SO WHAT? With a greener planet and more opportunity for life (based on increased photosynthesis), the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Also, the increased sea surface will increase the ability of the ecosystem to regulate the CO2 given off by the increased life.

And still, NOTHING in what you say provides any rationality that would show CO2 causes warming. If the planet warms and the ice caps melt, then so be it: These TRACE LEVELS of Carbon Dioxide have nothing to do with it causing global warming. In fact, all of the evidence indicates the slightly increased CO2 we are observing is caused by a warming planet: increased bacteria activity and increased Sea Surface Temperature in some places (the oceans give off some of its stored Carbon as CO2 when it warms).

AND MY NEXT:

I've already put up Sea Level for 400PPM we just blew thru in a century. (50')
We are in the oven waiting for the full consequences now. It takes time to melt.
(and we've gone up in CO2 100+x faster than nature typically would.)

at 2000 PPM.. 5x current clearly we are talking hugely more/complete.
(Google 'Climate Sensitivity')
Like the pole-Less dinosaur world of 200 Million yrs ago. (2000-3000 PPM)
No Polls.
Complete melt.
FYI (and Your welcome) 240' is the complete melt number/FACT I'm sure you did NOT know because you are a low IQ denier who never thought about the consequences of anything but your goofy politics.

Still, no scientific rationality in what you say. There is a relationship between CO2 and global temperatures as I've illustrated with scientific facts. But you have it backwards, and you (and so many other people) are fixated on fear. Mankind can not control the temperature of the planet. The only thing we can do is adapt to our changing environment.

Not Game Over: Life is incredible and resilient. I wish I could be alive in another 1000 years to see the splendor that will evolve on our planet after the ice age is over!

Oh, and to put your fear that things are changing too fast to rest, the changes at the Antarctic are very gradual and go in cycles. In recent years, the ice shelf has regrown to about normal during it's cold season. This chart below is from fear mongers and still shows very stable and gradual changes happening.

Now if a supervolcano erupts or we get hit with a major meteorite, or some other natural phenomena happens THEN things would change very fast. Overnight. These things have happened in the past, and very well could happen again. But the gradual changes taking place now are expected, normal, and indicate a very good future for life on Earth.

 

[abu afak]

CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years.

Yes, we all know that.
CO2 has TRADITIONALLY Lagged BUT also EXACERBATED Warming.
That was when Nature and the Earth's tilt/wobble/ Milankovitch Cycles/ Solar Forcing caused the warming.

But we know by direct measurement that is NOT causing the warming Now. We also know by direct measurement GHGs ARE the cause now.

We WERE going along quite naturally until the Human Industrial Revolution CO2 SPIKE.
(take note Samofvt)

Even Sick Ding knows it's true after years of this, but he's a SICK little OCD case Crazier than 'Greenland-EMH.'

`

 

[Pappadave1]

So you’re claim is, you’re smarter than 30,000 climate research facilities and institutes of higher learning, every public high school, every related corporation, the Fortune 500 companies, every military including our own
…..and Mitch McConnell.

Didn't say that. I said that so called "climate research" organizations and people are dependent upon DONATIONS and must reach conclusions favored by donors or the money dries up. Just how stupid must one BE these days to equate that comment to "you're smarter than...."?

 

[Pappadave1]

You have a point ? You mean they are paid to lie foolish ? You mean 30,000 universities and climate research facilities are all lying and YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE SHREAD OF EVIDENCE.
TRUMP AND YOU MUST BE FKING INCOMPETENT .
Trump was in office. His DOJ did not prosecute one university accepting govt funds and producing false information. Hilarious…..what a lune if bullshit.

Did we pay Russia and China to lie too ?

Where did you ever get the idea that there are "10,000 universities all reaching the identical conclusions about climate change?" Are you REALLY that stupid or is it an act?

 

[abu afak]

Didn't say that. I said that so called "climate research" organizations and people are dependent upon DONATIONS and must reach conclusions favored by donors or the money dries up. Just how stupid must one BE these days to equate that comment to "you're smarter than...."?

Even Exxon Mobil and the other oil cos know it's over and have said so publicly.
In fact, they were the First to know.

Revealed: Exxon made 'breathtakingly' accurate climate ...​

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › business › jan › exxon-c...

Jan 12, 2023 — A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon's scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill ...​

Harvard Gazette
https://news.harvard.edu › gazette › story › 2023/01 › h..
Jan 12, 2023 — Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy' starting in the 1970s.

Revealed: Exxon Made “Breathtakingly” Accurate Climate ...​

Mother Jones
https://www.motherjones.com › environment › 2023/01

Jan 16, 2023 — The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skillfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science.

Exxon's models predicting climate change were spot on​

https://grist.org › accountability › study-exxonmobil-mo...
Jan 12, 2023 — Between 63 and 83 percent of Exxon's projections, depending on how they're measured, accurately predicted how the world would warm in the coming decades.

How Exxon Mobil dismissed its own researchers' climate ...​

The Christian Science Monitor
https://www.csmonitor.com › Environment › How-Exxo...

Jan 13, 2023 — Exxon Mobil's scientists in the 1970s forecasted the coming global warming with precision equal to or better than government and academic scientists, says a ...


Gameover # 8,746

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, we all know that.
CO2 has TRADITIONALLY Lagged BUT also EXACERBATED Warming.
That was when Nature and the Earth's tilt/wobble/ Milankovitch Cycles/ Solar Forcing caused the warming.

But we know by direct measurement that is NOT causing the warming Now. We also know by direct measurement GHGs ARE the cause now.

We WERE going along quite naturally until the Human Industrial Revolution CO2 SPIKE.
(take note Samofvt)

View attachment 1016323

Even Sick Ding knows it's true after years of this, but he's a SICK little OCD case Crazier than 'Greenland-EMH.'

`

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

<p>When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming...

skepticalscience.com

 

[Pappadave1]

Even Exxon Mobil and the other oil cos know it's over and have said so publicly.
In fact, they were the First to know.

Revealed: Exxon made 'breathtakingly' accurate climate ...​

The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com › business › jan › exxon-c...

Jan 12, 2023 — A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon's scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill ...​

Harvard Gazette
https://news.harvard.edu › gazette › story › 2023/01 › h..
Jan 12, 2023 — Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy' starting in the 1970s.

Revealed: Exxon Made “Breathtakingly” Accurate Climate ...​

Mother Jones
https://www.motherjones.com › environment › 2023/01

Jan 16, 2023 — The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skillfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science.

Exxon's models predicting climate change were spot on​

https://grist.org › accountability › study-exxonmobil-mo...
Jan 12, 2023 — Between 63 and 83 percent of Exxon's projections, depending on how they're measured, accurately predicted how the world would warm in the coming decades.

How Exxon Mobil dismissed its own researchers' climate ...​

The Christian Science Monitor
https://www.csmonitor.com › Environment › How-Exxo...

Jan 13, 2023 — Exxon Mobil's scientists in the 1970s forecasted the coming global warming with precision equal to or better than government and academic scientists, says a ...


Gameover # 8,746

`

BS. Let's see now; The Guardian, Mother Jones, The Harvard Gazette and Grist (whatever that is)?

 

[abu afak]

BS. Let's see now; The Guardian, Mother Jones, The Harvard Gazette and Grist (whatever that is)?

You sick denier POS.

Climate solutions
Article Nov. 15, 2023 - ExxonMobil'com

Reframing the Climate Challenge | ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO, Darren Woods, talks about reframing the climate challenge during the APEC CEO Summit

corporate.exxonmobil.com

ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO, Darren Woods, talks about reframing the climate challenge during the APEC CEO Summit​

So, allow me to share this with you – here’s what ExxonMobil knows:

• • Climate change is real,
  • Human activity plays a Major role,
  • And, it is one of the Major problems facing the World today – the Need to address the very Real Threat of Climate Change.

........

``

 

[Grumblenuts]

Before addressing the lawsuit, Woods also spoke about Exxon's climate outlook. He said that the world needs to balance its concerns for emissions with the needs of a growing world population, with billions of people still working to climb out of poverty.
The idea the world needs to get rid of oil and gas misses the "true problem," he said, which is that the world needs to get rid of carbon emissions.

The world needs to quit extracting carbon from below Earth's surface. Period. We have plenty enough carbon to work with already.

 

[ding]

Yes, we all know that.
CO2 has TRADITIONALLY Lagged BUT also EXACERBATED Warming.
That was when Nature and the Earth's tilt/wobble/ Milankovitch Cycles/ Solar Forcing caused the warming.

But we know by direct measurement that is NOT causing the warming Now. We also know by direct measurement GHGs ARE the cause now.

We WERE going along quite naturally until the Human Industrial Revolution CO2 SPIKE.
(take note Samofvt)

View attachment 1016323

Even Sick Ding knows it's true after years of this, but he's a SICK little OCD case Crazier than 'Greenland-EMH.'

`

Then if you know that, you must know that natural causes other than CO2 were responsible for previous climate changes and shouldn't be assumed to be zero today.

#winning

 

[Dagosa]

Where did you ever get the idea that there are "10,000 universities all reaching the identical conclusions about climate change?" Are you REALLY that stupid or is it an act?

Easy bubba. There is only one basic conclusion and it takes no more than HS science to get. You’re the idiot. Idiots actually think they are smarter than dedicated scientists working at climate science research facilities.

 

[Dagosa]

Didn't say that. I said that so called "climate research" organizations and people are dependent upon DONATIONS and must reach conclusions favored by donors or the money dries up. Just how stupid must one BE these days to equate that comment to "you're smarter than...."?

No shit. Of course they are dependent upon
Tax dollars and private donations. Only stupid people think thousands of them are paid to lie. How stupid can you be. How stupid are you when you can’t come up with one case if proven fraud in the tens of thousands of climate science facilities

Let’s just talk about one if them, MIT. Your contention is MiT is a fraud ? Right ? Just say it dufus.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Easy bubba. There is only one basic conclusion and it takes no more than HS science to get. You’re the idiot. Idiots actually think they are smarter than dedicated scientists working at climate science research facilities.

The real idiots are the ones who think we can replace reliable fossil fuels with unreliable wind and solar without also a lot of new nuclear.