Man made Climate Change

[Billy_Bob]

Then The OP can tell me how we are experiencing theoretical thermal maximum cooling, within our atmosphere, in both polar regions. -90 deg C should not be happening if CO2 were acting as the AGW hypothesis states as well.

Please explain how ALL of your models fail to match reality and empirically observed temperatures..

Empirical evidence shows your fantasy to be just that, fantasy!

 

[Pilot1]

We have no problem with scientists, and science. Many of us are engineers, scientists, or in some form of STEM pursuit. What we do have a problem with is scientists purposely being biased, and politicized by those who fund them. Greed is the problem, not science.

 

[Crick]

Name a few and perhaps you could provide links to the work of theirs you believe to be biased and politicized.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Name a few and perhaps you could provide links to the work of theirs you believe to be biased and politicized.

The IPCC and the NCA are both piles of bureaucratic crap!

National Climate Assessment was funded by Tom Steyer, a climate activist billionaire!!

National Climate Assessment: Unlikely Scenarios | National Review

 

[Uncensored2008]

I believe in science, have studied science, been trained in science. The issue you have is that science proves Trump and his babble wrong on a daily basis. So, therefore, Trump and company have no choice but to deny its accuracy. Simple!

You have made science a religion rather than a process of discovery.

I have a Ph.D. I do not believe in science, I believe in facts. I know that the scientific method is an effective means of ascertaining facts. Science is a process, not a religion. The second some fanatic spew "settled science" then you are dealing with religion, not science. A key component of the scientific methodology is falsification. All results of every test can be, and must be questioned, retested, verified, falsified.

But you cultists, you astrologers shriek that to question your Gaia worship, to challenge the computer models you declare as revealed truth, to point up 30 years of fraud and failure, the this is heresy. For you, that the sun revolves around the earth is settled science, any who doubt should be punished.

You claim to be trained in science, what training? Are you an indoctronator? Do you crush intellectual curiosity and drown the thirst for knowledge with a tsunami of dogma that may never be questioned?

 

[Crick]

Are you out of your mind? The NCA is funded by the US Government dipshit.

What a fucking idiot. Tom Steyer partially funded this study:
Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States

1. Solomon Hsiang1,2,*,†,
2. Robert Kopp3,*,†,
3. Amir Jina4,†,
4. James Rising1,5,†,
5. Michael Delgado6,
6. Shashank Mohan6,
7. D. J. Rasmussen7,
8. Robert Muir-Wood8,
9. Paul Wilson8,
10. Michael Oppenheimer7,9,
11. Kate Larsen6,
12. Trevor Houser6

Affiliations

1. Global Policy Laboratory, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
3. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
   
4. Department of Economics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
   
5. Energy Resource Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
   
6. Rhodium Group, New York, NY, USA.
   
7. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
   
8. Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA, USA.
   
9. Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
10. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (R.K.)

1. Science 30 Jun 2017:

Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1362-1369
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4369

This is NOT the NCAR. None of these researchers work for the USGCG who produce the NCAR. This was published in Science Magazine, a commercial venture.

Stupid

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you out of your mind? The NCA is funded by the US Government dipshit.

What a fucking idiot. Tom Steyer partially funded this study:
Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States

1. Solomon Hsiang1,2,*,†,
2. Robert Kopp3,*,†,
3. Amir Jina4,†,
4. James Rising1,5,†,
5. Michael Delgado6,
6. Shashank Mohan6,
7. D. J. Rasmussen7,
8. Robert Muir-Wood8,
9. Paul Wilson8,
10. Michael Oppenheimer7,9,
11. Kate Larsen6,
12. Trevor Houser6

Affiliations

1. Global Policy Laboratory, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
3. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
   
4. Department of Economics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
   
5. Energy Resource Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
   
6. Rhodium Group, New York, NY, USA.
   
7. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
   
8. Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA, USA.
   
9. Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
10. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (R.K.)

1. Science 30 Jun 2017:

Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1362-1369
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4369

This is NOT the NCAR. None of these researchers work for the USGCG who produce the NCAR. This was published in Science Magazine, a commercial venture.

Stupid

I've read this left wing propaganda rag.. DO you have any empirical facts to support this wild ass guess?

 

[Crick]

The point is you just tried to tell us that Tom Steyer funded the production of the National Climate Assessment Report. That was as stupid a statement as anyone save SSDD has yet made today. But it's early. Do you still claim that to be a fact?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you out of your mind? The NCA is funded by the US Government dipshit.

What a fucking idiot. Tom Steyer partially funded this study:
Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States

1. Solomon Hsiang1,2,*,†,
2. Robert Kopp3,*,†,
3. Amir Jina4,†,
4. James Rising1,5,†,
5. Michael Delgado6,
6. Shashank Mohan6,
7. D. J. Rasmussen7,
8. Robert Muir-Wood8,
9. Paul Wilson8,
10. Michael Oppenheimer7,9,
11. Kate Larsen6,
12. Trevor Houser6

Affiliations

1. Global Policy Laboratory, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
3. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
   
4. Department of Economics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
   
5. Energy Resource Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
   
6. Rhodium Group, New York, NY, USA.
   
7. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
   
8. Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA, USA.
   
9. Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
10. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (R.K.)

1. Science 30 Jun 2017:

Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1362-1369
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal4369

This is NOT the NCAR. None of these researchers work for the USGCG who produce the NCAR. This was published in Science Magazine, a commercial venture.

Stupid

 

[saveliberty]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

See what happens when you use math and science correctly? No changing the data to match your hypothesis, results in landing where you are suppose to. Predictions are verified by the landing, not proven incorrect time and time again.

 

[karpenter]

The OP Is Based On A False Premise
Mathematics Is Empirical And Proveable,
Weather Isn't

Anyone Want To Discuss
Why It's Impossible The Yucatan Asteroid
Wiped Out The Dinosaurs

Or How About The Chicken And The Egg

 

[Darkwind]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

What temperature is the Earth supposed to be, and why is it bad that it is going to get maybe a degree warmer in the next 100 years? Lets put aside that there are legitimate and serious questions that man is causing any kind of fluctuation in climate change.

Specifically, outline, using science, how the Earth is going to die if this is allowed to happen.

 

[SSDD]

Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.

So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.

It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?

The only "amazing feat" they pulled off was fooling so many people.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


Step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. My bet is that it isn't going to happen.

 

[Wuwei]

The only "amazing feat" they pulled off was fooling so many people.

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.


Step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. My bet is that it isn't going to happen.

Cross posting again.

 

[Crick]

Lets put aside that there are legitimate and serious questions that man is causing any kind of fluctuation in climate change.

Specifically, outline, using science, how the Earth is going to die if this is allowed to happen.

No, there are no legitimate and/or serious questions as to whether or not man is causing climate change.

No one has claimed the Earth is going to die, whatever that might mean.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Lets put aside that there are legitimate and serious questions that man is causing any kind of fluctuation in climate change.

Specifically, outline, using science, how the Earth is going to die if this is allowed to happen.

No, there are no legitimate and/or serious questions as to whether or not man is causing climate change.

If that is true, then why do proponents falsify data?

 

[saveliberty]

Wow the Faithers have done it. France is rioting over a global warming tax.

 

[Crick]

If that is true, then why do proponents falsify data?

They do not. But opponents have spread lies that they have.

 

[Crick]

Wow the Faithers have done it. France is rioting over a global warming tax.

Actually, a fuel tax

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow the Faithers have done it. France is rioting over a global warming tax.

Actually, a fuel tax

Even if you dispute Mr. Hulot’s timeline – the IPCC recently said global carbon emissions would need to fall by 45 per cent below 2010 levels by 2030 to prevent planetary warming from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius – there is little scientific doubt about our current trajectory. Very few countries are on track to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets under the 2015 Paris climate accord.

And yet, Mr. Macron gives the impression of trying hard. It was the French President, after all, who vowed to “make the planet great again” after U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to pull out of the Paris accord. Mr. Macron has pledged to spend more than €70-billion ($110-billion) on renewable energy subsidies by 2028. And, starting on Jan. 1, his government is set to implement a carbon tax that will increase the per-litre price of diesel fuel used by most French motorists by 26 centimes (39 cents) by 2022.

Emmanuel Macron’s carbon tax collides with France’s forgotten

Rioters torched cars and buildings in central Paris on Saturday following two weeks of protests caused partly by higher fuel taxes which Macron says are needed to fight climate change. Some protesters called for him to resign.

France's Macron learns the hard way: green taxes carry political risks | Reuters