What the science says

[SSDD]

That's the whole anti-American rant = the "settled" science, which isn't even science, it is a combination of cherry picking, fudging, and fraud.

It is what he has and he is sticking with it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The science says:

Let's just get one thing straight = YOU are not "the science"

I never said I was. My entire OP in this thread is a series of quotes from the IPCC's AR5

You are a bigoted left wing parrot and blowhard who hates the truth I post.

Despite your choice to call it "parroting", I am not in the least embarrassed to quote mainstream science here and I will continue to do so. I should think it would be embarrassing to try to uphold YOUR position - that all science is bad and that no one should make reference to it. That is the position of an insane person.

I am a liberal democrat but the only reason it's visible here is the frequent charges from deniers that AGW is a hoax of the left.

Where you get the idea that I am a bigot I haven't the faintest idea.

I do hate what you post, but not because it has the slightest inkling of "truth" in it.

The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years

WRONG - the surface of growing urban areas has. The oceans, the atmosphere, and the non-urban land have not warmed at all.

So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?

ZERO.

That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.

Laughable, since the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere

So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?

ZERO.

Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.

BULLSHIT

Why do you say that? Do you reject the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you reject the effect on pH of dissolving CO2 in water? Do you reject the effect of increased aragonite solubility on carbonate fixing organisms?

That's what the science says.

No, that is what a pathetic excuse of a human parrot endlessly parrots here at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Climate research is being done all over the world. The idea you've put out here over and over again that this is an entirely US issue is quite uninformed. The amount being spent by the US government on climate research is a pittance compared to the amounts spent on military research, on automobile development, on the search for more oil and gas, on a thousand other things that - it could be argued - are of less real worth to the human species at the moment. Here, from an opponent of climate change research (The Big Winners in the Climate Change Money Game | OilPrice.com), are the numbers for 2011 through 2015.

Total: $2.4811 billion.

Forbes magazine, another opponents of climate change research, says:

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

Now, for comparison purposes, let's look at US government spending lat year:

ACTUAL total expenditures: $3.688 trillion. Climate change research made up 0.006437% of that amount. For every thousand dollars you paid in income taxes, six-tenths of one cent went to climate change research. Yeah... "the expense of the US taxpayer".

$2.5 B...and they still can't point to one single lab experiment testing their failed hypothesis.

Amazing

I know exactly where President Trump can save $2.5B on day 1

 

[LaDexter]

I know exactly where President Trump can save $2.5B on day 1

He needs Congress to cut off funding.

HE would be wise to fire Mr. Comey as his first act, and then ask the FBI for both the "climate" file and the 911 file...

 

[SSDD]

The science says:

Let's just get one thing straight = YOU are not "the science"

I never said I was. My entire OP in this thread is a series of quotes from the IPCC's AR5

You are a bigoted left wing parrot and blowhard who hates the truth I post.

Despite your choice to call it "parroting", I am not in the least embarrassed to quote mainstream science here and I will continue to do so. I should think it would be embarrassing to try to uphold YOUR position - that all science is bad and that no one should make reference to it. That is the position of an insane person.

I am a liberal democrat but the only reason it's visible here is the frequent charges from deniers that AGW is a hoax of the left.

Where you get the idea that I am a bigot I haven't the faintest idea.

I do hate what you post, but not because it has the slightest inkling of "truth" in it.

The world has been getting warmer for the last 150 years

WRONG - the surface of growing urban areas has. The oceans, the atmosphere, and the non-urban land have not warmed at all.

So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?

ZERO.

That warming is being caused by increased CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.

Laughable, since the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data shows precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere

So you've said. But so you've failed to demonstrate. You've provided ZERO actual data to support this oft-repeated claim. ZERO. Guess what claims with ZERO data are worth? Guess. Go on, guess?

ZERO.

Those increased CO2 levels are decreasing the ocean's pH, affecting aragonite solubility and the life cycles of all carbonate-fixing organism (coral, molluscs) and causing biochemical effects on the reproductive cycles of numerous other species.

BULLSHIT

Why do you say that? Do you reject the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere? Do you reject the effect on pH of dissolving CO2 in water? Do you reject the effect of increased aragonite solubility on carbonate fixing organisms?

That's what the science says.

No, that is what a pathetic excuse of a human parrot endlessly parrots here at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Climate research is being done all over the world. The idea you've put out here over and over again that this is an entirely US issue is quite uninformed. The amount being spent by the US government on climate research is a pittance compared to the amounts spent on military research, on automobile development, on the search for more oil and gas, on a thousand other things that - it could be argued - are of less real worth to the human species at the moment. Here, from an opponent of climate change research (The Big Winners in the Climate Change Money Game | OilPrice.com), are the numbers for 2011 through 2015.

Total: $2.4811 billion.

Forbes magazine, another opponents of climate change research, says:

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

Now, for comparison purposes, let's look at US government spending lat year:

ACTUAL total expenditures: $3.688 trillion. Climate change research made up 0.006437% of that amount. For every thousand dollars you paid in income taxes, six-tenths of one cent went to climate change research. Yeah... "the expense of the US taxpayer".

$2.5 B...and they still can't point to one single lab experiment testing their failed hypothesis.

Amazing

I know exactly where President Trump can save $2.5B on day 1

Interesting also that the US Standard Atmosphere predicts the temperature without even the mention of a greenhouse effect....and that it remains the gold standard today and hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree even with almost a half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.

 

[Crick]

If it hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree, then it is not accurately predicting temperature, is it.

 

[SSDD]

If it hasn't changed by even a fraction of a degree, then it is not accurately predicting temperature, is it.

What it didn't predict is how much data manipulation would go on in the future.

 

[Crick]

The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation. Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic. Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers. Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet. Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.

And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.

Good fucking god are your stupid.

 

[jc456]

The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation. Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic. Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers. Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet. Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.

And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.

Good fucking god are your stupid.

neither would CO2. next.

 

[SSDD]

The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation. Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic. Data manipulation would not melt the world's glaciers. Data manipulation would not be altering seasonal timings all over the planet. Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.

And the idea that every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is the most ignorant, insanely paranoid argument ever made.

Good fucking god are your stupid.

I'm afraid crick..that once again...it is you who is the stupid one..melting arctic ice and melting glaciers aren't anything new...that started a long time ago... you have no historical context so you live in a constant state of being duped. I could go on practically forever with news articles from the past proclaiming the very same things that you are worried about today....you just don't seem to be able to grasp that inso far as the climate on planet earth goes...what we are seeing today is just business as usual...and idiots like you who can't be bothered to see what the climate used to look like are the ones who are most hopelessly duped.

 

[LaDexter]

The observed warming is not the result of data manipulation.

It is ALL data "manipulation." The Tippys have been caught doctoring even surface ground, where they just count urban areas (which show warming) and discard undeveloped areas (showing no warming). The Surface Ground is the only series showing any warming in the raw data, really just urban areas on land.

Data manipulation would not melt the Arctic

There you go again CHERRY PICKING. The Antarctic ice and sea ice are both growing, and they are more than 90% of Earth's total ice.

 

[LaDexter]

Data manipulation would not be increased floods, droughts and weather severity.

Global "warming" causes droughts.... and floods.

Global "warming" causes sea ice shrinkage.... and growth

Global "warming" causes less snow... and record snow in Philly, NYC, and DC

Global "warming" is melting the Arctic... and increasing ice in the Antarctic


at some point, the people need to notice what an OBVIOUS FRAUD this is...

every one of the world's climate scientists are in on a huge, perfectly conducted conspiracy is

... the nature of the FAR LEFT, which will DO ANYTHING to STEAL STEAL STEAL the taxpayer's money

 

[Crick]

They're having no problem noticing what an ignorant fraud you are.

Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"? Really?

What a buffoon.

 

[LaDexter]

Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"? Really?

They are weeded out and groomed (brainwashed). They know a taxpayer funded "study" that does not conclude "warming" concludes with your funding TERMINATION.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Know how they "Prove" Manmade Global Warming?

Just turn on the Weather Channel! Right there! Top Story = Manmade Global Warming!!

 

[jc456]

Know how they "Prove" Manmade Global Warming?

Just turn on the Weather Channel! Right there! Top Story = Manmade Global Warming!!

although the top weather channel guy is now a skeptic and hated. I love it. every conversion ends up as another hated skeptic. got love warmers. they haven't met a good skeptic that they couldn't insult or belittle.

 

[LaDexter]

Jim Cantore, to my knowledge, has never chimed in with Stephanie Abrams and the rest of the warmers at TWC

 

[jc456]

Jim Cantore, to my knowledge, has never chimed in with Stephanie Abrams and the rest of the warmers at TWC

don't forget John Coleman, the dude I was referring to. Co-Founder of the TWC.

 

[Crick]

Do you really believe that every climate scientist on Earth is on the "FAR LEFT"? Really?

They are weeded out and groomed (brainwashed). They know a taxpayer funded "study" that does not conclude "warming" concludes with your funding TERMINATION.

And when did that become the case? The consensus on warming among climate scientists did not appear worldwide overnight. It developed as more and more research findings supported the idea. Those initial researchers were under no pressure to support warming. In fact, they were upsetting the status quo and put themselves at some risk suggesting something new.

How can the lot of you be sufficiently stupid to believe the grand conspiracy crap? It's right up there with a colony of space aliens living inside the hollow Earth.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ocean Acidification: Your Chance To Help Kill This Dodgy Scam Once And For All!


lol.........check this out. These meathead frauds promote this acid acidification bs as science!!!


Laughable

 

[Crick]

No response? I suppose when you choose to back an idea as stupid as a perfect worldwide conspiracy by thousands of scientists, it can be hard to come up with a response to the obvious criticism.

What the world's scientists say, based on the evidence their studies have produced, is that the world is warming at an alarming rate and the primary cause of that warming is increased CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere caused almost entirely by human activities. That warming poses several risks. Ignoring it all, as deniers want to do, is dangerously stupid.