Twenty-two free market and conservative groups called Democratic senators tyrants Tuesday for criticizing their opposition to global warming policies on the Senate floor.
The Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, and Americans For tax Reform, among others, lashed out Tuesday in a letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation at Democratic senators Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, and Sheldon for calling them conspirators in a web of denial.
“We hear you,” the letter read. “Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and 
inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.”
The 22 groups who signed the letter have various policy view, including on global warming. They argue in the letter the senators’ antics violated the groups’ rights to free speech, as well as their freedom of association, and that the senators’ knocked off U.S. democracy off balance.
“The delicate balance of our democracy is preserved when all groups are free to speak in the public square, and ALL Americans should be concerned when agents of the government use their official offices to marginalize political foes,” the letter reads.
“You were elected by the people to build consensus and find compromise—to fiercely debate the most pressing issues of our day. Often, these debates are meant to be contentious and without a clear solution because innovation comes from great challenge,” the letter adds. “Sadly, our democracy and our freedom hangs in the balance as you use your office to bully and single out groups to blame rather than ideas to debate.”
Whitehouse, the Democratic senator spearheading the hit parade, directed 19 of his fellow Democratic senators to attack some of the conservative and libertarian groups included in the letter on the chamber floors for engaging in what the senators call a “web of denial.”
Whitehouse has a history of tormenting organizations for refusing to break free from oil producers such as Exxon Mobil.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), which boasts more than 62,000 members worldwide, announced in May it would review and possibly reconsider a decision it made in April to continue its relationship with Exxon after Whitehouse and California Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat, pressured the group to divorce from the company.
Whitehouse and Reid – according to an internal email circulated by Emily Enderle, a top environmental policy adviser to the Rhode Island senator – created a senate schedule for Monday and Tuesday, requesting the senators lambaste the groups assigned to them.
Enderle coordinated her efforts with several leading environmental groups, she explained in the email – some of the groups include the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Water Action.
Follow Chris on Facebook and Twitter
This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller
Demonstrates that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Yes!
…because sometimes the call is coming from inside the house…
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
and your point being? Mr Morano earns an honest living and you object to this, why? Explain yourself, please.
Bwahahahah!!!
…an honest living lying.
Hilarious!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago
You’ve got (some of) the facts right in front of you in the article, and you’re still too piss-ant stupid to draw the right conclusion. God help brain-dead morons like you.
CB isn’t too deep a thinker. She has shown that over and over again.
You don’t say!
It has been known for over a century that fossil fuel exhaust warms the planet.
Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You are too dense to have a dialogue with. You’ve been shown things many times in the past and your limited brain refuses to see it. Take your scam elsewhere.
…and you are talking to yourself in public!
I disagree with your opinion of yourself!
It’s a very simple question, and something you could handle easily if you made even the smallest effort.
Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet, Sandy?
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
NASA…..
LMAO at anyone who accepts what those clowns say
CO2 is one component in a changing climate PERIOD
Take your pick!
It’s science that has withstood over a century of testing, whichever way you slice it.
Is it likely you’ve overthrown it?
Does fossil fuel exhaust warm the planet, Sandy?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A century of testing……..
hahahahahaha
lol!
…well, why haven’t you bothered finding out?
Is your clicking finger broken?
climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect
I have looked at the evidence and it is inconclusive. Only to kooks like you it is. They sold you the catastrophic scenario that you swallowed hook,line and sinker. Fool.
I see you conveniently didn’t respond to the Antarctic ice INCREASE. Supplied by your favorite NASA.
LMAO
…and what evidence would that be?
Link to it, please.
If you were telling the truth, isn’t that something you should be able to do?
missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Good find!
That study is an outlier. The vast majority of studies on the subject say Antarctica is losing ice, not gaining it.
Why was that study so much more persuasive to you than all the rest?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS-a4cXUkAEQ3SX.png
Outlier?????????
Right.
Outlier! Right!
What does the author of the outlier paper you found have to say about people intentionally misrepresenting his findings?
Do those findings mean Antarctica is not in trouble?
http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486
Keep believing the scam, CB. You will find no converts here.
LMAO
Climate is more complex then your simplistic explanations. If it were that easy nobody would dispute it but they do. Plenty of scientists 100 times smarter than you dispute it. That should tell you something. But for you, a true believer, nothing will sway you. Get back to me when you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. Until then you are nothing but hot air.
No, that’s not what Dr. Zwally had to say.
Your own source called you a Climate Denier.
Now, is it likely, Sandy that there’s been some scam going on for over a century that no one on Earth besides you has been able to identify?
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf
Climate denier, how cute. Nobody denies that climate change happens. It just isn’t caused by humans and you can’t show that it is.
He’s your source, sweetie!
If you didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that he called you a liar, perhaps you shouldn’t have cited him…
Now are you saying that humans do not produce CO₂, or are you saying that CO₂ does not warm the planet?
Just how remedial are you willing to go?
http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-carbon-dioxide
>”Do those findings mean Antarctica is not in trouble?”
Are you saying that when the Earth has no ice caps… it’s “..in trouble” ? ?
Who are we to say what the Earth “should be” ? ?
Throughout the history of the Earth, there have been times of Ice Ages.. (like now.. which began about 2.6 million years ago, the Current Ice Age, the Pleistocene Glaciation, or Quaternary Glaciation, all are correct. Do not confuse Ice Ages with Glacial Periods) and also time where Earth is NOT in an Ice Age and is ice free.
Times when it has been much colder.. times when it has been warmer. And for most of the past 600 million years…. atmospheric CO2 has been much, much higher.
Who are we… to claim one state of the planet is “good” and the other state of the planet is “in trouble” ? ? ?
No!
I’m saying when the Earth has no ice caps, you’re in trouble.
The collapse of the polar ice sheets would raise sea levels around 200 feet worldwide and destroy every single one of the world’s coastal cities.
If that’s not the outcome we’re facing, just because of the fossil fuel we’ve already burned, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high?
nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
Let us all remember…
CO2 in the atmosphere is OUR food…we mankind.
The more, the better…!
We have gone from 290ppm seventy years ago to 400.
And we have benefited…!
CO2 is not a pollutant…!…it is a marvelous addition…
Let’s get to 425 soonest.
You are correct that this is roughly how much CO₂ we’ve added to the air.
Now what if we did benefit in the past?
How, precisely, do you plan to benefit in the future from the destruction of every single one of the world’s coastal cities?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
CB….
You need to read the nasa article, just above…
Note the Antarctica is very, very cold. It holds 90 percent
of Earth’s ice, and that grows. Greenland is about nine percent,
and it isn’t about to melt. So the oceans are not about to grow.
So, we are safe…buy a lot on the beach!
We did benefit in the past, even at 290ppm. Crops grew well.
But today they grow up to 10-20 percent faster.
Let’s get to 425 soon.
Uh huh, and if the poles aren’t melting, why do scientists say the poles are melting?
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice
If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would the meltdown currently in progress surprise you, and how could you possibly benefit from it?
Recommend that you spend just a day with a landscaper at an actual greenhouse, and learn how different “greenhouses” behave compared to earth’s dynamic atmospheric system….And no, fossil fuel exhaust does not warm the planet CB. There was no exhaust in 1720’s when temperatures warmed, nor in the middle 19th century, nor any of the millions of times climate has changed in the geologic past….smh…
How could it not?
If emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, and fossil fuel exhaust absorbs this radiation, how could it not warm the planet?
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1
You know that the 97 percent has been shown to be a false statistic.
I do, Mike. It’s much closer to 100%.
Since emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, any gas which absorbs this radiation must warm the planet.
Do greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation?
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm
So, how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and how much heat does it trap? And how much do other factors play a role in temperature?
And about that 97%:
Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
Irrelevant for one, incapable to make such a claim for two. The majority of research on climate science and the entirety of documentation by IPCC has focused on anthropogenic processes, which make up less than 5% of total processes acting on climate system. The overall climate is too large to model, so to make a complete irrelevant claim as “likely” man made cause is laughable and borderline academic fraud. Understand why CB? If you have little to no data on the larger system, one has no credence when making claims from an extremely small sample set (and poorly understood sample set). It is why there is no trust or any level of confidence in the ability of the climate “science” industry….
97% BS
http://prageru.us11.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=6b7cf34895ad2d3096f3d14a4&id=5c76f93ce5&e=657c264bf7
Explain how the C02 molecule does this please
Since you asked so very politely, I’d be glad to!
Greenhouse gasses like CO₂ absorb the infrared radiation coming from the surface of the Earth.
Since emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, that means these gasses must warm the planet.
Make sense?
scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
Plants and trees breath in Co2 and expel oxygen. What makes them wither in dry weather when the plants open up to breath in the Co2 they lose moisture in dry weather. We have too much pavement and not enough plants and trees.
Thanks for your input CB.
This does not show heat retention of any magnitude. 400 parts per million is sparse. The man made contribution is only a fraction of this further diminishing the effects claimed. The best I heard is absorption and re-radiation by the C02 molecule which does not store any heat in itself. This is thought to slow radiation down a fraction causing a small rise in temperature. I feel this is rather an esoteric explanation and probable insignificant.
Radiation is the way Earth loses heat back into the void, its also the way all our energy arrives from our Sun, ingoing and outgoing have the same atmospheric obstacle. Only gravity works against re radiation slowing the exit slightly and possibly aiding the incoming radiation as it slows in the atmosphere.
CO2 lags temp rise, so its an effect, rather than the cause of the temp rise.
Co2 is introduced into tomato houses but for feeding and not heat, 1000 parts per million boosts plant growth and is harmless to humans. Plants die at less than 180 parts per million it seems, so with that in mind I feel concern carbon sequestration is counter productive to our well being.
Sir…
CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere…!
It has a tiny effect on temperature…or anything.
Put it in its proper place.
The Sun fron afar, and water vapor here, determine “all” things.
The important thing now is avoiding the next ice age.
It’s been known for over a century that water vapor makes up 94% of greenhouse gases, yet climate models are unable to accurately account for its behavior on the climate system. AGW jihadists and government leftists would like to ignore such failure, since no incentive or power to tax water vapor…..
Every person living in the world knows that the climate changes. Some areas of the world have 4 seasons, some have constant warm temperatures which results in vacation spots, some areas people build homes in the desert like in Arizona, some areas people build homes on the beaches of our oceans, some areas have two seasons warm and cold. But the bottom line and the truth is the far left has been lying to we the people since mouths were made. False fear flags have come from the pathological left for decades all you need to do is go back and check. According to the liars on the left our planet should have been frozen or burned up more times than a liberal progressive lies. Your pathetic support for the far left power driven imbeciles will guarantee you a job on their plantation if we the people allow them to enslave America with their immoral, dishonest and treasonous agendas.
Yup.
…but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.
If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice
“but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.”
PURE BS !!!!!!
That has NEVER been proven and YOU can’t show that it has!!!
NASA is not an authority on it so spare us with their garbage.
YOU know so little on the topic and it is evident. The Earth’s climate is more complex and chaotic than you can grasp. No one on the planet can prove CO2 DRIVES climate change. NO ONE !!!!
…nor could it be!
It’s a claim specifically designed to be falsifiable.
If it’s false, why haven’t you already done that?
Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today, please.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
You made a statement not back up with any facts. Simple as that. It is not for me to disprove your claim, it is up to YOU to substantiate it and you can’t.
“multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”
REALLY???????
You are dense. You love NASA so here goes:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
OOOPPPSS
hahahahahahaha
“…but not every person living in the world knows that change has always been driven by CO₂.”
Oops… someone forgot orbital variations and changes in the axial tilt of the planet over time. (Milankovitch Cycles )
Someone also forgot changes in the energy output of the Sun… ( more cycles than just the 11 year Sunspot Cycle)
Someone also forgot greater or lesser volcanic activity.
Someone has no knowledge of the fact there have been Ice Ages…(Not to be confused with Glacial Periods) when CO2 levels have been many times higher than now.
” …and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.”
The Right Honourable Lady Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 5 February 1976.
Explain how it becomes a driving force when it always lags temp.
And not every person in the world knows that CO2 is the life giving and sustaining element needed to sustain life on our planet. It is the driver of climate change and the driver of everything that is essential to our lives. As is always the case with you far left liberal propagandists, something good is always fundamentally transformed into something evil. You people are your own worst enemy. You lie on a consistent basis and you never will be trusted because you have proven over and over again that you are incapable of admitting truth and facts because of your corrupt agenda.
I beat you and Exxon to it.
I knew about Climate Change when I was in elementary school in the 1950’s. Learned how my area was covered in a Ice sheet a mile thick just 22,000 years ago..
I guess some leftist morons wish to return to those times… or at least to Little Ice Age conditions of approx. 1300 – 1850.
Is that likely, Robert?
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
“Is that likely, Robert?” Not just likely…. it’s a fact that where I live in the south Ontario region was covered in an Ice Sheet a mile thick 22,000 years ago during the last Glacial Period.
“2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880,..”
Warmer than 2014 by how much? 1/500th..or even 1/50th of a degree or something? (Well within the margin of error.)
Present world temperatures are well within the normal range of variability for this planet.
“… record-keeping began in 1880,..”
Nice… To begin with… a 135 year period of time isn’t even a blink of an eye in the history of this planet. It’s an extremely short data set.
Not to mention we just came out of the L.I.A. about 1850.. and anyone with some common sense would expect it to gradually warm for one or two hundred years.
A fair enough point!
Point to a single moment in all 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.
If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice
Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as
“glaciations.” One such glaciation that occurred during the Late
Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of
climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on
timing, that’s just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to
roam the Earth.
Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million
years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million
years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest
recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently
sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, “Heaven and Earth”, pp165:
A simple google search turned that nugget up and guess where it came from? Skeptical science the AGW’s own kook website
Such a diligent worker you are!
True. True. False!
There was a glaciation at the end of the Ordovician, and it was quite brief (the briefness will actually turn out to be the reason why claim #3 is false, if you last that long).
How do you know CO₂ was “sky-high” at the time?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved
CO2 does not DRIVE climate change and you cannot show that it does no matter how many links you provide. None of them can show it either.
That’s not an answer.
If Ian Plimer, a well-known liar and prostitute for the oil and gas industry, isn’t getting his information from GEOCARB, a proxy that cannot possibly prove his claim, where is he getting it?
Sandy, does it sound like I’ve never heard your dishonest Climate Denier talking point before?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt
Are you saying that when the Earth has no ice caps… it’s “..in trouble” ? ?
Who are we to say what the Earth “should be” ? ?
Throughout the history of the Earth, there have been times of Ice Ages..
(like now.. We are presently in an Ice Age which began about 2.6 million years ago, the Current Ice Age, the Pleistocene Glaciation, or Quaternary Glaciation, all are correct. Do not confuse Ice Ages with Glacial Periods) and also time where Earth is NOT in an Ice Age and is ice free.
Were the ice free times.. horrible times for the planet?
Is it better to be in an Ice Age? Why ? ?
Should we soak the people of the world trillions and trillions of dollars in taxes to “control” the climate of the world ?
Will I get to have a say in what the climate “should” be ? ?
In the history of the planet.. there have been times when it has been much colder.. times when it has been warmer. And for most of the past 600 million years…. atmospheric CO2 has been much, much higher.
Who are we… to claim one state of the planet is “good” and the other state of the planet is “in trouble” ? ? ?
I believe the Gore Bull Warming alarmists are suffering from Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome. (ADPS) They need some counselling while laying on the couch.
The EOT when the Antarctic ice cap formed with CO2 at almost twice today’s level (750 PPM). And don’t bother with that citation for an earlier temporal designation.
No, they won’t mention the possible benefits of a few degrees rise in temperature.
The good Dr McKibben received $10 million from the Rockefellers for his 350.org. Is that OK with you CB?
Nothing wrong with making a living. So Marc Morano makes 150 grand a year or a bit more. Good for him. He earns it. I wish he was making more than that.
How much has Al Gore made from pushing the Global Warming scare? I bet he gets a hell of a lot more than Morano.
How about Al Gore’s Canadian pal, fruit fly Dr. David Suzuki the Canadian Global Warming Alarmist with his four properties… one of them worth $8 Million.. and his jet trips to Australia and vacations in Bhutan ? ? ( He tells the rest of us lowly peons that we have to cut back our extravagant middle class lifestyles…. as jet setting Leonardo DiCaprio also tells us. Can you spell “Hypocrisy” ? ? )
How much has Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann made ? Millions for his work and his lab.
How about James “Fudgin’ the Numbers” Hansen? Millions from various sources over the years for his Global Warming work… including leftist Theresa Hienz foundation cash..
And you’re concerned about Marc Morano making $150,000 or so a year …. so funny…
Tha AGW kooks know that their scam doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Therefore they must shut down debate and say AGW is a fact. More like a poor joke that is. Their 97% consensus has been shown to be a farce yet they continue with that garbage. Why?
A Boeing TESTED* Laser Plasma Shield CAN REPEL asteroids and threatening space superstorms, that may blow up all nukes! http://LaserEarthShield.info
Kudos to the Senators for exposing the anti-science lobbyists purposefully sowing misinformation and doubt about climate change. Right out of the tobacco playbook. Has nothing to do with free speech.
Do you wonder if there a pro-CAGW lobby groups too?
Anyone wanting to shut down debate on the topic of AGW is anti-science. The irony of AGW kooks calling skeptics “anti-science” is a joke. Just shows how shallow thinking they truly are!
Nope, it’s not about shutting down debate, it’s about holding organizations like Heartland accountable for purposefully misinforming and misrepresenting science. Same tactics as tobacco lobby. You’ve fallen for it. Educate yourself.
Go away fool. You know nothing about it. You are just a mindless sheep. Quit trying to respond to me. I am not impressed by anything you post. Clear?
More nonsense and name calling. We don’t much care if you are impressed or not.
Then why do you feel the need to respond? Every name said to you, you deserve. You are an idiot who knows nothing about climate dynamics. NOTHING
You are now on ignore. I won’t see anything you post, so respond away. FOOL.
Who are we?
Alarmists are the ones misrepresenting science. Atmospheric levels of CO2 has absolutely no impact on human health. You’ve fallen for it. Educate yourself.
So can you prove they misinformed anybody or misrepresented anything?
If they show satellite data as being in a long pause and claiming that the data shows we are in a long pause, is that misinforming people or misrepresenting science?
If they show that the surface temperatures keep on being altered in a fashion that conforms to the CAGW hypothesis, is that misinforming people or misrepresenting the science?
Nope. they are just making sure people are informed about aspects that these senators do not want you to be informed about because they deem these facts to be unimportant.
You are being naive. Their objective is not about informing the public. It’s about distorting scientific inquiry, to protect special interests.
Show how they are “distorting scientific inquiry”. Can you? I doubt it.
So which side is distorting the facts?
Both sides claim that the best estimate of ECS between 1.5 and 4.5. One side claims this is proof they know what will happen and will use law to prove it, while another claims there is still great uncertainty.
If you made $15 an hour or $45 and hour, I bet you could see the difference pretty easily.
If they show satellite data as being in a long pause
Paws everybody!
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aad66faf7d58a0bf7b4a5dcd8c60e29ea174e19552179c9f0b80d8715e8f30ab.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00ef14e2872046fad03948fd7c6b1db8d1754addd92cd60b61ae463e88a939df.jpg
Nice to see a person with a sense of humour 🙂
There are no scientific studies that show, by empirical evidence, that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions), have ever been the primary cause of global warming.
Both of the satellite data sets (RSS & UAH) show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. This data is consistent with the balloon data with which the satellite data are egularly checked. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.
The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old and the climate has been changing the entire time. Most climate scientists believe that humans contribute to global warming to some extent. The relevant questions then are how much global warming is caused by human activities (primarily CO2 emissions) and are the warming effects good or bad?
The hypothesis that human are the primary cause of global warming since the early 1950s (AGW) is not supported by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is based on climate models which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These climate models have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Climate models that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18 year and eight month pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.
The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.
We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). CO2 emissions were only 3-4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012 to 0.0016 % of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.
Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18 year and 8 month pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.
AGW is about power, politics and greed. Every time the facts change due to nature’s failure to cooperate with the AGW hypothesis , the Believers move the goal posts . They have at least 66 excuses for the 18+ year pause in global warming and the failure of the computer climate models to predict it. The Believers blame any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming based on modeled projections and with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda and profit from the AGW industry (which we must perpetuate at all costs).
An anti-democracy theme is a common thread within the AGW movement:
“U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer advised in 2010, ‘One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.’
Odin, well done. Don’t expect the fool to answer you. Why? He doesn’t have the expertise to do so.
Curious how this same response shows up word-for-word all over the Internet. All you’ve done is cut/paste the usual HI prepared rubbish talking points designed to mislead and misinform. Exposed.
Actually this is my own post that I wrote myself. I post it often to expose the AGW Believers and their alarmism.
Great, love the CO2 is plant food so more must be good argument. And AGW is about wealth redistribution.. Must be a conspiracy!
I see how you can’t or are unable to critique odin’s facts as listed. Your fall back is the weak “conspiracy” meme. Yet you want to be taken seriously. Really? Then you wonder why I call you names. They are apropos for you.
No. It is not a conspiracy. But it is a conglomeration of vested interests. There are two quotes to keep in mind when considering this question:
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Vladimir Lenin;
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Sinclair Lewis
The AGW hypothesis is failing because of mother nature and the lack of empirical evidence. Consequently, there are fewer and fewer true believers- especially among scientists. However, AGW has a lot of inertia because believers have invested their political, journalistic, blogging and scientific careers for many years in this hypothesis. Universities and science societies are very dependent on government funding . There are students in the pipeline, climate research centers to pay for, professional reputations are at stake, and capitalists and governments have made huge investments in “green energy”. Then their are the agendas to promote statism, socialism and world government. AGW has become a big and powerful industry with lots of money and lots to lose when the climate refuses to cooperate. How would you feel if you had invested in a buggy whip company just before the horseless carriage was invented? How do you think that the farmers who formed coops to invest in ethanol plants are feeling when they are told that ethanol is environmentally, financially, and ethically unsound?
The largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the US is GE. It makes so much in “green” subsidies that in some years it paid no federal income taxes. Do you think GE wants to throw away its investment in wind energy? Google is heavily invested in solar energy. Big Oil is heavily investing in renewable and alternative energy sources. None of these alternative energy investments make any economic sense without large government subsidies and tax benefits.
For a good discussion on “green oil” and “crony capitalism” read the article “The Tip of the Climate Spending Iceberg” by Paul Driessen or his book, “Cracking Big Green”. Driessen’s article can be found here:
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2015/03/28/the-tip-of-the-climate-spending-iceberg-n1977444/page/full
The climate change industry is $1.5 trillion a year globally (and this does not include grants and donations for research by governments and non-governmental entities).
“The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.”
….
That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm
http://www.climatechangebusiness.com/Climate_Change_Consulting_Report
Big Oil donates to many green organizers :
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.TdL2Gt7E.dpbs
Many green organizations take money from big oil and heavy industries:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.2wNPdVfI.dpbs
And foreign entities connected with the Russian oil and gas industry have given money to green groups opposing fracking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/20/russia-greenpeace-nato-fracking_n_5513992.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking
See the government’s 2014 report to Congress on government funding of climate science research:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
The UN and the World Bank think they can fix climate change with $89 Trillion which would mostly come from developed countries (think the U.S.):
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/nobel-chutzpah-prize-2015-un-world-bank-need-89-trillion/
Over the last two decades [1990- 2010], US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Glover%20%20Economides%20-%20The%20GW%20Science%20Machine%20-%20by%20Jenn%2008%2010%2009.pdf
odin, again, well done!! Hats off to you!
Thanks
$89T? Insane!
I see Germany has abandoned AGW mitigation after spending $1.2T, $79B sounds low to me. Just in the Stimulus bill we gave DOE $40B to expand green energy projects.
It occurred to me that if the government starts calling AGW denial hate speech, that means all the journals and articles that promote common sense would have to be destroyed, eh? A little Farenheit 451.
I seem to recall liberal praise back in the ’60’s for that book . . .
Any idea what constitutes conspiracy? Two or more talking of plans or action qualifies under UK law.
Can’t critique the facts, huh? Figures. You have nothing, little boy.
I can agree with your mail in its entirety, the warmists have to revert to propaganda now and can not, or will not argue point by point with science. The facts of the matter are when their theory is placed beyond argument we might ask him many coincidences are reasonable?
Poor hapless Odin has been shown scores of times. That’s how everyone knows it is not telling the truth.
Best,
D
Not by YOU, FRAUD.
You have nothing but snide remarks yet you want people to think you’re smart and educated? Yeah, Right. Gotcha!
hahahahahahahahaha
Shucky darns. You falsely said you blocked me. Now your LoInfo comments appear in my reader.
Best,
D
yeah, I blocked you for a while but you are too easy and too fun. If anybody is “low-nformation” it’s YOU by a mile.
LMAO at Dano the fool
Weak-bluffing LOLO bluffs weakly.
Best,
D
think so? Oh, that’s right. You imagine yourself to be some expert poker player.
LMAO at Dano the kook FRAUD
You’re too boring to make a fool of. Besides, you do it so well all by yourself….
Do you not think it very odd that as every body knows you seem to be the only one pointing it out?
stop it and just go away. This site is for intellectuals and obviously you are an uneducated lemming. just go away.
You can’t hide the fact poor hapless Odin has been given these answers scores of times, so we know it is not telling the truth.
Best,
D
Good presentation but it would take a book (in fact there are several) to demonstrate that GW is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the name of science.
Anyone, with an open mind, approaching the subject for the first time would do well to Google Maurice Strong, John Holdren and Ingrid Newkirk. The alarmist “research” has one goal: prove that human activity is the ONLY cause of Climate Change (aka Global Warming aka Climate Disturbance) and if massive draconian measures are not implemented this activity will cause a catastrophic increase in global temperatures.
Billions of dollars, not to mention the lives of millions, are at stake. The alarmists will use every tool at hand to stifle a contrary view including intimidation (Exxon/Mobile) vilification of individual scientists, collusion (CRU, East Anglia University), flawed methodology (Michael Mann) and risible propaganda (Al Gore).
Notwithstanding the abundance of contrary data, people like Dano2 will continue to scoff. After all that’s so much easier (and much more fun) than addressing facts.
Cass, true and well said!
Explain instead of excusing this poor behaviour!
Galileo comes to mind.
Another AGW kook desperate for conversation trolls here.
A nice video those dumb Senators should try watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
Patrick Moore is a well-known lobbyist and is repeating long-debunked HI talking points. He has no credibility in climate science circles.
Why does he have no credibility? You can say stuff, but it is meaningless without any evidence to support your opinion.
Quick question. Is there any “denier” you find credible or do you just say they are not credible if they are deniers?
Represents himself as an “expert” but has no background in climate science nor has he published any peer reviewed science on the topic. His consultancy GreenSpirit is a PR outfit not one of scientific inquiry. He was a spokesman in and cheerleader for Morano’s silly dumumentary Climate Hustle. His views on climate change are diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy.
“opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy.”
Which means what, sheep? You can’t think for yourself and YOU know nothing about climate dynamics. You are just a troll spouting your “rubbish”.
Which means his views are extreme and outrageous. He is purposefully trying to mislead and distort. The public should ignore him, his ridiculous message and the organizations with which he is affiliated,
You don’t know whether his views are extreme or not. You just think they are. He is one of MANY who make the same case. That is why there is such an effort to shut everyone up and say AGW is proven. It isn’t. You and NO ONE else on the planet can explain how CO2 is DRIVING climate change. That is a fact. Simply saying that because humans are emitting CO2 and CO2 acts as a GHG isn’t ALL THERE IS. You can’t show how it is DRIVING climate and neither can anyone else. FACT.
The evidence is overwhelming; please educate yourself: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes:
That link proves nothing. Nowhere in that link can they show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. They can’t show how it is doing it and neither can YOU.
I’ve seen that link a million times. Only fools and shallow thinkers accept that link as “evidence”.
BTW, the link you attempted to show is broken. No need to retry, I’ve already seen it. It isn’t proof.
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Read it and then come back and tell us what you’ve learned.
That will not show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. You can’t show it. A fact you can’t accept but it is never the less true.
In your fairy tale world!
aaahhhhh!!! Now we get to it. LMAO!! You simply can’t prove your case, fool.
Its not, if you think it is spell it out for us. Or are you the only two clever enough to see it?
“You and NO ONE else on the planet can explain how CO2 is DRIVING climate change. That is a fact.”
Suggest you enroll in a Climate Science intro course at your local college or university. Many insitutions provide these to the lay public. One on critical thinking would be good for you too.
Again, you can’t substantiate how CO2 DRIVES climate. You simply don’t know enough about it to argue a cogent point. Your sophomoric attempts at condescension are why I call you names. You really are ignorant.
you can’t substantiate how CO2 DRIVES climate.
We can, for over a century. This one lacks education and knowledge to know any better.
Best,
D
NO you can’t, FRAUD
Show it, if you can. Nothing you can provide will do so.
LMAO at the FRAUD
CO2 has NEVER been the driver of climate PERIOD
People 10 times smarter than YOU say the same thing I do. Go argue with them.
Little LOLO lacks education and knowledge.
Sad!
We’ve known this, LOLO, for two centuries. Well, you haven’t known this ever, but hey.
Two centuries of physics and chemistry that CO2 keeps them thar earf from bein an ice ball:
Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:
The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:
You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.
Best,
D
You keep posting the same crap that does NOT show how CO2 drives climate. You have nada, zilch, bubkis and all the other inane garbage you write.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
Again, you have no clue whether CO2 precedes or comes after temperature rises
Anyone with a modicum of education and mental capability knows LOLO is making a weak deflection here. LOLO has diddly-squat.
And I’ll take the points on offer too:
o CO2 lags temp in Vostok record [10 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f5cf43a30f7ed526fe2ee459131f98c9f4c83c5e62ef9df076d79b6e5d1e4535.gif
So you have all bases covered. Leading or lagging it DRIVES climate. Sure!
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
LOLO lacks integrity to educate itself.
Best,
D
right.
Is that it?
That is all you can to say about CO2 DRIVING climate change?
You simply can’t show it. All you can do is condescend.
Shallow
LOLO lacks education, will, courage to grasp references it was given to educate itself out of its ignorance.
LOLO makes us LOLz.
Best,
D
Your references don’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. They don’t it is that simple.
Just saying that CO2 redirects heat back to the surface doesn’t prove anything. You simply can’t show HOW CO2 DRIVES climate change.
Little LOLO fails again.
Best,
D
Dano has nothing but condescension. How usual.
LMAO at the FRAUD
That’s not hiding your wonderful, awesome, big-boy, good job, buddy! failure.
Best,
D
As if you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
You can’t.
Your condescending deflection is duly noted.
Good job crushing Dano, buddy! Good job! Awesome!
Best,
D
You still can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. FACT
I gave you several references that do, as you bumbled and fumbled and laughably claimed Nothing you can provide will do so. CO2 has NEVER been the DRIVER of climate PERIOD .
That is, in fact, showing.
FACTS, yo. Git you some. You ain’t got no facts.
Best,
D
They don’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
They don’t and you can’t repeat what you have supposedly learned to show it either.
Where are your facts. YOURS?
To put it simply, your links show how CO2 CONTRIBUTES to climate change not how it DRIVES it. I figured I would have to spell it out for your pea-brain.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. Look up in the daytime sky. You’ll get your answer there.
You can’t grasp the references. Got it.
But here. Here is something in easy to grasp, simple, junior college-level language that you might be able to grasp that will end your ceaseless, baseless whining about CO2 is not the main driver of climate change.
And I’ll take those points on offer:
o Sun actually influences climate [15 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
That shows nothing too. You have nothing and it’s apparent. Their speculation is no better than Salby’s
My mouseovers for the links indicate that this reply was utterly and totally predictable. Had you clicked the links and seen the mouseovers, even the likes of you wouldn’t have typie-typed such a comically dim response.
And you aren’t even amusing in your comical predictability – comedy isn’t created this way. We require better amusement.
Best,
D
Again, you nothing but insults. You still can’t show that CO2 is the DRIVER of climate change FACT
I looked at them. They are meaningless.
Richard Alley, like you, is a FRAUD
Joke’s on you.
Best,
D
Nope. You are telling them well.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD (kook as well)
That wasn’t amusing to me either.
You are dismissed.
Best,
D
Thank you.
LMAO at the FRAUD who thinks he knows something that isn’t.
Lets not hold our breath while we wait!
No, you never have shown the mechanism.
Typing something 1000 times doesn’t make it true. Try a thousand and one, maybe that will do it.
Best,
D
Dano all I ask is you show what you claim, this you have never done usually in two or three word nonsense posts
“…CO2 has NEVER been the DRIVER of climate PERIOD”
All red-faced promoting his fairy tale. Read the 2013 Physical Science Basis and then come back and tell us what you’ve learned.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
That doesn’t prove anything other than you being a lemming. As odin said above “There are no scientific studies that show, by empirical evidence, that
human activities (mostly CO2 emissions), have ever been the primary
cause of global warming.” That is a FACT you can’t refute.
You didn’t do your homework did you. If you want to continue to wallow in your ignorance, that’s your choice. I can’t help you.
You exemplify ignorance. You haven’t been able to show CO2 DRIVES climate change. It CONTRIBUTES to change. Learn the difference, dummy.
IT DOES NOT DRIVE CHANGE.
The climate is too complex for your pea-brain to understand. You are to stupid to understand that basic concept.
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by ~40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and land use changes. Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
Read the 2013 Physical Science Basis and note its conclusions. Then come back and tell us what you’ve learned: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5…
“Total radiative forcing is positive”
You don’t know that. That has yet to be proven. Amazing that you think 120 parts per MILLION Drives climate change. Incredible.
Then you wonder why I call you names. All you have are appeals to authority as if that proves anything. You don’t understand that many people in those societies you like to cite DON’T agree with the ruling body’s assessment on climate change. Again, you have NOTHING.
Then substantial it please. Show experimental data to support the theory that C02 can cause warming.
I already substantialed it already. Can you grasp it?
Best,
D
Critical thinking is taught to replace logic. It is not logic and reinforces consensus thinking, this can stifle innovation and is inherently bad for science and engineering.
Exactly, to drive change it appears caus and effect are reversed. This needs explaining to folk.
Who is an expert in climate science. Is a Cardiologist and expert in Neurosurgery? So who is the expert doctor? Climate science is the same.
I’m not climate expert, but I know which questions climate science can’t answer, like what is the ECS, or something vastly more simple. Which global surface dataset is the best, or how accurate are they.
If they can’t answer the simple questions, how can they know that Moore is so full of shit that you can use the law to take him to court?
IPCC says the ECS is likely between 1.5 and 4.5, just like the first ECS estimates made around 50 years ago. Yup #Exxonknew, as does the IPCC, and they have known for half a century.
I know which questions climate science can’t answer, like what is the ECS
sure they can. You were duped.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6d8c4a6583e9429a240a8dcae87d2f1241df1c28e6ec288105f9b7d2360c4ed.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7a3394934fd9dc5553fc8932f8292e3f02bf3719e272a97fbf4aaffeee9ea189.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e9959e397fa235fe582c531a7afc99dffc62b5a1b2063528905b34c9e98b1e0.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ea01684bb4cf6b729c8ecaeff412c2d561ad5c7edbacea512738820e4734170.jpg
Throw darts at a board while blindfolded will give you as much useful information.
LMAO at the FRAUD
various estimates (GUESSES) of climate sensitivity??????
Oh my L M A O
This hapless commenter falsely asserted it blocked me, and I was enjoying not seeing its inanities in my reader.
Please block me to spare me from having to read this nincompoopery.
Best,
D
Nope. You lose. All you have are inane childish remarks. I think I’ll ride you like my new horse.
LMAO at Dano the kook FRAUD
hahahahaha
BTW, dumb-dumb you could always read what I posted that is why you continued to respond to me. Boy are you dumb trying to run that garbage by people
False assertions from LOLO. Block me anytime, as your amusement is not consistent.
Best,
D
Dummy
So what is the ESC then? It is like saying I’m 6ft tall give or take 2 feet or so.
Central value of estimates is 3C.
Best,
D
Yup, give or take 50% and of course the possibility it outside of that as well.
The law seems to believe that the +/-50% is not relevant, and anybody who says it is should be prosecuted. In short, scientifically supported opinions are being threatened with being outlawed.
That should concern people who value freedom.
Totes intelligent reply. Good job buddy!
Best,
D
You need to add “amongst climate warming circles”
Another video for the idiot Senators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Senators already aware of this standard retired clown and his ignorance of global warming, so don’t listen to him:
Best,
D
He is still MORE credentialed and SMARTER than you therefore his opinion carries more weight.
Poor intellectually challenged Dano
LMAO
Hapless LOLO will take an ignoramuses’ word for it any day, as long as it validates its self-identity.
Smart!
Best,
D
If I take an ignoramuses’ word for things, tell me why I should accept yours?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AS there is no apparent Global warming in real evidence, how do you claim knowledge. Especially as the cause is unsubstantiated by experimental data.
“there is no apparent Global warming in real evidence…”.
How did you come up with this outrageous statement?
Go away fool. You know nothing about it.
Good comedy line. Parody character appears real.
7 of 10.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1533d3e4c194a7e7bcecaf21c34f9bb1d461f63aaf63f7f20d0db5440f9949b8.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00ef14e2872046fad03948fd7c6b1db8d1754addd92cd60b61ae463e88a939df.jpg
I have now had to block a second AGW kook. I love that I’m inside their heads, rent free. They are idiots who can’t refute what I post.
LMAO at the clowns.
All flustered and resorts to more name-calling cuz he can’t handle it when challenged.
Flustered at you? Dream on little broomstick cowboy. You aren’t bright enough to make me “flustered’.
LMAO at Ian the Idiot
Deep thoughts.
Deeper than you can comprehend for sure.
You should actually block him instead of fibbing about blocking.
Best,
D
Poor Dano, desperate for interaction with anyone. Don’t respond until you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. You can’t. You show zero literature, just a kook on a video.
You made that up. Weakly.
Best,
D
Sure.
hahahahahaha
Well hardly made it up, its what I have been asking for years and you still have not explained why you think C02 is the driving force?
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by ~40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and land use changes. Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
Read the 2013 Physical Science Basis and then share what you’ve learned: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Explain how c02 is a cause
Tell us how many times it has to be explained to you before you stop pretending it has never been explained to you. I’m sure Ian has done it at least a hundred times. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/310fc37504130dad699eb16e2d1f7907b1e352441426d0660f9b1253bda43d8b.gif
Best,
D
Comic Cuts rises again
How many times does it have to be explained to you?
Best,
D
If you type it a billllllll-yunnnn times it might actually become reality. Go you!
Best,
D
Weakly played, again. Still. Standard fare.
Best,
D
Ian all you need to do is explain why? Just falling out with folks who differ does not make them fools, it says much about you though.
A British professor that knows whats up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8
Ian Plimer, the darling of Australian climate change deniers. He’s Australian not British. Presume you know the difference.
Can’t critique the message, huh. Figures. Poor Ian the dumb troll.
Name-calling…strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.
Right. You can’t critique the message. Why? Could be you’re stupid. Figures.
I’ll take the points on offer:
o Fake expert usage to bolster argument, 50+ points if report was plagiarized [15 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
You still can’t challenge his points. Character assassination is all you have, little boy.
I already scored points on that. What else do you have for me.
Best,
D
Points???
hahahahaha
Points as in you are the loser.
So says the dummy that can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
If you type it a thousand times, a unicorn might appear and make it come true.
Best,
D
Right.
hahahahahahaha
This one puts it in a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio
Fox News, your preferred source of rubbish. Figures.
Stupid troll can’t critique what’s in the message. Figures.
“…cringes when he hears 100 year weather forecasts”. I’ll bet you lap this stuff up. FYI, weather and climate are not the same thing. You fell for it.
I know the difference, fool. You don’t know anything about climate dynamics. You fell for the AGW scam. Poor little Ian fool.
You say you know the difference yet you continue to circulate error- ridden Fox News rubbish. Gullible and/or intentionally trying to mislead/misinform. Name calling is a strategy of propagandists and the weak-minded.
You deserve every name I call you. You have no clue about climate dynamics. You have nothing.
What a big important boy you are, fluffing your feathers. Read the multiple lines of evidience then come back and tell us what you’ve learned: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
The IPCC is a scam organization, kook.
Too lazy to read the report and understand the process used to develop it. Calling it a scam because you don’t like the conclusions/implications is so much easier for the weak-minded.
Just like you won’t read anything contrary to YOUR beliefs. Gotcha.
Get back to me when you can show how CO2 DRIVES climate change. The IPCC has yet to do that, BTW
I have actually read it and watched it including your silly Fox News clips. Universally it is shallow rubbish designed to mislead and misinform. The implications of CO2 are covered and fully referenced in Chapter 8 – Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar,
a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem
to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the
[UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents
represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could
be further from the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for
the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process
used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed
out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now
questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the
earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability
and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed
temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC
climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the
earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar
concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC
process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a
“sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the
Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his
name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the
top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,”
he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s
National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s
2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but
resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with
playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17,
2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am
withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the
IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being
motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”
Landsea added.
hmmmmmmmmmmm……………………………….
Khandekar – the same retired Kandekar that was on Heartland’s payroll.
Reiter – a malaria expert, not a climate scientist
Landsea – withdrew his participation but does not dispute the serious nature of AGW
Any other trivial arguments?
They were IPCC guys. Case closed
hahahahahaha
Closed in your narrow mind only. Any idea how many scientists were involved in the IPCC report? Count ’em:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf
Thousands of others differ. Count ’em. You count on your scam masters to close down debate. Not happening. You can’t silence those of us who don’t believe your garbage. More and more people are seeing AGW for what it is, a scam. Time and climate itself are proving that!
Cute little anti-science fairy tale. There is no debate, just an organized lobby that aims to mislead and mis-represent the science on behalf of special interests.
Right. You have nothing to prove CO2 DRIVES climate change. Gotcha.
As I’ve suggested previously, first do some homework, then come back and tell us what you’ve learned:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/22_free_market_groups_call_dems_tyrants_for_targeting_them_on_senate_floor/#comment-2785566066
You have not provided evidence that CO2 DRIVES climate change. Again, you have nothing.
You want to keep arguing?
Your point?
You have no credible evidence to show that CO2 DRIVES climate change.
Just appeals to authority. Shallow.
There has been plenty of evidence for decades, you are just top lazy to look for it and read it when provided to you. Too much time on Heartland and denier sites that appeal to your narrow ideology. Can’t help you.
Good. You can’t help me. Now, get lost. You can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change.
I’ve shown you multiple times but you don’t want to learn. I get it…it’s a little complex for you, you feel threatened and don’t like change. And it’s at odds with your narrow ideology. I thought you were going to BLOCK me.
“Thousands of others differ”. Presumably you are referring to the silly Oregon Petition Project. Has been thoroughly debunked.
No it hasn’t. Yes, some phony names on the petition. Most, over half, are legit.
Included only about 30-40 who identified as having a climatology specialization if I’m not mistaken. New Scientist’s Peter Hadfield summed it up nively this way: “The petition’s suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that’s been done, is patent crap”.
So what?
That negates the other signatories?
BS
nice try though.
It’s neither credible nor significant. Thoroughly debunked and meaningless.
According to FRAUDS like you, maybe. Come back when you have proof for your AGW scam.
Orwellian free speech. Agree with us or we’ll make you agree with us.
This is for the idiot Ian. he might be able to comprehend it. It is his speed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE
The track record for this administration and congress is not something which endears much trust , it does however gives rise to a good amount of skepticism in its ability to reach reasoned decisions. Draw any conclusions you wish, but Think about what their plans are and what the consequences are if they succeed.
We are still playing defense, how about an attack for a change. Sue Al Gore, Suzuki, Mann and a few Senators for fraud, obtaining money through false pretenses, corruption of data, deliberately misleading the public and policy makers, and so on. It’s way past time for some action.
If you are concerned about “…deliberately misleading the public and policy makers” you should also go after organizations like the Heartland Institute. Their sole purpose on the climate file is to sow doubt and deliberately mislead and misinform. Straight from the big tobacco playbook.
Show us the scientific evidence of catastrophic global warming, not opinions but scientific evidence, we have all been waiting for 30 years for such evidence.
As this is settled science it should be readily available.
Note I ask for scientific evidence, not opinions based on models, adjusted temperature data, environmentalists, their blogs and political opportunists.
Evidence please, we are waiting.
I have several comments on this thread with the evidence you seek.
No one has been waiting 30 years for such everdance.
Best,
D
The scientific evidence for warming of the planetary climate system is unequivocal and is readily available. There are multiple lines of evidence. Read it then come back and tell us what you’ve learned: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
All of those charges would be laughed out of court and those bringing such charges would be pointed at for having no credibility.
Best,
D
Not if the warmists were questioned under oath, something they have studiously avoided to date.
Last time scientist were under oath, they won the court case and the denialists were close to literally being laughed out of court.
Best,
D
Evidence please.
Already provided. I edited with a mouseover to make it even more simple to find.
Best,
D
Anyone who cites a Guardian article by Dana Nuccitelli is beyond reason or hope.
I couldn’t find the ref on a Murdoch outlet, Daily Coaler, or Brietbart for you, sorry.
Best.
D
democrats are one step ahead of the neanderthal when it comes to thinking Actually Neanderthals were Smarter
So we warmed a couple of degrees since the end of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850. Nice… The leftist idiots think the Little Ice Age time was a nicer time? Better study history.
Not too mention that historically… civilization has always done much better during the warmer times.. beginning with the Holocene Climate Optimum and the first settled villages, agriculture, domestication of animals and the first writing…
How many of the leftist idiots realize that we are still in an Ice Age that began about 2.6 million years ago ? (Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the Current Ice Age,.) As long as there are ice caps, ice fields, ice sheets, and glaciers, we are in an Ice Age.
We are currently in an Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during the Current Ice Age.
But the Leftists ..suffering from Alarmist Delusional Paranoia Syndrome, (ADPS), aren’t interested in facts that interfere with their political agenda.
Spending too much time on denier sites. Climate science and it’s implications has nothing to do with political parties. Why not educate yourself: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Spending too much time on scam sites. Gotcha.
LMAO at the fool.
NASA has as much credibility in my eyes as Exxon does in yours.
Your silly point is noted. Also note that the findings and positions of NASA’s Earth Systems Science program are consistent with the views of virtually every US and international scientific academy. I’ve previously asked you to provide readers with some names of organizations that you deem to be credible. Still waiting.
Your inability to show how CO2 DRIVES climate is duly noted. So that makes your point beyond silly.
I’ve previously asked you to provide readers with some names of organizations that you deem to be credible. Still waiting…and waiting. Oops there aren’t any.
There are plenty of individuals and you know it. You discount every one of them. You still can’t show how CO2 DRIVES climate change and you’ll never be able to do so. LEMMING= Ian
You can’t name a single organization and everyone knows it.
Best,
D
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.V4lZIjXeNK1
hahahahahahaha
That is from one of your own sites that think all those organizations are spreading “disinformation”. Sure.
hahahahahaha
ALEC is a credible org scientifically. So is AFP and Heartland.
snicker
Best,
D
As credible as anything YOU cite.
hahahahahahaha
Delusional.
Best,
D
Right.
hahahahaha
ALEC done equil to NOAA, ever’buddy.
Best,
D
Sure.
hahahahaha
Good explanation of the disinformation efforts and funding sources. The organizations have no basis in scientific inquiry. You’ve been duped. Still waiting.
Nothing you have is reputable either. How about that. They all depend on government money to keep the scam alive.
hahahahaha
Nope, not looking for individuals — there are contrarians on virtually every topic. I want some respectable science-based organizations or professional associations. Still waiting.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
ALEC, Heartland, CEI are respectable science-based organizations or professional associations.
Hoot! I LOLzed!
Best,
D
As respectable as anything you supply.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
LOLO can’t name a single respectable [denialist] science-based organizations or professional associations. that ain’t believin in no human-caused climate change.
Because there aren’t any.
Best,
D
Right.
hahahahahaha
Right, everyone can tell you don’t have squat. Jack. Diddly. Bupkis. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Best,
D
Right.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
hahahahahaha
Injuneers and astronauts, not a single one published in the climate sciences.
My, you are impressive. Yer crushing this.
Best,
D
I am, thank you, FRAUD
hahahahaha
Resorting to PopTech’s comedy skit instead of answering the quershin.
Impressive intellect.
Best,
D
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar,
a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem
to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the
[UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents
represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could
be further from the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for
the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process
used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed
out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now
questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the
earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability
and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed
temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC
climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the
earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar
concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC
process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a
“sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the
Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his
name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the
top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,”
he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s
National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s
2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but
resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with
playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17,
2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am
withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the
IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In
addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their
response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in
good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being
motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”
Landsea added.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………………………………
learn how to spell question if you wish to be taken seriously. Your efforts to be cute reveal your shallowness, FRAUD
Standard quote-mined fare seen a thousand times.
You crushin this, bro.
Best,
D
You can’t refute it though…..
hahahahahaha
Dano the FRAUD
Everyone’s laughed at these quote-mines for years. Joke’s on you.
I’ll take those points on offer:
o Cherry-picking a statement out of context to uphold your view [20 points]
https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame
Best,
D
hehehehehehehe
Standard quote-mined fare… i’ll have to remember that one!
While your at it, Ian, get down and shine Dano’s shoes.
LMAO at the pair of kooks blowing one another.
hahahahahahaaa
Trivial arguments:
Khandekar – the same retired Khandekar that was on Heartland’s payroll.
Reiter – a malaria expert, not a climate scientist.
Landsea – withdrew his participation but does not dispute the serious nature of AGW.
Another cut/paste from a climate disinformation site. Predictable.
Demonstrates and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the democrat party is corrupt to the core, dishonest to the core, immoral to the core and perverted to the core.
Where’s brain-dead D today?
he was here earlier. The kook will be back. Dummies like Ian and CB are taking his place at the moment.
He’s back
Demonstrates that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Religious Environmental Extremist cause which ignores real climate science. I have voted for Democraps for president exclusively since I voted for John Kennedy, and I support most social and economic causes of the democratic left but I’m smart enough to know the difference between science and religion. However I oppose extreme environmental and animal activism not based on science. Clearly the Cyclic Solar output of the Sun together with the Cyclic orbital distance of the Earth from the Sun controls climate change including the cyclic change of Earth’s Tilt. Atmospheric CO2 has no effect on Natural Cyclic Climate Change. But plentiful atmospheric CO2 is essential for Life on Earth. Plants evolved on Earth when atmospheric CO2 was around 4000ppm. More atmospheric Co2 is entirely beneficial for Life on Earth.
A intro science class awaits your enrollment and attendance.
Best,
D
You’re obviously a dunce and a troll when comes to CO2 science, plant science, Climate Science, The 2nd Law of thermodynamics, Natural Climate Cycles, Sun cycles or anything else related to Climate change.
Your statements are a clear indicator you are utterly uneducated in the natural sciences, hence my statement.
Best,
D
Your statements indicate that you’re an intellectual Zombie programed to ignore facts,
Dunce, trolls and zombie’s aside, why not educate yourself on some basics: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Let everyone know when you enroll.
Best,
D
Let everyone know when your narcissistic personality disorder has been cured, if ever.
Mick, Dano is a kook suffering from Dunning-Kruger.
Exactly! Thanks for the info! Sorry I misdiagnosed him!
That isn’t hiding the fact you are clearly uneducated in the sciences.
Best,
D
Yep Dunning Kruger syndrome. A hopeless case for sure.
That’s not hiding it either.
Best,
D
“Atmospheric CO2 has no effect on Natural Cyclic Climate Change”.
Please tell readers how you came to such an outrageous conclusion. A The statement completely contradicts the science of climate change and the findings and positions of virtually every American and international scientific academy.
Democratic now becoming an outlaw party?
50 former IPCC experts
1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant
acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has
been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for
Policymakers).
2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t
cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some
700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most
of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global
warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented
and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of
a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of
climate.”
5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as
state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single
mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC)
Summary for Policymakers.”
8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of
approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable
human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support
the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human
activities.”
9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard
by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is
a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the
hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide
emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global
warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from
ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding
our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC
has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and
coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the
present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more
recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem
with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the
most-used IPCC scenarios.”
13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the
sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes
of climate change.”
14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the
anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after
[NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the
[scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at
first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were
false.”
15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s
most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no
signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall
frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large
increases in the population at risk.”
16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to
grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who
questions their authority.”
18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a
significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual
number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”
19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate
change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When
people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.”
20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity
and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally
unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate
model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more
than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made
with them.”
22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by
the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of
magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”
23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be
taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review
process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC
report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it
might be.”
24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts
of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these
claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for
Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated
process of spin-doctoring.”
26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in
the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put
together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute
to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived
agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics
rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists
say and exploits public ignorance.”
29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century
have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming
for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is
grossly overstated.”
30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC
reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in
which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of
a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the
IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead
authors.”
32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a
“consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and
also misleading.”
33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time
scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the
science is not settled.”
34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many
scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research
funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are
willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of
the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a
rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually
intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy
actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding
of the climate system.”
37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions …
predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to
uncertainties.”
38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think
that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by
people who are not scientists.”
39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever
someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is
settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers
Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data
altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the
data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct
contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”
42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a
very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time
scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant
relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and
was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause
global warming are only a means to that goal.”
44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political
rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions
in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite
voices.”
45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in
weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid
conclusion that global warming is man made.”
46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in
the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by
overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this
trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant
drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of
alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same
data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.
By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the
light of publication.”
More comical and uneducated dependence on quote-mined passages plagiarized from a disinformation site.
Precious.
Best,
D
You dispute the quotes? No? So what where I obtained them. Truth hurts, huh Dano the FRAUD
hahahahahahaha
Of course there are any number of issues with the quotes.
F’r instance #1.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/759d874fc7317278920f08890234a3558ac775628bd82eaaed29aa5dd0343338.jpg
AGW disinformation. Figures.
You failed to refute, you only clowned…
Best,
D
You keep posting your disinformation, clown. You’re funny.
hahahahahaha
You failed to refute, you only clowned.
Best,
D
Sure….
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
That’s not refuting either.
Typical failure.
Best,
D
Poor Dano the kook.
having trouble FRAUD?
hahahahahaha
Of course there are any number of issues with the quotes.
F’r instance hilarious #2.
Best,
D
That doesn’t disprove the quote. Sorry. You lose.
Sure it did. You simply lack education and capacity and talent to grasp this simple fact.
Best,
D
Dunning-Kruger much?
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
And perspicacity. I forgot that.
Best,
D
hahahahahahahaha
Of course there are any number of issues with the quotes.
F’r instance hilarious #4
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0605fad625d3d4c7e4498f39c5b563acfac237bca887c1ded6857ca42c09bbb.png
More AGW disinformation. Figures.
hahahahahaha
You failed to refute, you only clowned.
Best,
D
right.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
You failed to refute, you only clowned…
Best,
D
uh huh….
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
Of course there are any number of issues with the quotes.
F’r instance hilarious #7
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/201541ce4865f9c8a0550111aa57933516b7b3c7af2e80c0c25d75f76e566f7c.jpg
Cowtan and Way?????? Known FRAUDS just like you
hahahahahaha
You failed to refute, you only clowned…
Best,
D
Sure.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD
This time you buffooned.
best,
D
Right.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
Of course there are any number of issues with the quotes.
F’r instance hilarious #22
Best,
D
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3dab39bf9c4ac919da15f3d253532a42399e4972babd0aa943dcb91f59a6e45.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/005fcbb08277d2a724271b5c17077dfff560182f86f408c42a94d9f04d5adbdc.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4862dce7e02f35832887e650d524595bdba97ff281850fffd95eb9e3c7f25d3c.jpg
More AGW kook disinformation. Figures.
hahahahahaha
You failed to refute, you only clowned…
Best,
D
Right…
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
RSS Updated For June – Temperature Decline Continues
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/rss-updated-for-june-temperature-decline-continues/
Bad news for AGW kooks
Another worthless disinformation site. Gullible.
Sure it is.
LMAO at Ian the AGW kook.
Drink!
Best,
D
Blow him while you’re at it.
hhahahahahahaha
The best that clowns can come up with, as they have no evidence or science on their side.
Best,
D
Right.
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
Buffoonery, not evidence or science.
Best,
D
hahahahahahaha
Speaking of buffoonery, have you read the latest drivel?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/12/global-warming-skepticism-not-fraud/
Joe Bast, tobacco guy, sets ’em straight!
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/10cf8637b32a3546fc0eee1451d9f73ddf3e556b93153e53f755ae1a90bacca7.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UqJbNcotJ24
And yet, where all the plants and animals live, the temperature will likely set a record three years in a row.
IOW: plants and animals don’t live in dirigibles 3km above the ground.
Best,
D
RSS doesn’t agree.
AGW the scam is falling apart….
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD and kook.
Uneducated derp.
Typical flail.
Best,
D
RSS is what it is….
LMAO at Dano the FRAUD KOOK
Uneducated likes models all of a sudden and satellites that don’t even measure temperature.
And animals that live in dirigibles.
Precious!
Best,
D
hahahahahaha
can’t come up with anything better?
Dano the FRAUD KOOK lost, big time!!!!