Global Warming Info from the Scaremongers themsleves

[MACAULAY]

“It’s the first official confirmation we’ve had that CO2 is not as big a driver of climate change as the computer models have claimed; and it’s the first official admission that the planet is not warming dangerously.”

Read:

Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit 'We Were Wrong About Global Warming'

____________________________

Did anybody really feel comfortable believing Al Gore...while he amassed a fortune on Climate Scaremongering?

 

[Some Guy]

I never bought into man-made global warming as a true fact. Could it be happening nominally? Sure. But for me, it's never had any bearing on what we should be doing anyway from a moral standpoint: be as efficient and aware as we can while letting technology continue developing to both make renewable sources more viable and traditional sources cleaner. If you're a reasonable person, i don't see why you'd be opposed to that.

 

[The Irish Ram]

As the liberals try to make telling the truth a crime. No bad mouthing the climate alarmist's findings or else..

 

[DGS49]

The talking point that the Left never even approaches is this: The Third World (including the less developed areas of India, China, and Africa) will, if they are lucky and smart, be building carbon-fired electric plants, and driving carbon-fueled vehicles, as quickly as they can. It would be stupid for them NOT to take advantage of cheap and available resources to bring themselves some semblance of modernity (reliable electricity, sanitation, transportation, communications, air conditioning, etc). And it would be seriously inhumane of the West to try to discourage this in any way.

Therefore, NOTHING DONE IN THE U.S. or EUROPE will be anywhere near large enough to OFFSET the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the aforementioned parts of the world.

It is for us to develop and implement the engineering SOLUTIONS to any changes caused by warming.

 

[MACAULAY]

I never bought into man-made global warming as a true fact. Could it be happening nominally? Sure. But for me, it's never had any bearing on what we should be doing anyway from a moral standpoint: be as efficient and aware as we can while letting technology continue developing to both make renewable sources more viable and traditional sources cleaner. If you're a reasonable person, i don't see why you'd be opposed to that.

_________________________________

I don't think I would be opposed to that...EXCEPT, in Obama's eight years--that meant throwing Mucho Tax Payer Dollars at Obama supporters, like his pals at Solyndra, based on bogus data (lies). Lets "let technology develop" at places like Tesla without suckling at the Federal Government Tit.

 

[Some Guy]

The talking point that the Left never even approaches is this: The Third World (including the less developed areas of India, China, and Africa) will, if they are lucky and smart, be building carbon-fired electric plants, and driving carbon-fueled vehicles, as quickly as they can. It would be stupid for them NOT to take advantage of cheap and available resources to bring themselves some semblance of modernity (reliable electricity, sanitation, transportation, communications, air conditioning, etc). And it would be seriously inhumane of the West to try to discourage this in any way.

Therefore, NOTHING DONE IN THE U.S. or EUROPE will be anywhere near large enough to OFFSET the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the aforementioned parts of the world.

It is for us to develop and implement the engineering SOLUTIONS to any changes caused by warming.

Right. The truly virtuous thing to do to try to curb man-made global warming (if it even exists) would be to innovate in ways that limits the impact of fossil fuel burning on the environment and then bring those to the developing world, rather than say that the U.S. needs to go back to the 1860's in terms of our way of life.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

There are billions of people who have been brainwashed for decades with the Climate Change Doomsday propaganda.
It will be very hard to deprogram the Climate Change Cult.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Funny that all other science welcomes skeptics. For those testing the theory of relativity, does it mean they are racist?

No, it means the scientific method welcomes skeptics and testing.

 

[BlindBoo]

I betting Brietphart is conning the pseudo conned again.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Shocked!!! Shocked, I Tell You!"


here ya go boo boo.. that paper has been discussed here..^^^^

 

[flacaltenn]

I betting Brietphart is conning the pseudo conned again.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Nope.. Not at all.. Abstract from the paper says the herd was OVERLY panicked by the CO2 boogeyman. That's been obvious for awhile now. Because the weekly/monthly professions of doom haven't been putting out scary apocalyptic projections of temperature for the future for YEARS now.. BECAUSE --- all the previous ones that CAUSED the panic have and are failing..

 

[BlindBoo]

I betting Brietphart is conning the pseudo conned again.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Nope.. Not at all.. Abstract from the paper says the herd was OVERLY panicked by the CO2 boogeyman. That's been obvious for awhile now. Because the weekly/monthly professions of doom haven't been putting out scary apocalyptic projections of temperature for the future for YEARS now.. BECAUSE --- all the previous ones that CAUSED the panic have and are failing..

Seem to me they are saying we need to cut emissions more now to ensure the warming is limited to the 1.5 C mark by the end of this century.

" If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

 

[flacaltenn]

I betting Brietphart is conning the pseudo conned again.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Nope.. Not at all.. Abstract from the paper says the herd was OVERLY panicked by the CO2 boogeyman. That's been obvious for awhile now. Because the weekly/monthly professions of doom haven't been putting out scary apocalyptic projections of temperature for the future for YEARS now.. BECAUSE --- all the previous ones that CAUSED the panic have and are failing..

Seem to me they are saying we need to cut emissions more now to ensure the warming is limited to the 1.5 C mark by the end of this century.

" If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

You need to have been following how all these "goal posts" got moved over time. The "point of no return" doom alert USED TO BE 2DegC. Since that was getting unlikely to succeed by 2100, it got reguessed as 1.5DegC. Making the field goal attempt even harder.

And since the original apocalyptic projections were for 4 to 6 DegC back in the 80s (by 2100), it was ALWAYS clear that this condition would be CERTAINLY met. Until NOW, even with the goal post narrowed, under most REALISTIC emissions scenarios, it's getting harder to find conditions for the HYPOTHETICAL Doomsday Temperature to occur.

Which is all drama anyways, since this "trigger temp" at which the Earth kills itself off, was NEVER settled science or had a consensus of any kind. It didn't even actually have much actual ANALYSIS behind it. Just guesses, suspicions, and some ancient anecdotal evidence (that might not be representative of current Climate conditions)