Climate porn and snow at Sundance

This year’s Sundance film festival is all-in on climate. What better way to trigger the “Gore effect?” As often happens when Gore hypes the climate, festival-goers in Park City Utah are freezing their warming off.

“What else could go wrong?” asked festival director John Cooper. What’s gone “wrong”? Well, Trump Trump Trump, a cyber attack, power outages, public complaint about internet access, freeway shut downs, traffic gridlock due to too many SUVs, busses, delivery trucks and snow plows, festival banners blowing off and down Main Street, and a big chunky snowstorm with bouts of full on blizzard and temperature in the single digits. Minus three is forecast for Thursday.

The snow and freezing weather has attendees bundled up in fur coats, goose down stuffed Patagonia jackets, slick leather jackets and big furry snow boots — all the comforts an energy rich, free market society can provide.

Al Gore made a personal appearance at the premiere of his “An Inconvenient Sequel,” and told us, “we are putting 110 million tonnes of global warming pollution [CO2] in the atmosphere every 24 hours.” Gore proclaimed “the sustainability movement is unstoppable.” The audience of over 1000 clapped and cheered with enthusiasm, not pausing to consider what life might be like without the energy and prosperity they take for granted.

Sundance’s “New Climate” line up is relentless in targeting American freedom as the source of the world’s problems. Capitalism is bad, CO2 is bad, cars are bad, consumerism is bad, unrepentant white people are bad, cattle are bad, and the list goes on.

The solution is always the same: 100% renewable energy (wind and solar), moving people out of the countryside and packing them into cities, electric cars, banning Edison’s light bulb, reducing consumerism, giving children a thorough Green indoctrination, and giving in to whatever radical feminists are demanding at the moment.

The climate porn at Sundance moved beyond the figurative to the literal with the inclusion of the short film Hot Winter, a parody of the campy porn films of the eighties. “One of the first films in American cinema to address climate change,” the joke goes, the film was also a “hardcore porno.” For the Festival, “all sex scenes have been removed as to not distract from the conscious message.” We follow “Dr. Manly,” the world’s most renowned climate scientist, body builder, and former actor, as he eventually falls for the much hated Oil, Corporation’s president, Ms. Frost. Everything leads back to global warming and at the end of the film we are told that “global warming is real” and the way to save the earth is by using renewable energy. Are the film’s producers parodying eighties porn or the warming campaign itself? Do you they even know?

Chasing Coral, a documentary that has been purchased by Netflix, tells us that due to global warming coral reefs are “vanishing at an unprecedented rate.” It claims that your use of fossil fuel is adding CO2 to the atmosphere that is bleaching the reefs.

The film, which compares global warming to a fever, features some visually stunning underwater photography, but its heavy-handed lecturing makes it tough to watch. Inconveniently for the filmmakers, huge sections of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef recovered right after they left. The filmmakers seem unaware that corals are vastly old species that existed long before people at temperatures and CO2 concentrations far higher than anything we experience today.

A cool feature (in addition to the snow) was the use of virtual reality (VR).

Tree VR – virtual reality is fun and so was acting like an Amazon Rainforest tree…until the end. I started off inside the trunk as a growing tree. Reaching out my arms in front and back, to the sides, my branches grew. Chirping birds and fluttering butterflies flew around me. A babbling brook below me and the canopy of trees soon below me. And then, in the distance, a fire raged. As the fire got closer my legs heated up. Can you guess the ending? Next scene: a brand-new little tree.  Such is the circle of life.

Melting Ice VR – a 6 minute virtual reality experience that goes along with Inconvenient Sequel. The experience begins in an openness of snow. Looking down, I see my virtual snowmobile is tipped over. I must have crashed and am stranded. But thankfully I can hear and see a red chopper off in the distance. It lands before me. Two men get off and it’s Al Gore and a global warming scientist to the rescue. I don’t even think he asks me if I’m ok …there’s more important business to be done. I’m launched into a tent observing Al and the scientist discuss Greenland’s melting ice. And that’s what one observes the rest of the time until at the end, I found myself on a small, floating glacier about the size of a large Al Gore SUV.

Chasing Coral VR – this virtual reality experience goes along with the documentary – bleaching coral due to global warming.  Sadly on this one the quality was lame and the experience was lame.

Far sadder, it appears Robert Redford is no longer a Sundance kid.  He introduced a panel but forgot who he was supposed to introduce besides his son Jamie. You could hear someone helping him out…” it rhymes with Jamie.” Robert replied, oh, I have a daughter named Amy … and he got it…he was supposed to introduce Amy Goodwin of Democracy Now.  Ms. Goodwin made no effort to hold back her belief in global warming and dislike of President Trump. Panelists including Al Gore, David Suzuki, and others.  When Amy would nudge panelists into saying something not so nice about the new President the crowd loved it.  Any global warming gave Park City a miss that day.  When Amy Goodwin left the Egyptian Theater swaddled in winter boots, hat, jacket and arms crossing her chest in the cold, she certainly looked cold.  She hummed and hawed at me until she was driven off in her Democracy Now van sporting license plates from sunny Florida.

The New Climate” at Sundance 2017 includes:

Films, Clips, Short Projects

Chasing Coral

Hot Winter

Inconvenient Sequel

Look and See: A Portrait of Wendell Berry

Plastic China

Rancher, Farmer, Fisherman

Rise

The Dive

Trophy

Visions of an Island

Water & Power: A California Heist

Virtual Reality

Melting Ice

Chasing Coral

Tree

Panel Discussions

The Film That Blew My Mind Goes Environmental – how films shape audience minds and actions

The New Climate Panel and Storytelling with intro by Robert Redford featuring Al Gore and David Suzuki hosted by Amy Goodwin of Democracy Now

Community in Action – A Park City Panel Discussion on how Park City will be 100% renewable, net zero Carbon by 2032

 

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Undercover

CFACT's undercover reporter.

  • StephenWilde

    They have stolen the term ‘New Climate’ from me !!!
    See here:

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

    • HairRazor

      Impressive. Bottom line is that man has very little to do with climate variations.

    • Immortal600

      Very good link, Stephen. Thank you.

  • Dano2

    This is a little fib: Inconveniently for the filmmakers, huge sections of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef recovered right after they left.

    Ouch.

    best,

    D

    • Otter

      Proof?

      • Immortal600

        He has none. Just like his claim of having several degrees and being published multiple times, he can’t substantiate it. By his own definition, he fibbed. I just want to be “anonymous”.

        wahhhhh……

        • Dano2

          I refuted you again upthread about the coral. I detect a pattern.

          I also can substantiate my credentials, but not on Disqus publicly. You are cravenly lying again, embarrassing yourself mendacicizing the situation yet again. You have zero credibility in this matter, and you aren’t man brave enough to come visit to see for yourself.

          Best,

          D

          • Immortal600

            Struck a nerve, eh?

            hahahahahahahahaha

            You are still a fraud. A chump like you impugning anybody’s manhood is the height of hypocrisy.

            • Dano2

              I refuted you again. You were wrong. Again.

              Back to your basket.

              Best,

              D

              • Immortal600

                No you didn’t. You know it too ! That is if you are half as smart as you like to pretend. Now, runaway as you always do when called out for your fraudulent claims.

                • Dano2

                  You are among the cr**iest bluffers on the Internet.

                  Basket.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Immortal600

                    No bluff, FRAUD. Until you can show some proof of your claims that is all you are on here, a FRAUD. If you had any guts you would reveal your credentials. What are you afraid of?

                    • Dano2

                      Everyone can scroll upthread, see you were refuted, and laugh at how weakly your weak bluff comes off.

                      There is only one claim that I have not shown – the one you cravenly and mendaciously trumpet because you have nothing else, and are unable to come up with anything else; thus the best you can do is a craven ploy.

                      Bookmarked for your basket.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Why are you afraid to reveal your credentials? Could it be you are cheating your employer when you should be working instead of trolling the internet? Or is it that your credentials are weak and you are not really a scientist. I think that must be it. Your some social science professor claiming expert knowledge in climate science when it is obvious you don’t have a clue about climate science. You have never shown ANY understanding of it. Your bibliography that you like to post is a pathetic attempt to show you have some sort of understanding. A clue for you, you don’t !

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      But they don’t Dano, they see a chump who has no understanding and is unable to discuss how a mechanism works. Prof Merrifield was happy to argue his point with me and agree to disagree on the effectiveness of reradiation whilst you substitute being disagreeablity for argument. In fact the good Prof is the only man in your camp to have explained
                      his belief.

                    • Immortal600

                      Well done, Brin!

      • Dano2

        Here is some recent reportage that shows everyone that the phrase recovered right after they left. is incorrect:

        1. , 2. , 3. , 4. .

        The story that disinformation sites used to dupe gullible denialists was based on reports from tourist boats. The links above are reportage, actual photographs, and the latest scientific study on the 2016 damage.

        Also, coral recovers slowly. Hardly any of it has “recovered” from the 2016 bleaching event. That will take a decade or more unless another bleaching event occurs at the same site.

        HTH

        Best,

        D

  • Dano2

    This is a little fib: moving people out of the countryside and packing them into cities

    No one is going to tear down your double-wide and warehouse you in a dense city with The Other.

    Best,

    D

    • Immortal600

      “No one is going to tear down your double-wide”

      Your elitism and snobbishness is on display for the world to see. FRAUD.

  • AllenBarclayAllen

    Renewables again ! Wow this is ignorant ! All fossil fuel is renewable from all life forms on earth ! All botinay ,all biological , all microbe !

    All of it gets burned into our atmosphere ,all water form its buring ,all corbondioxide all monoxide that is turned into dioxide by electrical sprights discharged into this ionosphere !

    All of which is made possible by tectonic plates movement caused by the sun’s and especially the moon’s gravity ! Making all fossil fuel from preexisting life atmosphere !

    All of that atmospheres corbondioxide , which is a small portion in comparison to water perceived by this burning , is turned back into a life form by solar energy inferred photosynthesis ! Plants algee eaten for nurshiment of all biological life on earth ,which in turn dies ,is burried in the tectonic plates that eventually burns from burning at subduction zones all over the earth from moving tectonic plates movement ! And people ya can’t get more renewable than that !

    • AllenBarclayAllen

      If reasonable scientist understand what I am saying about renewable life forms and renewable fosil fuel forms here ,what the hell is wrong with the al Gore chicken little preschool fiction crowd but total unscientific ignorance ??

      • AllenBarclayAllen

        And I didn’t even got into sulfur dioxide burned from lime Rock at all of these volcanic event activitys that cause Earth’s cooling by blocking out the sun !

  • truthseeker

    Please understand all the brainwashed liberals who believe in manmade global warming also believe in darwinism, only love themselves and feel no loyalty to America, democracy or anything related to truth or decency.

  • Bob

    Again, it is very simple physics totally ignored by the so called climate experts. The first and primary physics principle is measurement. It sounds rather elementary but everything in science and physics is based on measurement in one form or another. What the climate nut jobs turn their backs on is the size and scope of temperature/climate measurements used to support their failed conclusions.

    To put it in a very simple fashion, it is against all reason to measure the circumference of the earth with a micrometer. Not anymore reasonable or scientific to measure the length of a football field with a vernier caliper. Ironically, both of these incorrect scientific methods is precisely how the climate goof offs determine climate change.

    Climate data/parameters such as temperature, rain fall, cloudy v sunny have no historical record longer than a few centuries. So called climate scientists have gone so far as to try and link glacial boring data with actual climate events. Concluding that microscopic traces of carbon dioxide have proven climate change in the 21st century. Boyle’s Law scientifically demonstrates how gases remain in suspension over long periods of time based on temperature. Nothing new here. That’s why your soda pop is kept cold…and that does not prove anything except keep a gas in solution by keeping the solution cold.

    Regardless, failing to apply proper measurement principles makes everything after that false. Imagine how wrong the global climate change theories are when you look at the principle of measurement to-wit:

    2×10(3rd power) = 2,000 (estimated period of time in years that data MAY exist on earth warming/cooling)
    4.54×10(9th power) = 4,540,000,000 (estimated age of the earth in years)

    Dividing 2,000/4,540,000,000 = 4.4×10(-7th power) = 0.000,004,4 (ratio of earth’s age by a measurement period of 2,000 years)

    Imagine what tiny ratio of time the climate nut jobs are using to determine climate trend/change. Absolutely crazy. And they have faith in their beliefs. Oh how faithful that the roulette wheel with go red after a series of 4-5 reds. That’s what they believe; the earth is warming based on a couple of decades of data.

    • Dano2

      Two centuries of science refuted you long ago.

      Best,

      D

      • Immortal600

        A totally weak reply. That is your M.O. though. Refute him point by point if you can. We’ll wait.
        hahahahahahaha

        • Dano2

          I block dullards that don’t amuse me. You still amuse me so are not blocked yet.

          Best,

          D

          • Immortal600

            Block me, I dare you!. I am hitting you on the head and YOU know it. I know you aren’t exactly stupid. I will give you credit there. AND! You may be credentialed as claimed but I know it isn’t in Physics or Chemistry. Your expertise lies in one of the social sciences and I’m sure you’re good at THAT. But when it comes to climate change all YOU are capable of doing is parroting the usual AGW line without an ability to actually explain it. So keep hiding behind the “dullards” line. I’ll match wits with you any day of the week. I think you know that as well.

            • Dano2

              Your expertise lies in one of the social sciences

              As I stated, I have two undergrad B.S. in the natural sciences – one in a specialized discipline of horticulture and one in a specialized branch of forestry, and my grad concentration was in ecology. Prior to the specialized hort degree, I studied bioclimatology but instead switched to similar on the plant side. Prior to that I was a weatherman in the USAF, which made me go into BioClim. Today I was going to fly a construction site with my drone to estimate volume removal of silt in a detention pond, but the wind is up so I cannot; later for this project, in spring I’ll go back with some spectral sensors to estimate % of seed germination for the contractor.

              HTH

              Best,

              D

              • Immortal600

                well, Dano, have a good day.

                • HL

                  I can’t believe he lied about being in the USAF. That would definitely have made his resume. Dan Staley (Dano2) is a very, very sick narcissistic.

                  • Immortal600

                    HL, I have noticed that Dan doesn’t post on cfact any more. He is over on the Daily Caller though. I do know that he follows all the comments made on this site, He ‘liked’ a comment that Ian5 made to me the other day.

                    BTW, “narcissistic” is an understatement!

      • Bob

        I have no idea what you referring to?

        • Dano2

          Science refuted your entire …erm…”argument”.

          Scientists measured the fraction of incoming radiation retained in the earth system in the 1800s. Scientists started measuring the increase in planetary surface heat, ocean heat and glacier retreat in the 1900s. They started measuring the changes in ranges of plants and animals in the 1900s. They started measuring the changes in ocean pH from carbonic acid in the mid-1900s. They started measuring the increase in atm CO2 in the mid-1900s. They measured the change in C isotopes in the atmosphere in the mid-1900s. Etc etc etc.

          ~2 centuries of science, therefore, refutes you.

          HTH

          Best,

          D

          • Immortal600

            You know so little it isn’t funny. AND! You show it all the time. You can parrot climate AGW points very well. How much you actually understand it? That is the crux of the matter.

            I now can see why you don’t respond to Brin Jenkins. He KNOWS the subject and you don’t. You get unmasked every time you have an exchange with him. Just as I am now doing to you, Professor?
            hahahahahahahaha

          • Bob

            Well, you sure missed the point I was making by a mile. Read what I wrote. Your points just go further to prove my point. You cannot determine a TREND by measuring over a very, very short period of time. That simply foolishness and totally unscientific. I’m not arguing what scientists have discovered since 1900’s, those measurement are fact. The whole problem is based on what’s happening at the MOMENT and that MOMENT is way to short of a duration, period! If climate data is collected over a period of, say, 5000 years, you might have something. Over a period of 200 years is nothing, not long enough to formulate anything other than OPINION!

            • Immortal600

              I am guessing that your follow up point will fly over his head as well. Odds? 2-1
              BTW, you make very valid and cogent points.

            • Dano2

              You are wrong in two ways here: You cannot determine a TREND by measuring over a very, very short period of time.

              Why are you wrong here?

              You are wrong here because:

              o you are making a blanket statement (about several topics) without defining “period”, and

              o you are ignorant of the science, which has, in fact, determined these trends.

              That is: you haven’t refuted ~2 centuries of science by simply typing something.

              Also, there are climate data covering ~3MY. So who knows why you are randomly pulling out figures like 5KYR when the data go back much farther.

              HTH

              Best,

              D

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e726065a42e8488e6230ead75fda285469a0039d33d5fcac7d38d8876f14b460.jpg
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/551d72fb75318499b6bc1f9c746d2dd1eb41547be6d4a21a1c143eff5d928d9a.gif
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0089b2126b56075893a175612c0e09483ba9437166a5d4dc92f5abf955d3ad68.gif
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fde4c64935ae8c22321ee78033040bd7b4616db383f40f4c0ba05ee70afbecd4.gif
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b3d240a22a1fb58f9af7d10ba8c3edd05f3cbd9b305782087dfda094887b0aa6.gif
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6eedff3b5d91e3608d532da338ad2eac3220b97adc6c28d3d8504b1d48ee7522.png

              • Immortal600

                “you are ignorant of the science, which has, in fact, determined these trends.”

                Really? You determined this how? Read his mind? You are so shallow. Your graphs which you seem to think are rock solid proof, are really meaningless.

                Being as you know that CO2 actually LAGS temperature rise, explain how it DRIVES the change. Can you do that?????

                Professor??????????

                hahahahahahaha

                One more thing, keep parroting that two centuries of science. You further show your ineptness.

                • Dano2

                  as you know that CO2 actually LAGS temperature rise

                  Since you typed in the present tense, you must think this is true today. You are wrong. That was true in the past when CO2 was at equilibrium. It is no longer true (as you know because you have such an awesome command of climate dynamics, right guy?).

                  And I’ve explained several times on this site how it drives change. There are several commenters who lack the ability to understand the explanation, however, and this defect has led them to believe that I haven’t offered an explanation.

                  Best,

                  D

                  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a65d3ab7fefeae5276cab8f7432b585df9e47fe85e55340ab514e5dab38ee682.jpg
                  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f5cf43a30f7ed526fe2ee459131f98c9f4c83c5e62ef9df076d79b6e5d1e4535.gif

                  • Immortal600

                    Well, well, well!!! Tell us, oh wise one, what mechanism changed lag to leading????

                    This ought to be rich!!!!

                    BTW, I claim no special knowledge of climate dynamics. I’m just smart enough to know that YOU and anyone you cite doesn’t either.

                    • Dano2

                      what mechanism changed lag to leading????

                      The carbon cycle is out of balance and CO2/other GHGs is/are no longer at equilibrium.

                      You know that CO2 is a driver of planetary climate because I’ve given you the information several times; that is: CO2 is the largest ‘control knob’ on climate.

                      Since you are historically unable to refute the argument with any scientific studies, data, journal articles, models, equations, etc you know this basic fact of physics on earth and so accept the science.

                      Best,

                      D

                      The vid is a talk at AGU explaining in plain language why the CO2-control knob argument is robust:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

                    • Immortal600

                      Richard Alley?????? That’s your proof?????? You really have no clue as I’ve said numerous times. Check out Dr. Ed Berry’s blog:
                      http://edberry.com/blog/category/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/

                      Explain how and why he is wrong. Read the comments from people who disagree with him. They are certainly more knowledgeable than YOU are on CO2. They have been unable to refute his theory.

                      Richard Alley???? A fraud for sure. If that is where you hang your hat than you are truly clueless.

                    • Dano2

                      Standard triggered snowflake who can’t keep the cogntive dissonance at bay: A fraud for sure

                      IIRC the first time you credulously pointed to this comedy skit, I pointed out that a comment I made that pre-bunked poor hapless Ed – it explained not only that CO2 is a GHG, but this comment lays out the arc of scholarship that shows poor hapless Ed is wrong.

                      HTH

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry understands the issue with CO2 better than you do. You have never been able to dispute what he’s written. Ad hom’s don’t cut it.
                      You just don’t have a grasp on the complexity of climate dynamics. Stick to forestry that is all you know. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you understand the physics of climate change. You are good at condescension though, you get an ‘A’ there. But, sadly, that is all you have.

                    • Dano2

                      I already showed why he was wrong. Several times. Poor hapless Ed was refuted. He doesn’t know the science.

                      I laid it out by showing:

                      o science shows how CO2 is a GHG,

                      o man’s emissions have increased GHGs in the planetary atmoshere

                      o how we know the increase in CO2 atm is from man and that

                      o the planet has warmed as a result

                      o showed the experiments that confirm this

                      o included a history of the science in plain language

                      o included a shorter history of the science that is found on a disinformation site

                      What does poor bumbling Ed do? Shows a Salby video and ices the cake with the Giavers comedy skit that starts off with Ivar admitting he doesn’t know the first thing about climate change. The cherry on top is the nutter conspiracy theory delivered by The Dumbest Disinformer On The Internet. Anyone linking to that discredited clown – even other disinformers think he’s an idiot and discredit him

                      Anyone using Goddard/Heller for a reference immediately discredits themself. Poor bumbling Ed uses Salby AND Goddard, so is LOLz-worthy.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      You haven’t read his theory. I know that because you aren’t addressing it. Go to the link I’ve provided and read HIS explanation, then read the responses (some of them are highly critical and in disagreement with him). The argument is interesting and if you are inquisitive you’ll check it out.

                      One another note, I am sure you are aware that our solar system is travelling through space and doesn’t sit stationary. Here is an interesting article on the solar system warming up. Of course CO2 plays no role and you might not be curious enough to look at it:

                      http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

                      There is much that humanity has yet to learn. Only our hubris has us thinking we understand things that we really don’t. I have gleaned from all of your comments that you are relatively young (early 40’s) and haven’t yet realized how much you don’t really know. Wait till you are in your 60’s and you will see what I mean. It has been fun and I’ll leave you to save the world. Have a great day and say hello to the 8th grader.

                    • Dano2

                      First, he does not have a theory.

                      Second, he has not published his hypothesis anywhere. When he publishes in the literature, I’ll read it. Until then, who cares?

                      Best,

                      D

              • Bob

                I have no way of discussing this topic with some one totally clueless about mathematics. 5000 years ago was before Christ. There was no way to record data during that time since measurements to climate required use of a thermometer and that was not discovered until 1561 and you say the data goes back much farther? Like talking to a post.

                • Dano2

                  There was no way to record data during that time since measurements of climate required use of a thermometer

                  Where do you think believe the temperatures on the charts came from? Do you think them drrrty scientist made them up?

                  Best,

                  D

                  • Bob

                    Well now, if anything from 5000 years ago can determine the climate at that time, it most certainly is based on a theoretical methodology. 5000 years ago, the people were almost stone age humans. If a bunch of theoretical scientists created some sort of climate discovery they were most certainly talking about paleoclimate (a general definition of climate in the past). Read what scientists say about climates in the past.

                    Scientists studying climate, particularly paleoclimates, must always bear in mind the unknowns and uncertainties involved with the data, particularly when attempting to match up records from different types of proxies or different regions. The challenge is especially difficult when correlating millennial scale oscillations when the resolution of the data is low and uncertainty is high.

                    Can you understand what is being discussed here? All of this climate issue is based on theory, not fact. As the scientists say, “difficult” and “uncertain”. That’s double talk for THEY DON’T KNOW FOR SURE!

                    • Dano2

                      Your command of the issue is…erm…astounding.

                      This especially made me LOLz: this climate issue is based on theory, not fact

                      Hoot!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      AGW is still a theory and not established fact.
                      BTW, your hero Richard Alley is a Geologist. I would trust an atmospheric physicist over him any day of the week.

                    • Dano2

                      I’ll take those points on offer:

                      o A current well-established theory is “only a theory” [25 points]

                      https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      It is still not fact and you know it.

                    • Dano2

                      Sure it is.

                      And you clearly don’t know what ‘theory’ means. Evolution is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Entropy. Cell theory. Atomic theory. Heliocentric theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Germ theory.

                      HTH

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600
                    • Dano2

                      Thanks for helping me prove my point.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Your point is that AGW is a fact (settled and proven) and it isn’t. Theory does not mean settled and proven.

                    • Dano2

                      You can’t show any other causes are the reason for the warming. You have no science. No facts.

                      Best

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry’s explanation is good enough for me. All I’ve seen you do is castigate the man and not refute his hypothesis. Reasons for climate change are not yet understood enough to show how and why it occurs. To claim that CO2 is the driver is ridiculous and you will never convince me otherwise.

                      Richard Alley, the geologist, should stick to rocks. That is what he really knows just as you should stick to plants. Your understanding of atmospheric physics is extremely poor.

                    • Dano2

                      You can’t show. We know. Everyone knows you can’t show and don’t want to know otherwise. Bookmarked for when you are triggered and lash out in fear and anger.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      I am not the one who needs to “show” anything. You do and you can’t. Simple. You adhere to a FAILED theory.

                    • Dano2

                      I’ve shown many times. You refuse to listen and even state outright you will never convince me otherwise

                      ‘Nuff said.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      That is right, ’nuff said. Thank you.

                    • Dano2

                      …also, science doesn’t prove. Sheesh.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Semantics. That is all you have for your FAILED theory.

                    • Dano2

                      You can’t show it failed.

                      You can’t show any science that supports your self-identity. None.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      20 years of a statistical pause is good enough. CO2 is not going to cause anything the AGW proponents claim. Stop worrying about it. Dr. Berry’s hypothesis is compelling. I’ve yet to see it refuted. castigating the man does not refute the hypothesis.

                    • Dano2

                      Warmin paws! Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Dano, there are many scientists who disagree with AGW. Highly learned ones. Here is a quote from a physicist who resigned from APS because of their support for AGW:

                      Physicist Harold Lewis, in his letter of resignation to the APS, wrote

                      “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally)
                      trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists,
                      and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and
                      most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a
                      physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should
                      force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. I
                      don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that
                      stuff without revulsion.”

                      Of course, you will simply discount that scientist’s opinion, I’m sure. Why is your mind so closed?

                    • Dano2

                      A small list of the usual suspects that was addressed long ago. Nobody cares, as they don’t publish.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Simply because they don’t publish? Are you kidding me! That is your criteria? WOW!

                    • Dano2

                      Yup. That is how science works on earth. You should find out about it some time.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      You have the typical closed mind. Case closed.

                    • Dano2

                      No, really. You should learn something about it. Start any time. The sooner the better to cease this continual embarrassment.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      You project too much. I HAVE read a lot about it and have come to the conclusion that CO2 does very little to the climate. Adds some warmth (very little) and definitely doesn’t drive climate change. There are many, many scientists in agreement with that viewpoint but the AGW folks have the extreme desire to silence anyone with a contrary opinion. I wonder why that is?

                    • Dano2

                      I HAVE read a lot about it and have come to the conclusion that CO2 does very little to the climate.

                      Then you have either read all the wrong things or are grossly, Titanically, comically incompetent at understanding what you read.

                      Remember: you admitted you don’t want to know the facts.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Your condescension aside, what makes you think that you know more than atmospheric physicists that say the theory is wrong? You will learn more once you put aside your hubris.

                    • Dano2

                      what makes you think that you know more than atmospheric physicists that say the theory is wrong?

                      Strawman.

                      Not only does every scientific organization on the planet disagree with you, but the vast majority of scientists do as well.

                      And if you knew anything about science – say, if you had even one science class in your life – you’d realize that asserting the theory is wrong exposes your deep, broad ignorance of science.

                      But you made me LOLz at you again! Good job!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Many scientists say the theory is wrong. You just don’t get it.

                    • Dano2

                      You just don’t have an education in science.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      How ironic! Tell us what YOUR education is atmospheric physics? You think degrees in Horticulture and Forestry make you special? A know-it-all??? You are out of your league pontificating on climate dynamics.

                    • Dano2

                      I told you – I studied bioclimatology and was a weatherman.

                      Nonetheless, if you had any education in the sciences, you’d be embarrassed at asserting the theory is wrong.

                      Every scientific organization on the planet is chucking at you right now.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Wow a “weatherman”!!!! Aren’t you special……LOL

                      You still know nothing about atmospheric physics. Every scientific organization is ruled by a small cadre that sets policy. Like labor unions, the membership doesn’t agree in entirety. You know that.

                    • Dano2

                      Weak flail to hide your transparent mistakes – bioclimatology.

                      And this is just a weak, craven lie little fib made to give yourself good feels: You still know nothing about atmospheric physics

                      Everyone can see you are prancing and ululating and making sh** up stuff to cling to a few retired engineers that say things to give you good feels.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • HL

                      Dano2 was lying. His undergrad was in horticulture and urban forestry and he failed to complete a MA in urban planning. He was never a “weatherman”; that’s a pure lie.

                    • Immortal600

                      HL, I believe you. I went to the links you gave and believe it is him. I think he is following this conversation and has changed his avatar and won’t respond to me. I would like to ask you more but I don’t want Dan seeing it. Is there any way we could get in touch? The last three sentences will be deleted in one hour.

                    • HL

                      haliaeetusleucocephalus at mailinator dot com

                    • Immortal600

                      delete that now

        • Immortal600

          He didn’t even understand your point. Thus his AGW-parroted reply.

  • Jim

    Never have listened to these idiots.

  • Sytnyk Andrij

    All ants together produce more c02 then humans.

    • Dano2

      Carbon cycle. Learn about it.

      Best,

      D