Question for believers in man made climate change

[bripat9643]

It was within 1%. Nuclear physics shows that temperarture of the sun hasn't changed much over the last one billion years.

1 Billion years ago the Sun was 35% cooler abouts.

You say just 1%? Hardly.

And 1% is 13watts.

Which is significant.

4 watts is what we are worried about. Get it?

So 1% solar irradiance shift would be DISASTROUS.

We aren't talking about 1 billion years ago. CO2 was at 4000 ppm 150 million years ago - 10 times what it is now. I also question your claim that it was 30% dimmer 1 billion years ago. That would mean the sun was dark 3.5 billion years ago. The sun is 4.5 billion years old, so I find that difficult to believe. Life on earth is about 4 billion years old, and that requires liquid water. So the sun produced enough energy 4.0 billion years ago to keep the temperature of the earth about the same as it is now.

I can't find a chart of the irradiance of the sun over geologic time, so I am unable to verify your claims. Unless you provide such a chart, I can safely assume they are false

150 million year ago the Sun was about ~20%-15% cooler than it is today.

So what's your point?

250ppm CO2 = about 4watts/m^2.

20% of 1360watts/m^2 is 272watts/m^2 offset.

So that'd require 50x Co2 alone to offset the temperature lost by the Sun.

Not able to answer the discrepancy is why there is a "faint young sun paradox".

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Faint young Sun paradox - Wikipedia

Early in Earth's history, the Sun's output would have been only 70 percent as intense as it is during the modern epoch.
​

That means it was 30% less 4.0 billion years ago when life began and we therefor know that liquid water existed on the Earth's surface. To get the difference 150 million years ago, take 150/40000 = 3% less bright 150 million years ago than it is now.

OK, 3% of 1360 watts = 40.8 watts.

Which is 10x as much CO2 as 250ppm or 2,500ppm to OFFSET that much reduced Solar output.

GET IT?

You just proved me right.

The problem with that theory is that CO2 goes to almost zero earlier when solar radiation is even less. Look at the chart I posted.

 

[RealDave]

You & your denier buddies claim CO2 is not a pollutant.

Why should we lie because your ilk is stupid?

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

Would you like to live then?
Gasping for Breath in the Jurassic Era

Dp asswipes don't get it that a rise of 3-4C could make our midwest unsuitable for growing the crops they do now.

You donlt get that the plants we depend on now, shut down at temps 95 & over.

How well did man survive in that Jurasic period?

Global Warming won't destroy the planet., Things that live here, maybe.

Btw more Bullshit computer models?

No real data?

From your link


Modern studies of global climate change on Earth usually rely on computer modeling techniques. However, studying the history of our planet through geology can provide information on actual occurrences of climate change in the past.


.

Funny chit but you said how great it was during the Jurassic period. My article proved you be be a total ass.

How would you look into the future based on history & current events? Besides look into your crystal ball?

I guess we shoiuldn't try & just say fuck it & let whatever happens happen even if you fucks up your snot nosed brat's lives.

 

[RealDave]

We can limit the rise if we act as a planet like in the Paris Agreement.

So, if America pays for everything and starts fucking over Americans, making all of our lives much more expensive, and China and India do nothing, all will be fine?

Wow, there is not end top your ignorance.

All Paris Accord signers listed their own goals.

The industrialized developed nations donate money to help the developing nations get the greenest generation facilities.

I know you dumbasses will whine & cry but we should admit that we are where we are with carbon concentrations due to these developed industrialized nations spewing all kinds of shit without any regard. And it's stupid to work to reduce ours if some country in Africa builds really dirty coal plants. So it only makes sense to help them build the greenest plants available.

43 countries have pledged money for that fund. \ Not just he US as you lied about.

Obama had pledged 3 billion. A lot less than your hero's stupid wall & do a hell of a lot more people here in the US & around the globe.

But hey, that's your children & grandchildren's future & we know how much you hate them.

So now country's like Zimbabwe has satellites in space ?

They rely on IPCC , NOAA, NASA...for their information the 2nd and 3rd world country's signed it for money..


Ya know just like worm scientist say man made climate change is for real to get government funds ..



.

This idea that climate scientists are all lying to get government money is such as crock of shit because you are too God damn stupid to get the deniers are funded by the fossil fuel industry that is depending on ignorant fucks like you to profit to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
'
trumpettes are even dumber than Trump.

Fossil fuel admits man has some part in climate change so does the Koch brothers so take your boogie men out of here


And fossil fuel is a big fucking donor to university's you idiot ...

They fund the info out there that makes you a dumbshit about climate change.

Universities do more than climate research. You might have known that if you ever attended one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGW is the lefts religion. Just fill in all the holes with "man" instead of "god."
Faith, it does a body good

Humans affecting climate, same as we affect everything, is not a stretch. Magical all powerful beings are a stretch.

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota,

Under? Tell me more.

 

[RealDave]

Is your goal to stop humans from polluting our air and water?

If yes, why isn't that enough? Why do you need an unproven link between pollution and climate in order to fight pollution?

If you were out there fighting pollution, 99% of humans would support your fight. But when you try to claim that pollution is changing the climate you lose 60% of the supporters.

Can someone explain?

I'm sorry but let me know when you idiots start believing in science.

Without that I'm wasting my time & you'll always be stupid.

More CO2 => more greenhouse effect => higher temps.

PROVEN FACT

The man quotes "science" while walking all over it. CO2 is a very WEAK, trace element GHG. More of it makes plants grow faster and better. More plants help cool the planet as well as produce more oxygen for people and all kinds of other secondary things. Much increased CO2 may very well have /some/ effect in stimulating slightly elevated temps, but when anyone makes such blanket, black and white statements as UnrealDave, that is a red marker right there that the man is not speaking solid science.

ere we go again.

Hi

 

[Wyatt earp]

Because we need CO2 to live..and you call us the stupid one?

You need water, let me dump you in the ocean with a cement block tied to your foot. You'll have lots of waster so you will live that much better.

That's your lame argument, once again just for you in the Jurassic period we had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, what part of that don't you get?

Would you like to live then?
Gasping for Breath in the Jurassic Era

Dp asswipes don't get it that a rise of 3-4C could make our midwest unsuitable for growing the crops they do now.

You donlt get that the plants we depend on now, shut down at temps 95 & over.

How well did man survive in that Jurasic period?

Global Warming won't destroy the planet., Things that live here, maybe.

Btw more Bullshit computer models?

No real data?

From your link


Modern studies of global climate change on Earth usually rely on computer modeling techniques. However, studying the history of our planet through geology can provide information on actual occurrences of climate change in the past.


.

Funny chit but you said how great it was during the Jurassic period. My article proved you be be a total ass.

How would you look into the future based on history & current events? Besides look into your crystal ball?

I guess we shoiuldn't try & just say fuck it & let whatever happens happen even if you fucks up your snot nosed brat's lives.

Your article said it was bad for little shit but you want to ignore Plants and animals grew huge with 5 times more C02 in the atmosphere...


Why is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"my faith is better than yours!"

You’re right, humans have never affected or changed anyhing.

Ok, slow down, lose the talking points, and THINK for a minute or two.

Yes, humans affect things, we have polluted our air and water. China and India are polluting big time as we speak. But none of that has CHANGED the climate of our planet.

So, once more. Why do you need the fake link to climate in order to fight pollution?

If you think we need to dumb down the conversation to make a difference, then that’s an interesting point. But people don’t care about pollution either. Look at how many people want the EPA to stop existing. Look how many people rallied around building a pipeline under a source of drinking water in North Dakota, even though they’ll never see a cent or benefit whatsoever from that pipeline. They just wanted it built to stick it in the face of people worried about water being polluted.

The EPA has gotten too big and too powerful. Stupid useless regulations need to be repealed. That pipeline did not affect the drinking water in any way. the USA is criss crossed with pipelines, its the safest way to move oil, and like it or not, our economy runs on oil, coal, and gas.

The biggest fighters of pollution are the fossil fuel industries, and they have made tremendous gains in reducing the pollution from use of oil and gas. and yes, some government regulations are needed to continue the progress in reducing pollution. But that's not the point of my thread.

why cant liberals agree to fight pollution without a fake link to climate? not one of you has been able to come up with an answer. At least you stayed, the rest ran away.

That pipeline has yet to be built you stupid shit. Running a pipeline over an important aquifer is just plain STUPID.

The biggest polluters ARE the fossil fuel industries. They have to fight the pollutiion they create. How about they don't pollute in the first place.

The link to fossil fuels to climate change is the burning of them that releases greenhouse gases.

Running a pipeline over an important aquifer is just plain STUPID.

How far underground is the aquifer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No

My goal is to introduce sensible reductions in our current carbon output

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So, if America pays for everything and starts fucking over Americans, making all of our lives much more expensive, and China and India do nothing, all will be fine?

Wow, there is not end top your ignorance.

All Paris Accord signers listed their own goals.

The industrialized developed nations donate money to help the developing nations get the greenest generation facilities.

I know you dumbasses will whine & cry but we should admit that we are where we are with carbon concentrations due to these developed industrialized nations spewing all kinds of shit without any regard. And it's stupid to work to reduce ours if some country in Africa builds really dirty coal plants. So it only makes sense to help them build the greenest plants available.

43 countries have pledged money for that fund. \ Not just he US as you lied about.

Obama had pledged 3 billion. A lot less than your hero's stupid wall & do a hell of a lot more people here in the US & around the globe.

But hey, that's your children & grandchildren's future & we know how much you hate them.

So now country's like Zimbabwe has satellites in space ?

They rely on IPCC , NOAA, NASA...for their information the 2nd and 3rd world country's signed it for money..


Ya know just like worm scientist say man made climate change is for real to get government funds ..



.

This idea that climate scientists are all lying to get government money is such as crock of shit because you are too God damn stupid to get the deniers are funded by the fossil fuel industry that is depending on ignorant fucks like you to profit to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
'
trumpettes are even dumber than Trump.

Fossil fuel admits man has some part in climate change so does the Koch brothers so take your boogie men out of here


And fossil fuel is a big fucking donor to university's you idiot ...

They fund the info out there that makes you a dumbshit about climate change.

Universities do more than climate research. You might have known that if you ever attended one.

No shit sherlock..

And You don't have a clue about fossil fuel funding.. Exon mobile gave alone over 39 million dollars to US colleges , why do you hate them so ?

Learn about ExxonMobil's higher education giving

• Worldwide giving
• 2016 Worldwide Giving Report

Higher education


In 2016, ExxonMobil provided $43.9 million worldwide to colleges, universities and other organizations that support higher education. Of this amount, more than $39.4 million benefited higher education in the United States.

Our higher education initiatives focus on supporting programs that improve teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We also support diversity-based education programs and professional societies such as the National Society of Black Engineers, Society of Women Engineers, Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers and the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, among others.

Our major financial support for higher education in the United States is through the ExxonMobil Foundation’s Educational Matching Gift Program, which matches contributions of ExxonMobil employees and retirees to higher education on a 3-to-1 basis. In 2016, we granted more than $32.2 million in matching funds to 864 colleges and universities, the United Negro College Fund, the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and the American Indian College Fund


.

 

[jc456]

In the Jurassic period the Sun was something like 20% cooler than it is today.

That's about 260 watts/m^2 cooler than today.

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Still trying to post facts from your butt?


Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia



Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum shown in a 400-year history of sunspot numbers
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspotsbecame exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

The term was introduced after John A. Eddy[1]published a landmark 1976 paper in Science.[2] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomers Annie Russell Maunder (1868–1947) and E. Walter Maunder (1851–1928), who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[3]The period which the husband and wife team examined included the second half of the 17th century.

Two papers were published in Edward Maunder's name in 1890[4] and 1894,[5] and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.[6] Because Annie Maunder had not received a university degree, due to restrictions at the time, her contribution was not then publicly recognized.[7]

Spörer noted that, during a 28-year period (1672–1699) within the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots. This contrasts with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times.[8]

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures.

Climate fakers have zero facts

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predict

Hibernation as in fewer sun spots and the like you stupid partisan zealot. Not hibernation as in cooler.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another one that doesn't know science or history , you don't know what a Maunder minimum is and what happened between 1645 and 1715?


A little ice age retardo..



.

The Maunder Minimum occurred in the middle of the “little ice age” and was not the cause of it. Solar minimums relate to solar activity, not the temperature of the sun itself.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Still trying to post facts from your butt?


Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia



Maunder Minimum

The Maunder Minimum shown in a 400-year history of sunspot numbers
The Maunder Minimum, also known as the "prolonged sunspot minimum", is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspotsbecame exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

The term was introduced after John A. Eddy[1]published a landmark 1976 paper in Science.[2] Astronomers before Eddy had also named the period after the solar astronomers Annie Russell Maunder (1868–1947) and E. Walter Maunder (1851–1928), who studied how sunspot latitudes changed with time.[3]The period which the husband and wife team examined included the second half of the 17th century.

Two papers were published in Edward Maunder's name in 1890[4] and 1894,[5] and he cited earlier papers written by Gustav Spörer.[6] Because Annie Maunder had not received a university degree, due to restrictions at the time, her contribution was not then publicly recognized.[7]

Spörer noted that, during a 28-year period (1672–1699) within the Maunder Minimum, observations revealed fewer than 50 sunspots. This contrasts with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times.[8]

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average European temperatures.

Climate fakers have zero facts

They act like they can Bullshit us like even I know basic 2rd grade science, lol...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Where do country's like Bangladesh get their information from all their new satellites?

Nope IPCC , NOAA, NASA ...

Where do the majority of funding for man made climate change come from their governments...





Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Timesand the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.


In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.




Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense


Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Where do country's like Bangladesh get their information from all their new satellites?

Nope IPCC , NOAA, NASA ...

Where do the majority of funding for man made climate change come from their governments...





Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Timesand the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.


In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.




Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense


Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment

Didn't read a word of that.

Answer my question. Liars, incompetent, or both? Dont sissy out on me, now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Exactly!

It's not like Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize for nothing, eh?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Where do country's like Bangladesh get their information from all their new satellites?

Nope IPCC , NOAA, NASA ...

Where do the majority of funding for man made climate change come from their governments...





Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Timesand the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.


In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.




Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense


Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment

“That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" ~ Freeman Dyson




Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Where do country's like Bangladesh get their information from all their new satellites?

Nope IPCC , NOAA, NASA ...

Where do the majority of funding for man made climate change come from their governments...





Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Timesand the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.


In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.




Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense


Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment

Didn't read a word of that.

Answer my question. Liars, incompetent, or both? Dont sissy out on me, now.

Of course you wouldn't because I answered your questions..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, then, cryuto, you and your own money can pony up to reduce that which

1. isn't warming anything
2. has nothing to do with the beginning and ending of ice ages
3. doesn't affect sea levels
4. doesn't affect canes
5. doesn't move the tectonic plates

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Exactly!

It's not like Michael Mann won his Nobel Prize for nothing, eh?

You didnt answer the question, either.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let's look at some of these grant monies... 10 million dollars huh? Well this grant is all about the AGW cult


SEARCH: Solutions to Energy, AiR, Climate, and Health| Research Project Database | Grantee Research Project | ORD | US EPA




Solutions to Energy, AiR, Climate, and Health
EPA Grant Number: R835871
Center: Solutions for Energy, AiR, Climate and Health Center (SEARCH)
Center Director: Bell, Michelle L.
Title: SEARCH: Solutions to Energy, AiR, Climate, and Health
Investigators: Bell, Michelle L. , Hobbs, Benjamin F.
Institution: Yale University , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ,North Carolina State University ,Northeastern University , Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ,StanfordUniversity , The Johns Hopkins University , University of Chicago ,University of Michigan
EPA Project Officer: Callan, Richard
Project Period: October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2020
Project Amount: $9,999,990


Approach:
Project 1 estimates how energy transitions in the U.S. affect emissions of air pollutants and how modifiable factors influence regional emissions, using state-of-the-art energy/emissions modeling, including critical feedbacks within the energy system. A broader set of emissions, such as from manufacture of energy technologies, will be estimated through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Project 2 assesses ambient levels and personal exposures of pollution corresponding to real-world energy transitions in a case study city,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, the problem is the Big Oil companies, and they will pay.

CO2 has everything to do with it, you haven't proven to the contrary.

I see another AGW cult member who thinks Naomi Klein is your high priest

View attachment 170568

Answer a question for us, professor:

Are the climate scientists of the world, and the board members of every major scientific society on the planet (which all endorxe the consensus) all liars, incompetent, or both?

Where do country's like Bangladesh get their information from all their new satellites?

Nope IPCC , NOAA, NASA ...

Where do the majority of funding for man made climate change come from their governments...





Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Timesand the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.


In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.




Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense


Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment

Didn't read a word of that.

Answer my question. Liars, incompetent, or both? Dont sissy out on me, now.

Of course you wouldn't because I answered your questions..

One more try: incompetent, liars, or both?

What are you scared of....sounding like an idiot, maybe?