How far have we already gone?

[wirebender]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head. That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Congratulations, your family must be so proud.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phrenology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head. That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Congratulations, your family must be so proud.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate

 

[Oddball]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head. That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Congratulations, your family must be so proud.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate

CrusaderFrank Johnson is right that Wirebender Johnson is right....

We have CONSENSUS!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head. That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Congratulations, your family must be so proud.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate

CrusaderFrank Johnson is right that Wirebender Johnson is right....

We have CONSENSUS!

Sorry about the "up yours", Old Ricks

Science = Settled!

When do we get government funding?

 

[wirebender]

And still all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. But these dingleberries know so much more than the scientists. Wonder why none of them ever present their evidence in a scientific paper? Could it be they have none?

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phrenology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homeopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upon further peer review I note that you forgot to mention eugenics.

 

[Big Fitz]

And you continue to display what appears to be either abject ignorance or stunning gullibility in your failure to recognize the difference between a body of scientists and its political head. That failure on your part is just one of a whole tragic commedy of failures that has led you to buy into one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. Congratulations, your family must be so proud.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is 100% accurate

CrusaderFrank Johnson is right that Wirebender Johnson is right....

We have CONSENSUS!

Oddball Johnson is right about Wirebender Johnson and CrusaderFrank Johnson being right about being right!

WRRRREBBISH!

 

[meatheadmike]

Do you really think that one day a bunch of Scientists from different Universities around the world collectively invented global warming for the sole purpose of gaining government funding?

Of course not in a single day. This has evolved over decades with funding exponentially with the shrillness of the claims being made

Ask yourself this... which group has more to gain:

- University Scientists who "invent global climate change" so that they can gain government funding?

OR

- Big Oil corporations who spread misinformation that Global Climate change is a hoax, so that they can keep the entire world dependent on Oil, hold back green energy, and maximize their profits?

That question is easy. Which group has money to burn and which group is always scampering about trying to wrest donations from alumni groups, sponsors, generous patrons etc?

The oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails.

Before you answer, ask yourself which group of the two has more money and power?
Which of the two groups would have more resources to spread their lie?

Again, an easy question to answer. Even the most rabid of green groups only claim that 50 million has been spent by big oil in funding skeptics over the past decade. Contrast that to the 5 billion poured into the coffers of the warmists anually by the US government alone. Here is a report on money spent by the us from the GAO.



The idea that somehow skeptics are outspending warmists is absolutely laughable.

If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.

You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?

Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?

 

[wirebender]

If you think that a bunch of scientists who need to "beg for donations, sponsors etc" have more power and influence on government and the public than a huge oil corporation such as ExonMobile, then you are being extremely naive.

Again, spoken like someone who is able think his way into the issue about a nanometer deep. I am sure that you don't recognize the fact since you clearly have never actually expended any intellectual wattage on the issue, but the redistribution of wealth is the motivating force behind the environmental movement. In what way does government express its power to the greatest degree? Why in the redistribution of wealth.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to look the fact that warmist are outspending skeptics over 1000 to 1. Then ask yourself with such a disparity of funding, why is there a skeptical voice at all. Answer, because the truth won't be denied. Then ask yourself why with a disparity of spending of 1000 to 1 why the skeptics are winning. Answer, because in the end, the science doesn't support the claims and reality doesn't match the predictions.

You are correct that oil companies make money whether the coin lands heads or tails, but you are severely underestimating greed. Why would would they choose to risk losing any money to clean energy, when they can make more money by keeping things the way they are? Why did the tobacco companies do the same thing prior to the 80s/90s?

Again, the shallowness of thought astounds. Do you know where the biggest movement of money will be if warmist get their fondest wish, that being very strict environmental regulation in the name of reducing CO2? Of course you don't because you don't think that deeply. The greatest movement of money will take the form of taxes on fossil fuels. Now, O shallow thinker, do you believe for a minute that fossil fuel companies are going to pay even a penny of those taxes out of their cofffers?

Of course they won't. They will pass those taxes, plus a little extra on to the consumers and as usual, liberal governance will end up hurting those who can least afford it the most. It is the little guy who can barely afford to fill his 15 year old beater up to get to his poor paying job who gets choked out when he simply can't afford to pay the taxes that the tree huggers have imposed upon him. Then when he applies for unemployment and other governemnt assistance, the willing press will blame everyone for his problems except the true cause.

Also, if global climate change is such a hoax... why would Big Oil be spending any money at all in global climate research/funding skeptics? $50 million seems like a lot of money to throw away on convincing people of something that is "obvious". Would you need to spend $50 Million to convince someone that the sky is blue?

$50 million vs over 625 Billion in the past decade. You are laughable.

 

[meatheadmike]

No need to try flame and belittle because you cant think rationally.

Again, spoken like someone who is able think his way into the issue about a nanometer deep. I am sure that you don't recognize the fact since you clearly have never actually expended any intellectual wattage on the issue, but the redistribution of wealth is the motivating force behind the environmental movement. In what way does government express its power to the greatest degree? Why in the redistribution of wealth.

So according to you, scientists all around the world, all from different countries and economic backgrounds, invented global climate change over the course of years for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth in the United States.... sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.
I won't ask for any evidence to back that up, because I know there isn't any.

Pull your head out of your ass long enough to look the fact that warmist are outspending skeptics over 1000 to 1. Then ask yourself with such a disparity of funding, why is there a skeptical voice at all. Answer, because the truth won't be denied. Then ask yourself why with a disparity of spending of 1000 to 1 why the skeptics are winning. Answer, because in the end, the science doesn't support the claims and reality doesn't match the predictions.

Disparity of funding proves nothing. Obviously the scientists are going to be spending more money... they are the ones doing the actual research. See that's the thing about science, it takes lots of time effort and research to prove something... while on the other hand if something is completely wrong, it will get shot down almost immediately when another scientific group analyzes the data or tries to scientifically reproduce it.

Again, the shallowness of thought astounds. Do you know where the biggest movement of money will be if warmist get their fondest wish, that being very strict environmental regulation in the name of reducing CO2? Of course you don't because you don't think that deeply. The greatest movement of money will take the form of taxes on fossil fuels. Now, O shallow thinker, do you believe for a minute that fossil fuel companies are going to pay even a penny of those taxes out of their cofffers?

Of course they won't. They will pass those taxes, plus a little extra on to the consumers and as usual, liberal governance will end up hurting those who can least afford it the most. It is the little guy who can barely afford to fill his 15 year old beater up to get to his poor paying job who gets choked out when he simply can't afford to pay the taxes that the tree huggers have imposed upon him. Then when he applies for unemployment and other governemnt assistance, the willing press will blame everyone for his problems except the true cause.

So according to you its all a conspiracy to raise taxes, gotcha.

$50 million vs over 625 Billion in the past decade. You are laughable.

Again you are basing the entire argument on who spent more money, and failing to acknowledge who has more influence over the government and public.

The fact that Oil companies spent any money at all funding skeptics should be a huge red flag to you. Why would they need to do this at all... if global climate change is so obviously not true some random scientific group in some country would have likely proved this by now and made an enormous sum of money for doing it.

But instead you think the entire scientific community around the world would rather choose to be involved in some kind of conspiracy and beg for government funding in each of their respective countries in order to spread their "lies".

Thanks for the Lols.

To be fair I personally do believe there is a certain amount of fear mongering surrounding climate change to get the public's attention... but that does not mean that it is false and you should disregard it.
Unfortunately I realize that you are probably too brainwashed to look at the facts and make an impartial decision.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does Meatheadmike not know that the IPCC Official Policy is to redistribute wealth through Climate Policy?

 

[wirebender]

Does Meatheadmike not know that the IPCC Official Policy is to redistribute wealth through Climate Policy?

Meatheadmike seems to know very little. He is an insensate sheep bleating and eating whatever his keepers feed him. He then digests it and deposits in in the form of tiny pellets across the internet as demonstrated above.

 

[meatheadmike]

Dodge noted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dodge noted.

Meathead schooled

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- Official IPCC Policy

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

 

[meatheadmike]

Dodge noted.

Meathead schooled

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- Official IPCC Policy

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

LMAO you are passing that off their "Official policy".

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit... re-read the headline. It says a UN IPCC official said that quote.... I hardly think that the opinion of one IPCC official dictates the "Official IPCC Policy" of the entire organization

Furthermore, the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.

 

[wirebender]

Dodge noted.

Sorry to tell you guy but you aren't good enough to warrant a dodge. You only demonstrated further how little intellectual wattage you have invested in your position. If you would like to be further humiliated for your lack of knowledge, by all means, I am happy to oblige.

So according to you, scientists all around the world, all from different countries and economic backgrounds, invented global climate change over the course of years for the sole purpose of the redistribution of wealth in the United States.... sounds like quite a conspiracy theory.

No, only a couple of scientists made this up. It really began with the KT energy budget which is one of the stupidest bits of pseudoscience ever put out there. As to the whole AGW hoax, I don't think scientists made it up at all. Frankly, I don't give the hockey team enough credit to have thought up something like the hoax they promote. If you care to discuss the pseudoscience which you blindly support as actual science, and are up to an actual discussion on the topic rather than simply spewing news bytes, let me know.

AGW is a political movement, funded by environmentalist groups and government hand outs with the express purpose of restricting industry and redistributing wealth.

Disparity of funding proves nothing. Obviously the scientists are going to be spending more money... they are the ones doing the actual research. See that's the thing about science, it takes lots of time effort and research to prove something... while on the other hand if something is completely wrong, it will get shot down almost immediately when another scientific group analyzes the data or tries to scientifically reproduce it.

Doing actual research. Interesting notion but alas, not very discriptive of what has been going on within the climate pseudoscience community. Climate pseudoscience consists almost entirely of computer models; those models being based on assumption and bias written for the sole purpose of reaching a pre decided conclusion.

In the past decade, over 600 billion has been poured into climate pseudoscience. Can you point to a single repeatable experiment that proves that an increase in a trace atmospheric gas can alter the global climate? Can you point to a single piece of hard, observable evidence that establishes anything more than the most etherial link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. Can you point to a single thing going on the global climate today that even begins to approach the boundries of natural variability? The answer to all those questions is no, but it will be interesting to see your attempts at answers.

You might start with someting easy like naming a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws all predict that such a greenouse effect can't exist.

So according to you its all a conspiracy to raise taxes, gotcha.

No it is a political excuse to redistribute wealth. Even when things are explained to you in detail, you don't seem to be able to grasp what you were just told.

Again you are basing the entire argument on who spent more money, and failing to acknowledge who has more influence over the government and public.

When you guys go after industry on any topic whatsoever, your primary argument is to follow the money.

As to who has more influence with the government, your conclusions once again, show that thinking isn't your best thing. Most of the universities in the US that benefit most from climate science $$ are state universities. That is to say they are government schools. Do you really believe an oil company with its own money holds more influence with the government than the government's own schools?

As to influence with the public, if you are seriously arguing that oil companies have more influence than the educational system, I am going to have to point out that you have discovered a level of stupid even lower than that previously mapped out by konradv.

The fact that Oil companies spent any money at all funding skeptics should be a huge red flag to you. Why would they need to do this at all...

And again, very shallow thinking on your part. I see a trend here, how about you. Of the paltry 50 million spent by oil companies on skeptics, the great bulk of that money was spent in the 90's when the AGW movement first started getting real traction. The spending was a panic reaction since at the time AGW seemed that it might pose a real threat to existing energy companies.

As time went on, the best and brightest deducted that they are going to make money either way and in fact there was something to be said for the whole regulation business. If you do a bit of research, you will find that the amount spent by oil companies since the turn of the century on skeptics is paltry indeed.

To be fair I personally do believe there is a certain amount of fear mongering surrounding climate change to get the public's attention... but that does not mean that it is false and you should disregard it.

The reason to disregard climate pseudoscience has nothing to do with the fear mongering. Climate pseudoscience should be disregarded for its dishonesty, hiding of science that proves it wrong, data tampering, failed predictions, disregard for the physical laws, and its abject failure to produce a single piece of repeatable, observable evidence establising anything even approaching a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate after having wasted over 600 billion dollars worldwide.

 

[wirebender]

Furthermore, the IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. So I don't see how they are very relevant in proving/disproving global climate change.

Except that the ipcc is the political head and poster child for climate change. To even suggest that climate pseudoscience doesn't revolve around the IPCC and its reports is absolutely laughable.

 

[code1211]

Rocks, can you name anything that is going on in the global climate that is outside the boundries of natural variability? Can you name anything that is even approaching the boundries of natural variability?

I didn't think so. Even the blatant data tampering going on with the temeprature record isn't moving the numbers anywhere close to being outside of natural variability.

You have been hoaxed rocks and every time I see you trying to justify your faith, I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or laugh in your ignorant face.

By the way rocks, sea level is not rising anywhere near the compuer model predictions and has actually decreased. Wonder why?

What on earth are you talking about?

The collapse of glaciers is far beyond any known natural variation.

The collapse of arctic and antarctic ice is far beyond any known variation.

It always amazes me how people who talking about laughing at ignorance represent a position which flies in the face of all scientific study.

As your position clearly does.

Antarctic Ice is increasing as this link to the AGW sympathetic site clearly states. They go on to explain that the increasing ice is proof of warming which is common in the topsy turvy world of AGW "Science".

There have been numerous posts on this board showing that the Arctic Sea Ice is increasing over the last several years.


Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

<snip>
One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:

i) Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen (Gillet 2003, Thompson 2002, Turner 2009).
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Yes, they flap yap, but never, never put up anything from real scientists that are studying the problem. Satellites for the EU, the US, Russia, and China, even Japan, confirming the increasing heat in the troposphere and ocean, but all they do is denigrate the scientists presenting the evidence, and flaunt their willfull ignorance.

I was amazed to read the comments on this thread - I had really thought most people understood that the situation with climate change has gone far beyond being a theory.

Just 2 weeks back the BBC launched this amazing satellite tracking tool:

BBC News - Cryosat mission's new views of polar ice

Read the material available on Cryosat tracking, I wouldn't have really thought there was any doubt at all that the situation in the Arctic is catastrophic and unprecedented.

I think it also worth noting that Wirebender disagrees with the Science Academies of around 50 countries and the societies of virtually every related field, from the American Society of Geology to the American Society for Climatology.

So apparently they are all wrong, and he is right.

What is the catastrophe you predict or observe?

 

[code1211]

Wirebender -

Given the entire scientific community have gotten this wrong, perhaps you can explain why. Because let's face it - you know more than anyone else.

Here is the statement of the US Geological Society - who are clearly a bunch of commies.

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse&#8208;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources...

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Please have a look at their site, and explain where their science is wrong.

5% of the Air is GHG's. <4% of that 5% is CO2. The CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 400ppm, according to the best science over the last 140 years or so.

This increase has been very, very constant. The climate has both warmed and cooled over that period of time. The warming that the AGW proponents say is caused by this increase actually started in about 1600 AD. The effect of warming pre-dates the cause of rising CO2 by about 100 years. Interesting cause-effect relationship when the future causes the past, is it not?

The total warming over the last 2000 years is about 0.7 degrees. The warming over the most recent 1000 years is less than half of that. Clearly, warming has slowed. The most recent decade or so can demonstrate a plateau or cooling.

The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the cause of the Little Ice Age from which the AGW crowd disingenuously starts its tracking of the climate rise, but this was an anomalous and significant cooling and the vast majority of the warming from this point in time and temperature was no a departure from some ideal but rather a return to normalcy and normalcy means a gradual increase in the temperature of the climate.

The TSI has been gradually increasing with variation since the bottom reached during the Maunder Minimum. As this has risen, so has the temperature of our climate.

Our planet has been much, much warmer and our current climate is unusually cool compared to our multiple billion year history.

What are your scientists pointing to that should cause us to panic over runaway temperature increase?