Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Official Policy of the IPCC
Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org
Notice he isn't saying climate policy is designed to redistribute the world's wealth. He is saying that's a side effect.
And by redistribution of wealth he doesn't mean it in the classic case of Robin Hood/communism taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He means countries with large fossil fuel reserves (eg Saudi Arabia) will no longer be as wealthy if the world switches away from fossil fuel based energy systems. Instead countries that build the replacement energy systems (nuclear, renewable, etc) will gain the riches.
Of course none of this is at all surprising or controversial - it's obvious. The reason he raises it is because the existing order of fossil fuel wealth countries are highly resistant to this redistribution of wealth. That's the main difficulty of implementing climate policy - there will be winners and losers yet the losers must cooperate.
Of course the only reason the guy's words are ever quoted, including by you, is to wrongly imply that he is saying climate policy is to redistribute personal wealth from rich to poor as some kind of communist plot.
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes..."
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
LOL. Seriously?
If AGW worked as you claim (what is your claim anyway?), then it would get warmer each and every year with absolute confidence.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Official Policy of the IPCC
Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org
Notice he isn't saying climate policy is designed to redistribute the world's wealth. He is saying that's a side effect.
And by redistribution of wealth he doesn't mean it in the classic case of Robin Hood/communism taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He means countries with large fossil fuel reserves (eg Saudi Arabia) will no longer be as wealthy if the world switches away from fossil fuel based energy systems. Instead countries that build the replacement energy systems (nuclear, renewable, etc) will gain the riches.
Of course none of this is at all surprising or controversial - it's obvious. The reason he raises it is because the existing order of fossil fuel wealth countries are highly resistant to this redistribution of wealth. That's the main difficulty of implementing climate policy - there will be winners and losers yet the losers must cooperate.
Of course the only reason the guy's words are ever quoted, including by you, is to wrongly imply that he is saying climate policy is to redistribute personal wealth from rich to poor as some kind of communist plot.
Translation: IPCC admits they redistribute wealth via Climate policy but who are you going to believe, RWatt or your lying eyes?
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
LOL. Seriously?
If AGW worked as you claim (what is your claim anyway?), then it would get warmer each and every year with absolute confidence.
From March to June does it get warmer each and every day with confidence? Nope. In fact sometimes entire weeks can be cooler than the last week. Guess the whole "seasons" thing including spring->summer thing is a communist plot too then.
Notice he isn't saying climate policy is designed to redistribute the world's wealth. He is saying that's a side effect.
And by redistribution of wealth he doesn't mean it in the classic case of Robin Hood/communism taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He means countries with large fossil fuel reserves (eg Saudi Arabia) will no longer be as wealthy if the world switches away from fossil fuel based energy systems. Instead countries that build the replacement energy systems (nuclear, renewable, etc) will gain the riches.
Of course none of this is at all surprising or controversial - it's obvious. The reason he raises it is because the existing order of fossil fuel wealth countries are highly resistant to this redistribution of wealth. That's the main difficulty of implementing climate policy - there will be winners and losers yet the losers must cooperate.
Of course the only reason the guy's words are ever quoted, including by you, is to wrongly imply that he is saying climate policy is to redistribute personal wealth from rich to poor as some kind of communist plot.
Translation: IPCC admits they redistribute wealth via Climate policy but who are you going to believe, RWatt or your lying eyes?
If you supplied the full context of the guy's words rather than just the sentence you can spin as a communist plot, then yes people would be able to see my interpretation is correct and your interpretation is wrong.
Are you also a biblical literalist by any chance?
Hide the decline!I dont think global warming started out as a cash cow for funding research that produced directed conclusions but it sure changed along the way.
No, just a lot of people like you started lying about what the scientists were stating. As the climate change that is now in motion accelerates, you and those like you will be remembered.
I dont know about the rest of you but I am concerned that the public will reject all science and scientific authority based on the fiasco of 'climate science' and the exaggerated claims of doom we have heard for the last 20 years. This whole thing is going badly, with the CAGW alarmists becoming more strident even as their pipedreams are being demolished by reality.....
"I wonder why. I wonder why. / I wonder why I wonder / I wonder why I wonder why / I wonder why I wonder!" Richard Feynman
I dont know about the rest of you but I am concerned that the public will reject all science and scientific authority based on the fiasco of 'climate science' and the exaggerated claims of doom we have heard for the last 20 years. This whole thing is going badly, with the CAGW alarmists becoming more strident even as their pipedreams are being demolished by reality.....
WHAT! You gotta be kidding, you didn't know the earth was 6000 years old and rapture was right around the corner? Public? What the heck is that anyway? You need to point it out.
"It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." Richard Feynman
Science has always had this odd spot in the community of acceptable ideas. Feynman could stand on any soapbox of any height and the deniers of ideas they find uncomfortable would still exist.
"but ask the Warmers to state clearly their their theory and all we get is insults and obfuscation"
Clearly we are talking about a threat. The threat is based on observations. Man is changing the carbon cycle in an unprecedented way and that is very risky because changes like that tend to have knock on effects on other things. Too much change too fast and bad shit happens. This is what you are asking for a theory for. But it isn't a theory, it's just observation, logic and understanding of what a threat is. That's what underpins this issue.
Theory and modeling only come in to try and predict what the effects will be. All models and theories can do is help to reduce or increase the perceived threat. If theories and models suggested the danger was limited that would somewhat reduce the threat. But if models are suggesting the danger is there and so the threat is increased somewhat.
When skeptics argue that models and theory are too simple to show anything, well that means the threat hasn't been reduced.
The threat of nuclear war is not science either.
Guess that theat doesn't exist then!
The threat of terrorists flying an aircraft into a skyscraper was never science.
Guess that means the government did it.
The threat of nuclear war is not science either.
Guess that theat doesn't exist then!
The threat of terrorists flying an aircraft into a skyscraper was never science.
Guess that means the government did it.
Fusion was once a theory and was rigorously tested, apparently AGW never made it out of the gate
I like this as your hypothesis: Are de minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate?
The threat of nuclear war is not science either.
Guess that theat doesn't exist then!
The threat of terrorists flying an aircraft into a skyscraper was never science.
Guess that means the government did it.
Fusion was once a theory and was rigorously tested, apparently AGW never made it out of the gate
I like this as your hypothesis: Are de minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate?
That's a question not a hypothesis.
The first step to answering it would be to come up with a past case in Earth's history that resembles what we are about to do to the atmosphere - namely a doubling or even tripling of CO2 levels in just 300 years.
No such example of that happening in the past is known to man. As far as we know this is the first time the planet is ever going to go through such an event.
Fusion was once a theory and was rigorously tested, apparently AGW never made it out of the gate
I like this as your hypothesis: Are de minimis, incremental increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 solely responsible for instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's climate?
That's a question not a hypothesis.
The first step to answering it would be to come up with a past case in Earth's history that resembles what we are about to do to the atmosphere - namely a doubling or even tripling of CO2 levels in just 300 years.
No such example of that happening in the past is known to man. As far as we know this is the first time the planet is ever going to go through such an event.
And you haven't replace my hypothesis with the AGW Standard Hypothesis because...?
Now we're doubling CO2? Really?
And even if we did, it's still a trace element and in all of climate history has never LEAD and warming period.
In any event, we've been warming for at least the past 14,000 years
That's a question not a hypothesis.
The first step to answering it would be to come up with a past case in Earth's history that resembles what we are about to do to the atmosphere - namely a doubling or even tripling of CO2 levels in just 300 years.
No such example of that happening in the past is known to man. As far as we know this is the first time the planet is ever going to go through such an event.
And you haven't replace my hypothesis with the AGW Standard Hypothesis because...?
Because it's unknown what you are asking for. You want a hypothesis that there will be 2C warming by 2100? Or a hypothesis for how much warming a doubling of CO2 will cause? Or a hypothesis for what effect a doubling of CO2 will have on ocean pH? Or a hypothesis for what will happen to the southern US precipitation in a warmer world? Or a hypothesis for what will happen to arctic sea ice in a warmer world? Or a hypothesis for what will happen to certain plant species ranges in a warmer world?
There is no single hypothesis. There are a load of issues and loads of hypotheses for each one.
Yea it will get there eventually
And even if we did, it's still a trace element and in all of climate history has never LEAD and warming period.
It's never been given the chance to lead a warming period because in the past emissions of CO2 have been caused by rising temperature, making it impossible to determine causality.
This time we are pumping it directly out from the ground and into the atmosphere.
It doesn't matter that it's a trace element. Ozone is a trace element, far more scarcer than CO2 and yet without it in the atmosphere land animals, including humans, would fry to a crisp.
In any event, we've been warming for at least the past 14,000 years
The warming ended 10,000 years ago. Since then temperatures have fallen slightly.
The slightly flat/falling period covers all of recorded history and all of human civilization and agriculture. QUite a stable period in terms of global temperature just a slight decline and a few ups and downs. Look at the scale, more than 2C warming would take us off the top of the chart. While cooling would be a far more serious problem, going off the top of the chart is not a good idea either.
