And in the latest climate change news....

[SSDD]

And how many scientists have a different opinion? You assume him credible and the others not because you want to believe one thing over the other. Let me know when NASA, the UCS and scientific institutions the world over announce a change in what they believe to be happening.

Very few who don't depend on a steady state of crisis in order to hold their jobs...have you ever noticed the number of once climate change crusaders who do a complete 180 and become staunch skeptics once their jobs are no longer on the line if they voice what the actually think?

 

[Crepitus]

You found another denier idiot to parrot.

Good for you!

Out here in reality there is no debate, climate change is real.

Get used to it.

He's not an idiot. It's not as black and white as people suggest. There is a lot we still don't understand which leaves room for skepticism. What's significant though is the fact that the vast majority of the most qualified people on Earth have come to a similar conclusion based on the evidence that is available, and new evidence and information seems to further support their claims. These are all very educated and intelligent people, and we should all be listening to what all of them have to say.

But it is that black and white. The skepticism is all just bullshit talking points. There is no room for debate. That's why they have to twist and lie to agrue against it.

 

[elektra]

But it is that black and white. The skepticism is all just bullshit talking points. There is no room for debate. That's why they have to twist and lie to agrue against it.

Climate change is real? Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that. What is disputed is that man is changing the climate to the worst. That is what you have no evidence of.

Further, the "solution" to "climate change" is to increase the use of coal and fossil fuels to manufacture millions of solar panels and millions of wind turbines. The claim is that using fossil fuels has created a CO2 problem, yet the solution that is proposed is to increase the production of heavy industry creating more CO2?

Clearly you can not solve a problem if the solution to the problem is the problem.

$100 trillion dollars. Who would lie for just a small part of $100 trillion dollars?

 

[Confounding]

But it is that black and white.

There is only a powerful consensus that we are having some level of impact. There is not a consensus on the severity of that impact. There is actually still a bit of disagreement there in fact. Some very qualified people think it's rather minimal and that spending enormous amounts of resources on fighting it is ridiculous. Others think it's too late to stop what is already happening etc. AGW is not a black and white topic, and the opinions of all qualified people should at least be heard and respected.

 

[Confounding]

Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that.

Ugh...

Go jump in front of a bus please. Humanity will appreciate it.

 

[Jitss617]

Democrats: vote for me or you will die! I swear! Listen to this scientist I just gave millions to in grant money!
I swear he’s honest LOL

 

[SSDD]

And the craziest amongst us start to howl....

There are some 40 papers out, in the last 2 years, that show mans contribution can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system. Even the hard left wackos and nut jobs are beginning to see the light..

Its going to take some time to undue the lies being taught to our children..

Post, link, and quote to one of those papers. I would bet all my money that you can't.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0435.1

Clip: " Results from a new quality-controlled observational dataset of hourly rainfall over the United Kingdom do not show a similar difference between daily and hourly trends. Natural variability appears to dominate current observed trends (including an increase in the intensity of heavy summer rainfall over the last 30 years), with some suggestion of larger daily than hourly trends for recent decades. The expectation of the reverse, namely, larger trends for short-duration rainfall, as the signature of underlying climate change has potentially important implications for detection and attribution studies."


RMetS Journals

Clip: "Reconstruction reveals two long periods of low precipitation variability, in the 13th–14th centuries and 1630s–1850s. It also demonstrates that precipitation anomalies of larger amplitude and longer duration occurred in the earlier part of the last millennium than those found in the instrumental period. Negative trends in soil moisture content and gradual changes in annual precipitation distribution leading to higher extremity of precipitation regime may be responsible for the lower sensitivity of oaks to precipitation after the 1980s. The new reconstruction does not indicate any exceptional recent decline in MJJ precipitation."


https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ucture-Climate-Changes-and-Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Clip: " No evidence of significant climate change beyond natural variability was observed in this temperature record. Using a Climate Sensitivity best estimate of 2°C, the increase in temperature resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 is estimated at approximately 0.009°C/yr which is insignificant compared to natural variability."


https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0497.1

Clip: "In contrast, the recent sea level rise is primarily caused by heat and freshwater flux forcings. That the wind-induced sea level rise along the Japanese coast around 1950 is as large as the recent sea level rise highlights the importance of natural variability in understanding regional sea level change on interdecadal time scales.


How much more would you like? I can do this all day. Clearly your sources don't inform you on the sheer volume of science being published which is skeptical to the consensus view.

The fact is that in 2019 alone, there have been more than 200 papers published that are skeptical of the consensus view. They break down into a few categories.

There are those papers which are skeptical of the consensus view that very nearly 100% of the warming since 1950 has been due to man made CO2 emissions.

There are those that are skeptical of the consensus view that modern warming, glacial and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities are unusual, and unprecedented and are due to human greenhouse gas emissions

There are those which call into question the usefulness, and accuracy of climate models which are where most proclamations made by climate science come from...

Then there are those which call into question the safety, effectiveness, and environmental friendliness of renewable energy sources...

More than 200 in 2019 alone..more than 500 in 2018...almost 500 in 2017...more than 500 in 2016....

If you don't bother to look at the actual science, and only depend on some source that is sympathetic to your beliefs, you likely will never be aware of the volume of science that gets published that is skeptical of the consensus view...

 

[elektra]

Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that.

Ugh...
Go jump in front of a bus please. Humanity will appreciate it.

Jump in front of a bus. This shows how stupid you are.

First, jumping in front of a bus will create a horror for the bus drivers. That person is innocent and does not deserve a day where he is partially responsible for killing another person.

Second, other people will see that horror as well, to include children, something you were not smart enough to think of. I would never do that to a child, it is a sick mind that suggests children should see such horrors.

Third, it will create a traffic jam, which means there will be a thousand cars stuck in traffic, increasing pollution.

Fourth, it will require an emergency response, someone else will thus have to wait for emergency care, possible resulting in a death, hopefully your own.

Why is it that Democrat, liberals, socialists, (whatever you call yourself today) are so fucking stupid they can only think of solutions that hurt others

 

[Confounding]

Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that.

Ugh...
Go jump in front of a bus please. Humanity will appreciate it.

Jump in front of a bus. This shows how stupid you are.

First, jumping in front of a bus will create a horror for the bus drivers. That person is innocent and does not deserve a day where he is partially responsible for killing another person.

Second, other people will see that horror as well, to include children, something you were not smart enough to think of. I would never do that to a child, it is a sick mind that suggests children should see such horrors.

Third, it will create a traffic jam, which means there will be a thousand cars stuck in traffic, increasing pollution.

Fourth, it will require an emergency response, someone else will thus have to wait for emergency care, possible resulting in a death, hopefully your own.

Why is it that Democrat, liberals, socialists, (whatever you call yourself today) are so fucking stupid they can only think of solutions that hurt others

LOL! That's an impressively thought out retort to what was really just me taking a shit on your overused line that everybody has heard 10,000 times.

 

[elektra]

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0435.1

Clip: " Results from a new quality-controlled observational dataset of hourly rainfall over the United Kingdom do not show a similar difference between daily and hourly trends. Natural variability appears to dominate current observed trends (including an increase in the intensity of heavy summer rainfall over the last 30 years), with some suggestion of larger daily than hourly trends for recent decades. The expectation of the reverse, namely, larger trends for short-duration rainfall, as the signature of underlying climate change has potentially important implications for detection and attribution studies."

If you don't bother to look at the actual science, and only depend on some source that is sympathetic to your beliefs, you likely will never be aware of the volume of science that gets published that is skeptical of the consensus view...

I thinks I misread the original post, the meaning of the OP, like an idiot. So sorry, thanks for the links, it took a bit than I figured out I got everything wrong.

 

[Crepitus]

But it is that black and white. The skepticism is all just bullshit talking points. There is no room for debate. That's why they have to twist and lie to agrue against it.

Climate change is real? Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that. What is disputed is that man is changing the climate to the worst. That is what you have no evidence of.

Further, the "solution" to "climate change" is to increase the use of coal and fossil fuels to manufacture millions of solar panels and millions of wind turbines. The claim is that using fossil fuels has created a CO2 problem, yet the solution that is proposed is to increase the production of heavy industry creating more CO2?

Clearly you can not solve a problem if the solution to the problem is the problem.

$100 trillion dollars. Who would lie for just a small part of $100 trillion dollars?

There ya go Confounding .

Retarded talking points, no facts. Nothing but idiot denier bloviation.

 

[elektra]

Ha, ha, ha. Yes the climate changes. Nobody disputes that.

Ugh...
Go jump in front of a bus please. Humanity will appreciate it.

Jump in front of a bus. This shows how stupid you are.

First, jumping in front of a bus will create a horror for the bus drivers. That person is innocent and does not deserve a day where he is partially responsible for killing another person.

Second, other people will see that horror as well, to include children, something you were not smart enough to think of. I would never do that to a child, it is a sick mind that suggests children should see such horrors.

Third, it will create a traffic jam, which means there will be a thousand cars stuck in traffic, increasing pollution.

Fourth, it will require an emergency response, someone else will thus have to wait for emergency care, possible resulting in a death, hopefully your own.

Why is it that Democrat, liberals, socialists, (whatever you call yourself today) are so fucking stupid they can only think of solutions that hurt others

LOL! That's an impressively thought out retort to what was really just me taking a shit on your overused line that everybody has heard 10,000 times.

I am glad we can have a laugh together despite differences. I hope you dont take any of this personal.

 

[Crepitus]

But it is that black and white.

There is only a powerful consensus that we are having some level of impact. There is not a consensus on the severity of that impact. There is actually still a bit of disagreement there in fact. Some very qualified people think it's rather minimal and that spending enormous amounts of resources on fighting it is ridiculous. Others think it's too late to stop what is already happening etc. AGW is not a black and white topic, and the opinions of all qualified people should at least be heard and respected.

Again, a twisting of the truth. The vast majority of the scientific community agree on this.

There is no more room for debate. It's real. Get used to it.

 

[elektra]

Retarded talking points, no facts. Nothing but idiot denier bloviation.

Talking points? Technically, the argument has never been focused on the manufacturing of Solar and Wind power.

$100 Trillion is what the Democrats have stated it will cost. In the past I have posted what figures from CERES, so the cost is not disputed.

The trick is getting people like you into realizing that the cost is related the manufacturing. That the manufacturing is huge, so huge that it costs in the trillions. That money translates into billions of tons of chemicals, fuels, elements, that all need to be manufactured using heavy industry.

Where is this talking point? It really is not a talking point, as it is not discussed.

 

[Confounding]

Again, a twisting of the truth.

Seriously? I didn't twist the truth. It is more nuanced than you realize. The vast majority agree that we are having an impact, that AGW is happening to some extent. The vast majority do not agree on the exact severity of that impact. I have spent hours and hours arguing with these science deniers. Don't talk to me like I'm one of them. I just have a more complex understanding of this issue than you do and I'm trying to educate you. I am an ally of the scientific community and I support doing everything we can to improve and utilize green energy.

 

[elektra]

Post, link, and quote to one of those papers. I would bet all my money that you can't.

You are an idiot, you misinterpreted the post.

 

[Muhammed]

Post, link, and quote to one of those papers. I would bet all my money that you can't.

They exist, but the part he either leaves out or doesn't understand is 40 studies pales in comparison to the number of studies that have been done and say something else in recent years. He's comparing 40 studies to thousands and thousands.

Have you read all of these studies?

If you haven't and you use their existence to convince yourself that the CAGW hypothesis is true, you might be in a doomsday cult.

 

[Muhammed]

That's pretty paranoid, which is why they have so many guns?

Some of their paranoia is valid in my opinion, but not in this case. Scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to lie to the world about what is really happening.

Then how do you explain those damning climategate emails that wikileaks disseminated which conclusively prove that they were conspiring to deceive?

How do you explain this public quote from the IPCCs Stephen Schneider?

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest". --Stephen H. Schneider

 

[SSDD]

Post, link, and quote to one of those papers. I would bet all my money that you can't.

They exist, but the part he either leaves out or doesn't understand is 40 studies pales in comparison to the number of studies that have been done and say something else in recent years. He's comparing 40 studies to thousands and thousands.

Have you read all of these studies?

If you haven't and you use their existence to convince yourself that the CAGW hypothesis is true, you might be in a doomsday cult.

Guess he never bothered to look at the number of "consensus" papers that have had to be retracted over the years.. He also seems to be completely unaware that better than 90% contain no real world data...they are papers regarding the output of failed climate models. That is why when I ask for observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...they don't have anything to post...the climate "crisis" is all models all the way down.

 

[elektra]

Post, link, and quote to one of those papers. I would bet all my money that you can't.

They exist, but the part he either leaves out or doesn't understand is 40 studies pales in comparison to the number of studies that have been done and say something else in recent years. He's comparing 40 studies to thousands and thousands.

I misread his post