The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Crick]

Because Al Gore proves that “Global Warming” is a grift!!

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you but this new poster: Remodeling Maidiac (?) is spitting them out a mile a minute.

Al Gore has not been running a grift.
No one here relies on Al Gore for evidence and reasoning to believe that the world is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.
Sorry that you don't like Mr Gore, but it time to move on. Why don't you bone up on a little science. Go to https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf and do some reading.

 

[P@triot]

That would be a lie. It is MY way of saying "Al Gore is not a scientist". Asshole.

Wait - if he’s not a scientist why was he telling people that New York City would be under the Atlantic Ocean in 2014?

I thought he was “following the science”? Are you now admitting that he wasn’t and that he’s been lying the entire time??

 

[P@triot]

No he did not. He was trying to sell a point and exaggerated more conservative statements made by scientists.

Bwahaha!! You just admitted he’s a pathological liar. “Exaggerating” is another way of saying “lying”.

If you’re “exaggerating” then you are not telling the truth. And you’re such a piece of shit liar, you can’t even be honest about the fact that Democrats lie 24x7 about “Global Warming”.

 

[Crick]

Bwahaha!! You just admitted he’s a pathological liar. “Exaggerating” is another way of saying “lying”.

You believe whatever you like about Gore. I have NEVER used him as an authority on climate science. If you want to argue climate science with me, you need to move on.

If you’re “exaggerating” then you are not telling the truth.

EXAGGERATION: overstatement of the truth: a statement making something seem larger, more important, better, or worse than it really is:

And you’re such a piece of shit liar, you can’t even be honest about the fact that Democrats lie 24x7 about “Global Warming”.

You are lying. Almost any generalized statement about a diverse group, like "Democrats lie 24x7" is a demonstrable falsehood. It is scientists from all over the world who tell us that the Earth is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. Scientists and Democrats are not synonymous terms. Certainly not like P@triot and Ignorant Fool.

 

[P@triot]

You believe whatever you like about Gore. I have NEVER used him as an authority on climate science.

So again, you’re admitting that the Democrat Party lies about “Global Warming”without having the decency, honesty, and integrity to call them out on it.

 

[P@triot]

It is scientists from all over the world who tell us that the Earth is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

So please cite for us the scientist(s) and the study which concluded that New York City would be under the ocean by 2014.

Take your time. We’ll wait.

In the meantime, educate yourself for once with information from an MIT atmospheric scientist…

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? | PragerU

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the…

www.prageru.com

 

[P@triot]

It is scientists from all over the world who tell us that the Earth is getting warmer and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause.

You’re a mountain of disinformation. The IPCC themselves say that you’re a liar:

 

[Crick]

So again, you’re admitting that the Democrat Party lies about “Global Warming”without having the decency, honesty, and integrity to call them out on it.

I admitted no such thing and I am getting very quickly tired of someone who chooses to lie as easily as do you.

 

[Crick]

So please cite for us the scientist(s) and the study which concluded that New York City would be under the ocean by 2014.

I have never made nor heard of such a claim. If you think such a claim has been made, YOU find the scientists and the study.

Take your time. We’ll wait.

I'm not here to make your case for you. That would be YOUR job. I won't wait.

In the meantime, educate yourself for once with information from an MIT atmospheric scientist…

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? | PragerU

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the…

www.prageru.com

I'll watch your link while you read mine: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport_small.pdf

 

[Stryder50]

LOL So all the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities in the world do not understand science? For they all state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. So what we see posited here is a conspiracy by most of the scientists in the world, irregardless of nation or culture, to deceive the rest of us. And nobody in those millions of scientists is squealing on the rest, or telling what the purpose of the deception is. LOL

Stock up on extra tinfoil for your little hats, fellows.

Stop Guv'mint funding for the pro-ACC/AGW position and see how quickly they retract and change tune to maintain funding.
"Science" runs a distant 'second place' or worse when it comes to funding to feed one self and pay the rent, etc.

What do you want me to say ~ endorse to keep those government checks coming to me ???

 

[Crick]

You’re a mountain of disinformation. The IPCC themselves say that you’re a liar:

View attachment 802646

I have watched Dr Lindzen give his speech and admired his tidy graphics. Very scientific. Would you like to see the context of the comment in the graphic you've chosen to display? It's here, from the Third Assessment Report (the sixth was released in early June of 2021)

Executive Summary
Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:

• Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.
• Sustain and expand the observational foundation for climate studies by providing accurate, long-term, consistent data including implementation of a strategy for integrated global observations. Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations and projections. Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed. There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale.
• Understand better the mechanisms and factors leading to changes in radiative forcing; in particular, improve the observations of the spatial distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols. It is particularly important that improvements are realised in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and particularly aerosols, and in addressing biogeochemical sequestration and cycling, and specifically, in determining the spatial-temporal distribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) sources and sinks, currently and in the future. Observations are needed that would decisively improve our ability to model the carbon cycle; in addition, a dense and well-calibrated network of stations for monitoring CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentrations will also be required for international verification of carbon sinks. Improvements in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and in the prediction and assessment of direct and indirect aerosol forcing will require an integrated effort involving in situ observations, satellite remote sensing, field campaigns and modelling.
• Understand and characterise the important unresolved processes and feedbacks, both physical and biogeochemical, in the climate system. Increased understanding is needed to improve prognostic capabilities generally. The interplay of observation and models will be the key for progress. The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises.
• Address more completely patterns of long-term climate variability including the occurrence of extreme events. This topic arises both in model calculations and in the climate system. In simulations, the issue of climate drift within model calculations needs to be clarified better in part because it compounds the difficulty of distinguishing signal and noise. With respect to the long-term natural variability in the climate system per se, it is important to understand this variability and to expand the emerging capability of predicting patterns of organised variability such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.
• Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
• Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with a focus on the simulation of climate variability, regional climate changes, and extreme events. There is the potential for increased understanding of extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges in realising this potential. It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modelling and observational studies that evaluate and improve simulation performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of changes in extreme events.
• Link models of the physical climate and the biogeochemical system more effectively, and in turn improve coupling with descriptions of human activities. At present, human influences generally are treated only through emission scenarios that provide external forcings to the climate system. In future more comprehensive models, human activities need to begin to interact with the dynamics of physical, chemical, and biological sub-systems through a diverse set of contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses.

 

[vegas giants]

Their "warming" is just Urban Heat Sink Effect. They have no warming in the atmosphere or the oceans. Co2 does nothing. Earth is not warming.

Nasa disagrees

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[vegas giants]

Stop Guv'mint funding for the pro-ACC/AGW position and see how quickly they retract and change tune to maintain funding.
"Science" runs a distant 'second place' or worse when it comes to funding to feed one self and pay the rent, etc.

What do you want me to say ~ endorse to keep those government checks coming to me ???

Why didn't the gop do that when they were in power?

 

[Crick]

I have never made nor heard of such a claim. If you think such a claim has been made, YOU find the scientists and the study.

I'm not here to make your case for you. That would be YOUR job. I won't wait.

I'll watch your link while you read mine: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport_small.pdf

So, did you pick up anything new from The Physical Science Basis?

I watched Lindzen's speech. I have had a low opinion of Lindzen for many years. Here are a few of the reasons why. From DeSmogBlog, Search dated 06 March 2015:

Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.​

​

Three skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities.​

Mainstream models have been accurate, Lindzen hasn’t. 

Lindzen makes the tired and debunked claim that predictions of warming haven’t been accurate. This is absurd on its face, as 2014 was the hottest year on record, with an unprecedented spike in ocean temperatures. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that model criticisms are totally “unfounded” and that models incorporating the newest information (mainly ocean heat content) are very accurate. Interestingly, comparisons have been made between Lindzen’s 1989 predictions and those made in 1988 by James Hansen, former director of NASA‘s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The results are clear that mainstream scientists have gotten it right while Lindzen underestimated warming.

Solar output has decreased as temperatures rise

Lindzen vaguely refers to studies on the role of the sun in driving climate, which is exactly the subject that fossil fuel interests paid Soon to pursue. This is another absurdity, because the amount of energy the sun has sent our way in recent years has actually decreased as temperatures have increased.

More clouds won’t offset warming

Lindzen also refers (without citation) to his hypothesis that clouds will cancel out warming. What he doesn’t note is that this “Iris hypothesis” has been debunked numerous times, and while cloud behavior is an ongoing area of study when it comes to climate models, clouds may actually increase warming, not offset it as he claims.

$1.2 million is no “small measure” of funding

Soon took over a million dollars from fossil fuel interests in exchange for studies which cast doubt on the CO2-climate change connection in both academic papers and congressional testimony. Soon’s contracts went so far as to give funders early access to papers and an explicit agreement to keep the funding relationship secret. Soon told his funders that these activities were “deliverables” yet he failed to disclose this critical fact in the papers. This is as serious as it comes in terms of breaching academic ethics, and has also triggered an internal investigation at Soon’s employer.

Congress should know who’s sponsoring testimony

Lindzen attempts to redirect attention away from the clear wrongdoing of Soon to the actions of Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, who sent letters to seven universities inquiring as to the funding of other witnesses used by the GOP to argue against climate action. As Grijalva states in his letters, this information is vital to disclose because Congress “cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.”
Finally, Lindzen ends with one of the newest fossil fuel talking points, which claims that reducing emissions will somehow hurt the poor. This too is clearly contradicted by the fact that the poorest are least capable of adapting to a changing climate, and those who are actually bringing power to the impoverished are doing so with renewables, not fossil fuels. For example, India’s Prime Minister has a goal to bring electricity to all of India using renewables, not fossil fuels.

Finally, Lindzen ends with one of the newest fossil fuel talking points, which claims that reducing emissions will somehow hurt the poor. This too is clearly contradicted by the fact that the poorest are least capable of adapting to a changing climate, and those who are actually bringing power to the impoverished are doing so with renewables, not fossil fuels. For example, India’s Prime Minister has a goal to bring electricity to all of India using renewables, not fossil fuels.

 

[P@triot]

I admitted no such thing and I am getting very quickly tired of someone who chooses to lie as easily as do you.

When I state that Al Gore’s claims that NYC would be under the Atlantic Ocean by 2014 - you counter with “he’s not a scientist”.

That’s literally your desperate attempt to avoid having to say “he LIED about Global Warming like all Democrats do”.

You’re backed into a corner and you know it

If only you had the integrity & decency to simply admit he lied. You wouldn’t be so miserable. But then again, you also wouldn’t be a Democrat if you had integrity & decency.

 

[P@triot]

I have never made nor heard of such a claim. If you think such a claim has been made, YOU find the scientists and the study.

So you admit that Al Gore is a pathological liar!! He made that claim with 0 scientific evidence??

 

[P@triot]

Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

To quote Randy Quaid in Christmas Vacation: “Bingo!”

You’re no admitting that you’re a liar as well. You have 0 evidence that the world is at any risk whatsoever. Because it is (and I quote) “not possible” to predict a future climate states.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Crick]

To quote Randy Quaid in Christmas Vacation: “Bingo!”

You’re no admitting that you’re a liar as well. You have 0 evidence that the world is at any risk whatsoever. Because it is (and I quote) “not possible” to predict a future climate states.

Game. Set. Match.

Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

You've just admitted that you can't understand this paragraph. If you can, please paraphrase it for us.

 

[P@triot]

Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services

Gasp! The horrors!! The horrors, I tell you! A highly educated expert in his field charges people for his expertise?? It’s almost like he has a j-o-b or something (you know, those things that liberals aren’t familiar with).

By the way, Lindzen doing short-term, temporary consulting work with corporations pales in comparison to the conflict of interest of “climate scientists” who charge 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year plus benefits and pension.

Guess what happens if those pieces of shit admit “no problem here”? No researching funding, no job. Really incentivizes them to perpetuate the lie, don’t you think??

 

[Crick]

Gasp! The horrors!! The horrors, I tell you! A highly educated expert in his field charges people for his expertise?? It’s almost like he has a j-o-b or something (you know, those things that liberals aren’t familiar with).

By the way, Lindzen doing short-term, temporary consulting work with corporations pales in comparison to the conflict of interest of “climate scientists” who charge 8 hours per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year plus benefits and pension.

Guess what happens if those pieces of shit admit “no problem here”? No researching funding, no job. Really incentivizes them to perpetuate the lie, don’t you think??

I find it interesting that you defend Lindzen when there is clear evidence that he has a conflict of interest but condemn every other climate scientist on the planet when you have no evidence against them whatsoever. It is the same problem that deniers have when they assume that scientists would lie and put their hard-won careers at severe risk for a pittance but that the people who own the fossil fuel industries and are facing an existential risk are as pure as the driven snow.