I'm so sick of the rightwing denial of man made climate change

[flacaltenn]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Good thing there are Climate skeptics. The public has NO CLUE what these "talking points" really mean..

For instance Billy --- In that 97% "study" (more on that later) --- What was the POLL QUESTION??
I really need an answer on that to see if you are following along here.

Were they asked what the Temperature anomaly will be in 2050?
Were they asked about their agreement conclusions of the temperature history studies before thermometers were invented based on a handful of samples of tree rings, ice cores, and mud bug shells?
Were they asked if Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina were influenced by the 0.3degC rise in your lifetime?

What EXACTLY did they "agree" on?? Please answer that for me....

The study you are quoting is crap. It was NOT a poll. Wasn't even any questions really asked of them. A bunch of warmer zealots WITHOUT expertise in polling went and look at technical papers for opinion. Bad place to discern opinion in the first place. Because generally, opinions are not the purpose of a technical paper. Since they didn't FIND ENOUGH opinions -- they counted all the papers that EXPRESSED NO OPINION as being in the "consensus".. The OBJECT was propaganda and the RESULT will live in infamy

There WERE some other polls before 2010 or so.. But you will find NOTHING SINCE. Because of the email controversy and the warming "pause" -- NO ONE wants to commission any NEW polls of climate scientists.

 

[flacaltenn]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

What conclusion is that Billy? Is it about how much warmer it will be in 2050?
We ALL agree how the Greenhouse works and that the Earth is warming. There are VERY few TRUE deniers of that fact.

But what's NOT gonna happen is that the Earth is gonna commit suicide over a 1 or 2 degC trigger due to CO2.
THAT is the Global Warming "theory".. That CO2 is only the "trigger" for the apocalypse.

All of that hysteria about 8degC by 2100 is NOT due to CO2 alone. You only get to those numbers by inventing extreme magic multipliers to the power of CO2 to warm the planet. Those multipliers are coming down faster every year. If the earth was in danger of going unstable over a 2degC trigger -- we wouldn't be here chatting after 4 Ice Ages with temperature swings of over 12degC..

 

[flacaltenn]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

And I'm sure if 97% of 79 out of 3146 agreed climate change was happening and caused by man the other 3077 would have said "what no? Liberal bullshit" but please call them up and find out. Never mind that many of those not surveyed ALSO wrote papers on how climate change is real and man made.

When was the last time you saw a poll that PUT an opinion in the mouth of everyone they called but didn't answer???

 

[flacaltenn]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

That deserves a HUGE

 

[hadit]

Still seeing a lot of finger pointing and hand waving hysteria over the fact that many are unwilling to grant government of all sizes enormous new power over everyday life without serious, substantial reasons why, proof that those reasons are sound, and clear, unambiguous limits on the things that governments will do with all that new power. IOW, come up with some realistic things we can do that will either have a substantive effect on global temperatures or will lessen any negative impacts of warming. Acting like a five year old who's lost TV privileges because people don't agree with you does not convince anyone. It only makes you makes you look like a five year old.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm so sick of liberals and their never ending power grabs.

 

[Crick]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

It hasn't been agreed upon by "skeptics" (aka Deniers) here.

As to your characterization of the various survey resilts

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[124]
​

The IPCC position clearly states that human activity is the dominant cause.

And, from Cook et al's study, under Methodology:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
​

It is clear that these and other studies have found a very strong majority who believe human activity to be responsible for more than 50% of the observed global warming.

A majority of the Denier posters here have attempted at least at one time or another, to argue that there has been no warming. A majority here have also attempted, at one time or another, to argue that CO2 does not cause warming. A significant number have attempted to sell us on the idea that CO2 actually cools the planet.

Your statements are thus incorrect.

 

[Crick]

Unless you believe your 'compatriots here are atypically extremist and factually erroneous

 

[skookerasbil]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

Dear IanC can you prove that other ways of teaching respect for the environment won't work also?
What did Native Americans use to understand the web of life and not disrupting the natural balance and order.
What have Buddhists used all this time to understand not to have imbalanced or unnatural desires or excess
behavior that causes problems because all life is interconnected?

If neither of those tribes or religious followings depended on "Global warming" to be proven
in order to commit to living naturally in harmony and peace with all things in creation,
then why is this suddenly a religious condition and prerequisite for that?

Why can't global consciousness be raised by respect for life, for relations and environment,
for humanity and society. Where does this REQUIRE global warming 'as the only way' to teach that.

This seems very strange that the same people who jump on other fundamentalists
for teaching Jesus "is the only way" or Islam "is the only way" or THEIR WAY is the "only way"
have made such a religion out of Global Warming as the only way. Really?

Can you explain why Buddhists, Native Americans, and other naturalists don't rely on
any knowledge, stats or proof of Global Warming to commit to respecting the earth and all life
and keeping the balance for sustainable peace and harmony?

When did it become required to add Global Warming as a condition?

sweetie............the planet is doing just fine!!! You however, have the political IQ of a small soap dish.......time to branch out a little from the fuzzy bubble!! Here ya go......this will help make you wake up and smell the maple nut crunch >>>

 

[skookerasbil]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

It hasn't been agreed upon by "skeptics" (aka Deniers) here.

As to your characterization of the various survey resilts

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[124]
​

The IPCC position clearly states that human activity is the dominant cause.

And, from Cook et al's study, under Methodology:

We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).
​

It is clear that these and other studies have found a very strong majority who believe human activity to be responsible for more than 50% of the observed global warming.

A majority of the Denier posters here have attempted at least at one time or another, to argue that there has been no warming. A majority here have also attempted, at one time or another, to argue that CO2 does not cause warming. A significant number have attempted to sell us on the idea that CO2 actually cools the planet.

Your statements are thus incorrect.

s0n......do you even know who funds the research for those studies??

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm so sick of liberals and their never ending power grabs.

Paving the highway or paying the police is now a power grab...Archaist are weird people.

 

[RodISHI]

Accusations do you no good whatsoever, nor does it lend credibility to your so called cause. There is no doubt that weather patterns change and I do not have to be a scientist to know this. I can go by what I have actually seen with my own eyes. Deserts and forests switch places. It is the way God created nature. You can travel through the United States and observe it from Baja, to Arizona to up through Montana and zigzag back down to Florida the landscapes have changed in the times of earth.

We mined and removed areas that showed clearly that just as seasons change so do weather patterns and land masses. When you can personally look at the actual layers of sedimentations you can observe this also. Upon the land and under it can be visually seen that there are times where the midwest was a sea (you can still see the fossils in the stone if you look), a mud bog, a tropical forest, then it became a desert where sands drifted in into banks up to thirty feet deep, flooded areas to areas where ice ground boulders underneath it as it moved across the land headed southward, to another layer of forest debris, floods again, a layer of blown sand materials, another layer of leaves and then another layer of forest organics and then plains. This can all be seen in just a few acres; even areas where earthquakes pushed and shoved the land mass and turned the soils like a washing machine would can be observed. Layers of organics, artifacts, rocks and fossils can also show what has transpired on earths surface throughout the ages. Heck you don't even have to questimate what happen you can actually get out and personally see it if your willing to open your eyes and look.

In my op if anyone refuses to look at the whole pollution and scheme of earth science they are not really looking. If you are willing to allow mass pollution slide in favor of chemical giants stripping the life out of the soils, waters and the people you really do not seem serious at all in my op.

Why not start asking why do organically grown cattle in the Midwest have Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Bismuth, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Platinum, Thallium, Thorium, Uranium,
Nickel, Silver, Tin and Titanium in their systems? Where did all that higher concentrations of Aluminum and Mercury come from? Mercury is not native to the soil here but we have it in abundance in the soil and the water now. Farming from chemically treated seeds and coal fired plants without scrubbers? Hell for all I know that could also be some of the shit they are releasing above us with those jets that are leaving the chem trails. I know we had some f'ing airplane fly over us spraying crap that came out from the Omaha area while we was working one day in our little obscured area and the next few days or so there were dead birds everywhere. That took place in about 2001. Next thing ya know a week later there was west Nile disease reported by neighbors 15 miles away (dead birds around and some dead horses too and then next it was on the more local news.

I don't have your degrees and you can claim whatever you won't but not everyone is going to go for these bullshit games lil money grubs a few people want to play anymore.

huh?

Climates and weather change. It is historic and evident. The California coast line has been dropping for ages you can look throughout the world and see it. Certain people want to make it a political issue because of their investments. Some just want to make a buck off of it and they already are. Com trails, aluminum oxide and other matter. Who do you think is paying for all the weather control crap going on in the atmosphere?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, did it ever occur to you that things do not change without reason? Things like the Milankovic Cycles, and the level GHGs in the atmosphere. Since we are raising the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at a faster rate than any time in known geological history, you think that is not going to affect the temperature, and through that, the climate?

 

[Old Rocks]

"I'm so sick of the rightwing denial of man made climate change"

Just sick of the rightwing in general.

The rightwingnuts are some of the most ignorant assholes I have ever ran across. One of them posted something to the effect that we believe they all only have a second grade education. From their posts, I would say that was self evident.

To anyone that has had the first two years of required science subjects for a science major, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, the flap yap we see by the 'Conservatives' is downright hilarious. They not only do not understand the most basic rules of science, they have no concept of the language of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

People don't need to rob banks anymore, they can go into politics instead. When there are billions at stake in regulations and contracts, rest assured there is money to be paid on the back end. Its always ok to question your government and they have made science political. cant believe its pure science anymore

Tell me, do you bother to read the peer reviewed scientific journals on the science subjects that you are interested in and comment on? If not, why do you think that you opinions have any validity at all?

 

[Old Rocks]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Don't you think the sun might have something to do with global warming? You know, that bright little yellow ball in the sky.

Do you think? Period?

Ever consider that you are one of the more ignorant posters here? Now why don't you look up what the TSI is all about. And consider that it has declined in recent years, yet these have been the warmest years on record.

 

[Old Rocks]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

The lies are yours. There is not one Scientific Society in the world, not one Academy of Science, and not one major University that does not state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The seventy nine scientists that list climate science as their primary science expertise are those that study climate the most. Now if 79 of the leading world experts on a certain type of cancer advise you on that cancer, and two others say they are wrong, who are you going to believe?

From the melting of the alpine glaciers, Greenland ice cap, the diminishment of the Anarctica ice cap, and the Arctic sea ice, we see evidence of the warming. Even Dr. Spencer's own graphs show it.



UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for July 2015: +0.18 C « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[jc456]

I'm so sick of liberals and their never ending power grabs.

They think they own everything. Funny shit

 

[jc456]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Don't you think the sun might have something to do with global warming? You know, that bright little yellow ball in the sky.

Do you think? Period?

Ever consider that you are one of the more ignorant posters here? Now why don't you look up what the TSI is all about. And consider that it has declined in recent years, yet these have been the warmest years on record.

Uh........no

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

The lies are yours. There is not one Scientific Society in the world, not one Academy of Science, and not one major University that does not state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The seventy nine scientists that list climate science as their primary science expertise are those that study climate the most. Now if 79 of the leading world experts on a certain type of cancer advise you on that cancer, and two others say they are wrong, who are you going to believe?

From the melting of the alpine glaciers, Greenland ice cap, the diminishment of the Anarctica ice cap, and the Arctic sea ice, we see evidence of the warming. Even Dr. Spencer's own graphs show it.



UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for July 2015: +0.18 C « Roy Spencer, PhD

I'll challenge them, set it up.