30 Years And Counting!

[Wyatt earp]

And you're about as smart as those boulders.

The fact that forest fires have occurred naturally does not stop human from starting forest fires.

The fact that species have gone extinct naturally does not stop humans from causing extinctions.

The fact that climate has shifted naturally does not stop humans from changing climate.

The fact that something has happened naturally does not stop humans from changing it. A second-grader can grasp such a thing, but most deniers can't. Deniers, as a whole, are just not very smart.

That's your retort? You want to ignore the entire north USA was under a mile of ice ?

Come on tell us Einstein..how much?

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

5%

How much does man contribute compared to natural ?

So you have finally admitted that man has an effect. Good for you. That's better than when you were sure climate change didn't exist, and man couldn't effect it anyway. There might be hope for you after all.

So you can't tell us right?

Once again I fart an asteroid goes off track ..

View attachment 162686

You are such a tool


Because you won't tell us ..


How much does man contribute to climate change , you can't because no one knows

So that's where you are taking your stand now; demanding the exact amount that man effects the unquestionable fact that climate change is real, and man has an effect on it? How far will you retreat next time?

So you still can't tell us huh?

Just parroting some nonsense

 

[BULLDOG]

That's your retort? You want to ignore the entire north USA was under a mile of ice ?

Come on tell us Einstein..how much?

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

5%

How much does man contribute compared to natural ?

So you have finally admitted that man has an effect. Good for you. That's better than when you were sure climate change didn't exist, and man couldn't effect it anyway. There might be hope for you after all.

So you can't tell us right?

Once again I fart an asteroid goes off track ..

View attachment 162686

You are such a tool


Because you won't tell us ..


How much does man contribute to climate change , you can't because no one knows

So that's where you are taking your stand now; demanding the exact amount that man effects the unquestionable fact that climate change is real, and man has an effect on it? How far will you retreat next time?

So you still can't tell us?

Why?

I don't have an exact number. Don't need it anyway. You already caved on your first claim that climate change doesn't exist. You'll cave again, and again, and again.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Come on tell us Einstein..how much?

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

5%

How much does man contribute compared to natural ?

So you have finally admitted that man has an effect. Good for you. That's better than when you were sure climate change didn't exist, and man couldn't effect it anyway. There might be hope for you after all.

So you can't tell us right?

Once again I fart an asteroid goes off track ..

View attachment 162686

You are such a tool


Because you won't tell us ..


How much does man contribute to climate change , you can't because no one knows

So that's where you are taking your stand now; demanding the exact amount that man effects the unquestionable fact that climate change is real, and man has an effect on it? How far will you retreat next time?

So you still can't tell us?

Why?

I don't have an exact number. Don't need it anyway. You already caved on your first claim that climate change doesn't exist. You'll cave again, and again, and again.

I didn't cave into anything, your just an indoctrinated fool like old rocks, mamooth, Michael Mann, James cook, Naomi Klein .and all the rest of the science deniers..

You just want money ..and playing a God damn game

 

[depotoo]

You used Dr. Roy Spencer’s image, so let’s use more of his stuff, huh?




You might expect that my background in climate research would mean my suggestions to a Trump Administration would be all climate-related. And there’s no question that climate would be a primary focus, especially neutering the Endangerment Finding by the EPA which, if left unchecked, will weaken our economy and destroy jobs, with no measurable benefit to the climate system.

But there’s a bigger problem in U.S. government funded research of which the climate issue is just one example. It involves bias in the way that government agencies fund science.

Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes

So, you thought government-funded science is objective?

Oh, that’s adorable.

Since politicians are ultimately in charge of deciding how much money agencies receive to dole out to the research community, it is inevitable that politics and desired outcomes influence the science the public pays for.

Using climate as an example, around thirty years ago various agencies started issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) for scientists to research the ways in which humans are affecting climate. Climate research up until that time was mostly looking into natural climate fluctuations, since the ocean-atmosphere is a coupled nonlinear dynamical system, capable of producing climate change without any external forcing whatsoever.

Giddy from the regulatory success to limit the production of ozone-destroying chemicals in the atmosphere with the 1973 Montreal Protocol, the government turned its sights on carbon dioxide and global warming.

While ozone was a relatively minor issue with minor regulatory impact, CO2 is the Big Kahuna. Everything humans do requires energy, and for decades to come that energy will mostly come from fossil fuels, the burning of which produces CO2.

The National Academies, which are supposed to provide independent advice to the nation on new directions in science, were asked by the government to tell the government to study human causes of climate change. (See how that works?)

Research RFPs were worded in such a way that researchers could blame virtually any change they saw on humans, not Mother Nature. And as I like to say, if you offer scientists billions of dollars to find something… they will do their best to find it. As a result, every change researchers saw in nature was suddenly mankind’s fault.

The problem with attribution in global warming research is that any source of warming will look about the same, whether human-caused or nature-caused. The land will warm faster than the ocean. The high northern latitudes will warm the most. Winters will warm somewhat more than summers. The warming will be somewhat greater at 10 km altitude than at the surface. It doesn’t matter what caused the warming. So, it’s easy for the experts to say the warming is “consistent with” human causation, without mentioning it could also be “consistent with” natural causation.

The result of this pernicious, incestuous relationship between government and the research community is biased findings by researchers tasked to find that which they were paid to find. The problem has been studied at the Cato Institute by Pat Michaels, among others; Judith Curry has provided a good summary of some of the related issues.

The problem is bigger than climate research

The overarching goal of every regulatory agency is to write regulations. That’s their reason for existence.

It’s not to strengthen the economy. Or protect jobs. It’s to regulate.

As a result, the EPA continues the push to make the environment cleaner and cleaner, no matter the cost to society.

How does the EPA justify, on scientific grounds, the effort to push our pollution levels to near-zero?

It comes from the widespread assumption that, if we know huge amounts of some substance is a danger, then even tiny amounts must be be a danger as well.

This is how the government can use, say, extreme radiation exposure which is lethal, and extrapolate that to the claim that thousands of people die every year from even low levels of radiation exposure.

The only problem is that it is probably not true; it is the result of bad statistical analysis. The assumption that any amount of a potentially dangerous substance is also dangerous is the so-called linear no-thresholdissue, which undergirds much of our over-regulated society.

In fact, decades of research by people like Ed Calabrese has suggested that exposure to low levels of things which are considered toxic in large amounts actually strength the human body and make it more resilient — even exposure to radiation. You let your children get sick because it will strengthen their immune systems later in life. If you protected them from all illnesses, it could prove fatal later in life. Read about the Russian family Lost in the Taiga for 40 years, and how their eventual exposure to others led to their deaths due to disease.

The situation in climate change is somewhat similar. It is assumed that any climate change is bad, as if climate never changed before, or as if there is some preferred climate state that keeps all forms of life in perpetual peace and harmony.

But, if anything, some small amount of warming is probably beneficial to most forms of life on Earth, including humans. The belief that all human influence on the environment is bad is not scientific, but religious, and is held by most researchers in the Earth sciences.

In my experience, it is unavoidable that scientists’ culture, wordview, and even religion, impact the way they interpret data. But let that bias be balanced by other points of view. Since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, an unbiased scientist would be taking that into account before pontificating on the supposed dangers of CO2 emissions. That level of balance is seldom seen in today’s research community. If you don’t toe the line, getting research results that support desired government policy outcomes, you won’t get funded.

Over-regulation kills people
Contd at link, by someone that has been there, and done that.
Science Under President Trump: End the Bias in Government-Funded Research « Roy Spencer, PhD

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

 

[gipper]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

 

[Old Rocks]

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Can you comprehend the earth is 4.5 billion years old ?

Can you comprehend it?

A 100 years , 10 years is crap, junk science

Far better than you can. I can also comprehend and have read studies on how the five great extinction periods occurred. All had rapid changes in temperatures at scales that humans life spans can appreciate.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you have finally admitted that man has an effect. Good for you. That's better than when you were sure climate change didn't exist, and man couldn't effect it anyway. There might be hope for you after all.

So you can't tell us right?

Once again I fart an asteroid goes off track ..

View attachment 162686

You are such a tool


Because you won't tell us ..


How much does man contribute to climate change , you can't because no one knows

So that's where you are taking your stand now; demanding the exact amount that man effects the unquestionable fact that climate change is real, and man has an effect on it? How far will you retreat next time?

So you still can't tell us?

Why?

I don't have an exact number. Don't need it anyway. You already caved on your first claim that climate change doesn't exist. You'll cave again, and again, and again.

I didn't cave into anything, your just an indoctrinated fool like old rocks, mamooth, Michael Mann, James cook ..and all the rest of the science deniers..

You just want money ..and playing a God damn game

Sorry, but the facts have been proven. Playing with idiots like you is just something to pass the time till all the science deniers are finally kicked out of office.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So you can't tell us right?

Once again I fart an asteroid goes off track ..

View attachment 162686

You are such a tool


Because you won't tell us ..


How much does man contribute to climate change , you can't because no one knows

So that's where you are taking your stand now; demanding the exact amount that man effects the unquestionable fact that climate change is real, and man has an effect on it? How far will you retreat next time?

So you still can't tell us?

Why?

I don't have an exact number. Don't need it anyway. You already caved on your first claim that climate change doesn't exist. You'll cave again, and again, and again.

I didn't cave into anything, your just an indoctrinated fool like old rocks, mamooth, Michael Mann, James cook ..and all the rest of the science deniers..

You just want money ..and playing a God damn game

Sorry, but the facts have been proven. Playing with idiots like you is just something to pass the time till all the science deniers are finally kicked out of office.

You still haven't proved any facts. ?

Prove facts ...

You do know their has been alligators at the north pole right?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Can you comprehend the earth is 4.5 billion years old ?

Can you comprehend it?

A 100 years , 10 years is crap, junk science

Far better than you can. I can also comprehend and have read studies on how the five great extinction periods occurred. All had rapid changes in temperatures at scales that humans life spans can appreciate.

No it's an idiotic senero , the earth is warming up and you want to blame man because your pissed off about capitalism..

 

[depotoo]

Or has so much invested in it he’s scared of losing his shirt...

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Can you comprehend the earth is 4.5 billion years old ?

Can you comprehend it?

A 100 years , 10 years is crap, junk science

Far better than you can. I can also comprehend and have read studies on how the five great extinction periods occurred. All had rapid changes in temperatures at scales that humans life spans can appreciate.

No it's an idiotic senero , the earth is warming up and you want to blame man because your pissed off about capitalism..

 

[BULLDOG]

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Can you comprehend the earth is 4.5 billion years old ?

Can you comprehend it?

A 100 years , 10 years is crap, junk science

Far better than you can. I can also comprehend and have read studies on how the five great extinction periods occurred. All had rapid changes in temperatures at scales that humans life spans can appreciate.

No it's an idiotic senero , the earth is warming up and you want to blame man because your pissed off about capitalism..

That's laughable.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

That's your retort propaganda? Once again the earth has been warning up since the last ice age fool

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Can you comprehend the earth is 4.5 billion years old ?

Can you comprehend it?

A 100 years , 10 years is crap, junk science

Far better than you can. I can also comprehend and have read studies on how the five great extinction periods occurred. All had rapid changes in temperatures at scales that humans life spans can appreciate.

No it's an idiotic senero , the earth is warming up and you want to blame man because your pissed off about capitalism..

That's laughable.

You really don't think we know your broke ass game?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its amazing to me how the AGW cult is such science deniers and their using this crap as a political tool .. just to redestrube the wealth..

Pricks..

.

 

[miketx]

^ Great cut and paste. You got anything besides what someone else says?

Unlike you, these people are very intelligent and well educated in the very disciplines relevant to the subject.

So I'll take that as a no then, that you have nothing like every lying liberal on the planet. Media fed puppet son, that's all you are.

 

[gipper]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

You are the human equivalent of Chicken Little as live and breath.

 

[Old Rocks]

You used Dr. Roy Spencer’s image, so let’s use more of his stuff, huh?




You might expect that my background in climate research would mean my suggestions to a Trump Administration would be all climate-related. And there’s no question that climate would be a primary focus, especially neutering the Endangerment Finding by the EPA which, if left unchecked, will weaken our economy and destroy jobs, with no measurable benefit to the climate system.

But there’s a bigger problem in U.S. government funded research of which the climate issue is just one example. It involves bias in the way that government agencies fund science.

Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes

So, you thought government-funded science is objective?

Oh, that’s adorable.

Since politicians are ultimately in charge of deciding how much money agencies receive to dole out to the research community, it is inevitable that politics and desired outcomes influence the science the public pays for.

Using climate as an example, around thirty years ago various agencies started issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) for scientists to research the ways in which humans are affecting climate. Climate research up until that time was mostly looking into natural climate fluctuations, since the ocean-atmosphere is a coupled nonlinear dynamical system, capable of producing climate change without any external forcing whatsoever.

Giddy from the regulatory success to limit the production of ozone-destroying chemicals in the atmosphere with the 1973 Montreal Protocol, the government turned its sights on carbon dioxide and global warming.

While ozone was a relatively minor issue with minor regulatory impact, CO2 is the Big Kahuna. Everything humans do requires energy, and for decades to come that energy will mostly come from fossil fuels, the burning of which produces CO2.

The National Academies, which are supposed to provide independent advice to the nation on new directions in science, were asked by the government to tell the government to study human causes of climate change. (See how that works?)

Research RFPs were worded in such a way that researchers could blame virtually any change they saw on humans, not Mother Nature. And as I like to say, if you offer scientists billions of dollars to find something… they will do their best to find it. As a result, every change researchers saw in nature was suddenly mankind’s fault.

The problem with attribution in global warming research is that any source of warming will look about the same, whether human-caused or nature-caused. The land will warm faster than the ocean. The high northern latitudes will warm the most. Winters will warm somewhat more than summers. The warming will be somewhat greater at 10 km altitude than at the surface. It doesn’t matter what caused the warming. So, it’s easy for the experts to say the warming is “consistent with” human causation, without mentioning it could also be “consistent with” natural causation.

The result of this pernicious, incestuous relationship between government and the research community is biased findings by researchers tasked to find that which they were paid to find. The problem has been studied at the Cato Institute by Pat Michaels, among others; Judith Curry has provided a good summary of some of the related issues.

The problem is bigger than climate research

The overarching goal of every regulatory agency is to write regulations. That’s their reason for existence.

It’s not to strengthen the economy. Or protect jobs. It’s to regulate.

As a result, the EPA continues the push to make the environment cleaner and cleaner, no matter the cost to society.

How does the EPA justify, on scientific grounds, the effort to push our pollution levels to near-zero?

It comes from the widespread assumption that, if we know huge amounts of some substance is a danger, then even tiny amounts must be be a danger as well.

This is how the government can use, say, extreme radiation exposure which is lethal, and extrapolate that to the claim that thousands of people die every year from even low levels of radiation exposure.

The only problem is that it is probably not true; it is the result of bad statistical analysis. The assumption that any amount of a potentially dangerous substance is also dangerous is the so-called linear no-thresholdissue, which undergirds much of our over-regulated society.

In fact, decades of research by people like Ed Calabrese has suggested that exposure to low levels of things which are considered toxic in large amounts actually strength the human body and make it more resilient — even exposure to radiation. You let your children get sick because it will strengthen their immune systems later in life. If you protected them from all illnesses, it could prove fatal later in life. Read about the Russian family Lost in the Taiga for 40 years, and how their eventual exposure to others led to their deaths due to disease.

The situation in climate change is somewhat similar. It is assumed that any climate change is bad, as if climate never changed before, or as if there is some preferred climate state that keeps all forms of life in perpetual peace and harmony.

But, if anything, some small amount of warming is probably beneficial to most forms of life on Earth, including humans. The belief that all human influence on the environment is bad is not scientific, but religious, and is held by most researchers in the Earth sciences.

In my experience, it is unavoidable that scientists’ culture, wordview, and even religion, impact the way they interpret data. But let that bias be balanced by other points of view. Since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, an unbiased scientist would be taking that into account before pontificating on the supposed dangers of CO2 emissions. That level of balance is seldom seen in today’s research community. If you don’t toe the line, getting research results that support desired government policy outcomes, you won’t get funded.

Over-regulation kills people
Contd at link, by someone that has been there, and done that.
Science Under President Trump: End the Bias in Government-Funded Research « Roy Spencer, PhD

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy are both creationists. Their political and religious convictions will not let them see reality. They nearly became persona non grata within the scientific community when their early readings on the satellite data contradicted others readings, and they insisted that every body else was wrong, or falsifying their data. Then it was found they had reversed a sign, and when that was corrected, their data was the same as others. Not the kind of thing that makes one trusted or earns fondness within the scientific community.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You used Dr. Roy Spencer’s image, so let’s use more of his stuff, huh?




You might expect that my background in climate research would mean my suggestions to a Trump Administration would be all climate-related. And there’s no question that climate would be a primary focus, especially neutering the Endangerment Finding by the EPA which, if left unchecked, will weaken our economy and destroy jobs, with no measurable benefit to the climate system.

But there’s a bigger problem in U.S. government funded research of which the climate issue is just one example. It involves bias in the way that government agencies fund science.

Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes

So, you thought government-funded science is objective?

Oh, that’s adorable.

Since politicians are ultimately in charge of deciding how much money agencies receive to dole out to the research community, it is inevitable that politics and desired outcomes influence the science the public pays for.

Using climate as an example, around thirty years ago various agencies started issuing requests for proposals (RFPs) for scientists to research the ways in which humans are affecting climate. Climate research up until that time was mostly looking into natural climate fluctuations, since the ocean-atmosphere is a coupled nonlinear dynamical system, capable of producing climate change without any external forcing whatsoever.

Giddy from the regulatory success to limit the production of ozone-destroying chemicals in the atmosphere with the 1973 Montreal Protocol, the government turned its sights on carbon dioxide and global warming.

While ozone was a relatively minor issue with minor regulatory impact, CO2 is the Big Kahuna. Everything humans do requires energy, and for decades to come that energy will mostly come from fossil fuels, the burning of which produces CO2.

The National Academies, which are supposed to provide independent advice to the nation on new directions in science, were asked by the government to tell the government to study human causes of climate change. (See how that works?)

Research RFPs were worded in such a way that researchers could blame virtually any change they saw on humans, not Mother Nature. And as I like to say, if you offer scientists billions of dollars to find something… they will do their best to find it. As a result, every change researchers saw in nature was suddenly mankind’s fault.

The problem with attribution in global warming research is that any source of warming will look about the same, whether human-caused or nature-caused. The land will warm faster than the ocean. The high northern latitudes will warm the most. Winters will warm somewhat more than summers. The warming will be somewhat greater at 10 km altitude than at the surface. It doesn’t matter what caused the warming. So, it’s easy for the experts to say the warming is “consistent with” human causation, without mentioning it could also be “consistent with” natural causation.

The result of this pernicious, incestuous relationship between government and the research community is biased findings by researchers tasked to find that which they were paid to find. The problem has been studied at the Cato Institute by Pat Michaels, among others; Judith Curry has provided a good summary of some of the related issues.

The problem is bigger than climate research

The overarching goal of every regulatory agency is to write regulations. That’s their reason for existence.

It’s not to strengthen the economy. Or protect jobs. It’s to regulate.

As a result, the EPA continues the push to make the environment cleaner and cleaner, no matter the cost to society.

How does the EPA justify, on scientific grounds, the effort to push our pollution levels to near-zero?

It comes from the widespread assumption that, if we know huge amounts of some substance is a danger, then even tiny amounts must be be a danger as well.

This is how the government can use, say, extreme radiation exposure which is lethal, and extrapolate that to the claim that thousands of people die every year from even low levels of radiation exposure.

The only problem is that it is probably not true; it is the result of bad statistical analysis. The assumption that any amount of a potentially dangerous substance is also dangerous is the so-called linear no-thresholdissue, which undergirds much of our over-regulated society.

In fact, decades of research by people like Ed Calabrese has suggested that exposure to low levels of things which are considered toxic in large amounts actually strength the human body and make it more resilient — even exposure to radiation. You let your children get sick because it will strengthen their immune systems later in life. If you protected them from all illnesses, it could prove fatal later in life. Read about the Russian family Lost in the Taiga for 40 years, and how their eventual exposure to others led to their deaths due to disease.

The situation in climate change is somewhat similar. It is assumed that any climate change is bad, as if climate never changed before, or as if there is some preferred climate state that keeps all forms of life in perpetual peace and harmony.

But, if anything, some small amount of warming is probably beneficial to most forms of life on Earth, including humans. The belief that all human influence on the environment is bad is not scientific, but religious, and is held by most researchers in the Earth sciences.

In my experience, it is unavoidable that scientists’ culture, wordview, and even religion, impact the way they interpret data. But let that bias be balanced by other points of view. Since CO2 is necessary for life on Earth, an unbiased scientist would be taking that into account before pontificating on the supposed dangers of CO2 emissions. That level of balance is seldom seen in today’s research community. If you don’t toe the line, getting research results that support desired government policy outcomes, you won’t get funded.

Over-regulation kills people
Contd at link, by someone that has been there, and done that.
Science Under President Trump: End the Bias in Government-Funded Research « Roy Spencer, PhD

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

The term “ global warming hiatus” is a bit of a misnomer. It refers to a period of slower surface warming in the wake of the 1997-98 super El Niño compared to the previous decades. However, make no mistake, the globe’s average temperature has still risen over that period (including record heat in 2014) and temperatures now are the hottest they’ve been since recordkeeping began in the 1880s. So let’s call it what it really is: a slowdown, not a disappearance of global warming.

A revised analysis shows a slight recent uptick in the global average temperature. Credit: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
The new findings show that even the concept of the slowdown could be overstated.

“There is no slowdown in global warming,” Russell Vose, the head of the climate science division at the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), said. “Or stated differently, the trend over the past decade and half is in line with the trend since 1950.

No Pause in Global Warming

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Does the period from 1998 to 2015 look cooler or the same as the period from 1983 to 1998? And how about the last three years? Or even the last four months? See that spike? We are entering a weak La Nina, that is a real anomaly. It should not be there by all of our previous experiance.

Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy are both creationists. Their political and religious convictions will not let them see reality. They nearly became persona non grata within the scientific community when their early readings on the satellite data contradicted others readings, and they insisted that every body else was wrong, or falsifying their data. Then it was found they had reversed a sign, and when that was corrected, their data was the same as others. Not the kind of thing that makes one trusted or earns fondness within the scientific community.

Ok so the million dollar question is what do you want?


If you think I am going to give up my three pick up trucks ..youre crazy ..


If you think I am going to give up cheap energy bills ...you are crazy ..


What do you want old rocks?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Its the same conversation I have with folks over Obama care.. nope sorry I will mess with the IRS first I will find every loop hole..i am not paying..

I am not paying because you are scared.. that's not happening..