450 scientists present stunning rebuke of Trumps climate science denial

[Billy_Bob]

Since the mid seventies, I have to pay so much more for water because we get less rain. to water my lawn and my garden. But when I was a kid, it rained more or less every third day, I remember full well.
Now, here in Denver, on average it rains once every three weeks, if not longer. I am no statistician, but it is getting warmer and drier. I remember we all used to speak English and illegals were a pipe dream. Now?

Again... you are factually wrong. The temps are relatively the same. Rainfall varies from region to region through the years but as an aggregate, it's virtually unchanged. It simply SEEMS that it's getting warmer and drier. It's actually NOT.

This has not a damn thing to do with immigration!

It's about people manipulating the facts to fit their agenda. We see the facts, global warming denial or defending illegal aliens, pretty much the same thing.

The FACTS do NOT fit the Warmer agenda... that's why they have to resort to insult and ridicule.

ONE DEGREE IN A CENTURY!

If you remove the bias applied by NOAA the rise is just 0.62 deg C...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You have ONE degree temperature change in a century.

More like 1.3C.

90% of GHG is Water Vapor!

Not relevant to the correctness of AGW theory.

IF the atmosphere were a 10,000 seat arena, carbon dioxide would represent 4 seats

Not relevant to the correctness of AGW theory.

All photosynthetic plant life thrives most optimally at ~600 ppm CO2. (We're currently at ~400 ppm)

Not relevant to the correctness of AGW theory.

So much Bull Shit....

Your theory requires feedbacks which do not exist as AWG theory purports... Where is that hot spot? Have you found it yet?

 

[Slash]

I love the circular reasoning these idiots use.. The original 97% lie was done by John Cook and it was a total sham... Now they use Cook's work to support their own and tell us Cooks cooked crap is valid...

The spinning is making me dizzy.

Not just cook. Though a politically funded think tank tried to debunk it, but the scientific community debunked their unscientific response. The Duran Study. The Oreskes one. The Carlton Study, The Anderregg study, The Stenhouse study. All non-political scientific studies... Again and again high 90's.

What's interesting is the number only drops when the studies are funded by political groups.

 

[mamooth]

Sucks to believe fake data like you.

Now you're just flailing, going down the list of debunked denier scams. Good parrot. You don't think at all. You just repeat. That's what your masters like about you.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

SCIENCE: 'Whistleblower' says protocol was breached but no data fraud

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

There's no propaganda you can push that we haven't debunked many times. Cultists like you are common and boring. We kind of pity you. You read a conspiracy blog, and all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, you thought you'd show those dirty liberals. And then you get smacked with the truth. It must be quite a shock to you.

Why do you morons keep beating this dead cow and ignore the fact that you're being lied to?

Lamar Smith and other leaders of your cult lied to your face. What do you plan to do about it? You have a choice. You can demand to know why your masters lied to you. Or, you can drop to your knees, lick their boots with even more fervor, and beg for more lies. We all know you'll choose the latter. The cult is your life, and you're too scared to leave it.

 

[MaryL]

450 scientists present stunning rebuke of Trumps climate science denial
JOE ROMM at Think Progress

450 scientists present stunning rebuke of Trump’s climate science denial

"SNIP............

A massive new report by more than 450 scientists, confirms that the Earth warmed to a new record in 2016, driven by a record increase in carbon dioxide levels.

The 27th annual “State of the Climate” report, led by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), stands as the first comprehensive rebuke by the nation’s and world’s climate scientists to the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and reaffirmed last week that he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which remains the best hope for America and the world to avert catastrophic impacts.

“Surface temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two of the more publicly recognized indicators of global-scale climate change, set new highs during 2016,” the report explains, “as did several surface and near-surface indicators and essential climate variables.”

NOAA’s news release explains that 2016 set several major new climate records — all of which topped records previously set the year before:

Greenhouse gases were the highest on record.
Global surface temperature was the highest on record.
Average sea surface temperature was the highest on record.
Global sea level was the highest on record.

Go Scientist go!!! Wahooo!!! **** Trump!

I voted for Trump. I know man made global warming is real, Trump better stop pandering to the petroleum PAC's and listen to the American voter.

78% think man may affect the climate, only 18% think man is the cause solely... Trum is listening to the majority who believe we are not the sole cause and the effect is miniscule...

I AM 60 YEARS OLD, I love science. It's becoming apparent the climate is changing, when it was pretty much static or so slow to change it took hundreds or thousands of years before anyone noticed. Now? I see the change in a few dozen years, nobody is making that up, it's real. I see PACs controlling debate on global warming the same way I do immigration. Think about it.Wealthy industrialist in the petroleum industry VS wealthy industrialist that exploit illegal aliens want to manipulate popular opinion to minimize the effects. Follow the money.

Keep blaming the wealthy.. You want to see just how fast climate can change? One need only look at the paleo records and we can change massively in as little as 30 years and as much as 2-4 deg C..

So until you folks can produce OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your premise I don't want to hear your fantasies..

I gave up my car, I recycle and I am poor lower class. I don't use bottle water or plastic as little as possible. I live a world of illegal aliens that are as artificial as the plastic trash island in the mid pacific. We can fix this, if we try.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And you have NO data. lol

 

[Boss]

"All photosynthetic plant life thrives most optimally at ~600 ppm CO2. (We're currently at ~400 ppm)"
Not relevant to the correctness of AGW theory.

Explain WHY Mother Nature designed plants that grow and thrive optimally at ~600 ppm CO2?

 

[Slash]

And the funniest part is. Of that 3% that don't believe global warming is man made? They've all got conflicting other reasons. So it's not 97% vs. 3%.

It's 97% vs. .4% that say there is no warming occuring.
97% vs. .6% that say it's this natural cause
97% vs. .2% on this other natural cause.
97% vs. .05% that it's sunspots...

It just shows you how staggering the consensus is. So in order to try and make it sound better like it isn't an utter consensus, we try to lump it into two different sides. It's the 97% on human caused. 3% with all these other theories or that it's not even happening and pretending they aren't their own ideas as well.

 

[mamooth]

Explain WHY Mother Nature designed plants that grow and thrive optimally at ~600 ppm CO2?

First, explain where you got that "fact".

Second, explain why you think "mother nature" is some kind of sentient being that's working towards a mysterious goal. That is, why do you embrace the Gaian hypothesis?

And third, explain why you think it has anything to do with the fact that rising CO2 levels are increasing the earth's temperature.

 

[Markle]

450 scientists present stunning rebuke of Trumps climate science denial
JOE ROMM at Think Progress

450 scientists present stunning rebuke of Trump’s climate science denial

"SNIP............

A massive new report by more than 450 scientists, confirms that the Earth warmed to a new record in 2016, driven by a record increase in carbon dioxide levels.

The 27th annual “State of the Climate” report, led by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), stands as the first comprehensive rebuke by the nation’s and world’s climate scientists to the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” and reaffirmed last week that he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which remains the best hope for America and the world to avert catastrophic impacts.

“Surface temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two of the more publicly recognized indicators of global-scale climate change, set new highs during 2016,” the report explains, “as did several surface and near-surface indicators and essential climate variables.”

NOAA’s news release explains that 2016 set several major new climate records — all of which topped records previously set the year before:

Greenhouse gases were the highest on record.
Global surface temperature was the highest on record.
Average sea surface temperature was the highest on record.
Global sea level was the highest on record.

Go Scientist go!!! Wahooo!!! **** Trump!

George Soros' Think Progress. Nuff said!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I love the circular reasoning these idiots use.. The original 97% lie was done by John Cook and it was a total sham... Now they use Cook's work to support their own and tell us Cooks cooked crap is valid...

The spinning is making me dizzy.

Not just cook. Though a politically funded think tank tried to debunk it, but the scientific community debunked their unscientific response. The Duran Study. The Oreskes one. The Carlton Study, The Anderregg study, The Stenhouse study. All non-political scientific studies... Again and again high 90's.

What's interesting is the number only drops when the studies are funded by political groups.

Your list of circular studies is astounding. Every one use each other to prop up themselves... circular firing squad...

 

[MaryL]

I bike to work, I try to cut back on my carbon footprint evey day, I recycle and I am Conservative, I voted for Trump. I never used bottle water, I use my own bottle. I believe global warming is man made. Trump needs to get his head out of the pocket of the petroleum industry PACs and listen to us Americans, not big industry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the funniest part is. Of that 3% that don't believe global warming is man made? They've all got conflicting other reasons. So it's not 97% vs. 3%.

It's 97% vs. .4% that say there is no warming occuring.
97% vs. .6% that say it's this natural cause
97% vs. .2% on this other natural cause.
97% vs. .05% that it's sunspots...

It just shows you how staggering the consensus is. So in order to try and make it sound better like it isn't an utter consensus, we try to lump it into two different sides. It's the 97% on human caused. 3% with all these other theories or that it's not even happening and pretending they aren't their own ideas as well.

How many votes did Obama get to ratify the Paris Accord?

Was it more than Clinton got for Kyoto?

 

[Slash]

Your list of circular studies is astounding. Every one use each other to prop up themselves... circular firing squad...

Actually separate studies, different people, different countries. Same results though. That's the only circular thing about it. Pose the question however you want, the consensus is there.

And you see. Rather than debunk a scientific study with actual information and science... Hey lets just call it "circular" and pretend it's not real because somehow that debunks it in your mind. That's the issue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the funniest part is. Of that 3% that don't believe global warming is man made? They've all got conflicting other reasons. So it's not 97% vs. 3%.

It's 97% vs. .4% that say there is no warming occuring.
97% vs. .6% that say it's this natural cause
97% vs. .2% on this other natural cause.
97% vs. .05% that it's sunspots...

It just shows you how staggering the consensus is. So in order to try and make it sound better like it isn't an utter consensus, we try to lump it into two different sides. It's the 97% on human caused. 3% with all these other theories or that it's not even happening and pretending they aren't their own ideas as well.

Legates Et AL.. exposed the bull used to create the lie.. and every one followed making the same mistakes... Stupid is as stupid does..

Tell me, when you throw out 11,944 papers that say AGW is not man caused and then keep just 79 that say it is and then tell us that just three were unclear... how do you reach anywhere near a 97% concurrence? Liberal common core math...??

 

[Slash]

How many votes did Obama get to ratify the Paris Accord?

Was it more than Clinton got for Kyoto?

No idea. Again, I don't play politics when it comes to science. We've seen time and time again through human history that doesn't work. I'll listen to the scientists on science over Obama or Trump or any politician any day of the week.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your list of circular studies is astounding. Every one use each other to prop up themselves... circular firing squad...

Actually separate studies, different people, different countries. Same results though. That's the only circular thing about it. Pose the question however you want, the consensus is there.

And you see. Rather than debunk a scientific study with actual information and science... Hey lets just call it "circular" and pretend it's not real because somehow that debunks it in your mind. That's the issue.

They all used Cooks numbers.... and methods... And they are wrong..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many votes did Obama get to ratify the Paris Accord?

Was it more than Clinton got for Kyoto?

No idea. Again, I don't play politics when it comes to science. We've seen time and time again through human history that doesn't work. I'll listen to the scientists on science over Obama or Trump or any politician any day of the week.

Again, I don't play politics when it comes to science. We've seen time and time again through human history that doesn't work.

Right. Because the people shouldn't have a choice when it comes to reducing CO2........

 

[Slash]

Legates Et AL.. exposed the bull used to create the lie.. and every one followed making the same mistakes... Stupid is as stupid does..

Tell me, when you throw out 11,944 papers that say AGW is not man caused and then keep just 79 that say it is and then tell us that just three were unclear... how do you reach anywhere near a 97% concurrence? Liberal common core math...??
View attachment 143041

And how did legates say that 99.7% didn't see humans being involved...

Legates et al had to only count papers rated 1, and then also exclude any papers categorized as "impacts" and "mitigation".

The first step not only excludes every paper that endorses the consensus without explicitly quantifying the contribution of humans, or only implicitly endorses the consensus - it actually counts them and neutral (rating 4) papers as disendorsing the consensus. That follows because they are not rejecting the 32.6% of all abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus in Cook et al, but the 97.1% "among abstracts with AGW position". So, either it is a deliberate strawman by quantifying something they know to belong to a different category (% among all abstracts) or they are tacitly asserting that all abstracts have a position on AGW, and that overwhelmingly that position is a refusal to endorse AGW. Curiously they are willing to assert this without any sign that they themselves have rated the abstracts. They are insisting that their a priori rating is better than Cook et al's empirical rating.


If you don't understand that, Basically he took a look at a paper and if the paper said they were 99.9999999999% positive global warming was human caused. He put that in the "not endorsing humans as the cause". If they said it's 99.99999999% human caused for sure, and .000000001% cows farting... He put that in the non human caused pile. Then he took out all the ones that talked about the impacts or mitigation (most of them). Basically if you said it was 100% human caused and to help stop it we must do X" that gets thrown out.


THAT is really your defense? Come on buddy. You've got to at least try.

See that's the issue. When you buy in to ANYTHING you can find that says what you want it to, and just clutch on to it like it's the greatest thing in the world because it says what you need it to say.

Look, in the age of the internet, you can find proof of anything you want to see. You can find proof that the earth is flat, that Trump is actually a lizard man. Anything. Every crackpot gets a shot.

And by the way, that doesn't change the other studies even. You are just making that up again and trying to pass a lie off. He did NOTHING with the other studies I mentioned.


When you have to sit there and spout a lie to defend your position. That ends your position as far as I am concerned. I've got it now. You are willing to make up whatever you can to discredit science because of your political belief. Go ahead. I'm not going to argue your politics vs. my science on a topic of science. I already said those two don't mix.

 

[Slash]

Again, I don't play politics when it comes to science. We've seen time and time again through human history that doesn't work.

Right. Because the people shouldn't have a choice when it comes to reducing CO2........

Not what I said. When it comes to finding out about something scientific I'll go to the scientists, not the politicians. When I need an opinion about a sore tooth, I'll listen to a dentist, not a radio DJ. Scientists can say smoking causes cancer. Politicians with a marlboro factory in their state can say it's good for the lungs.

When it comes to a scientific discussion I put politics aside and look at what the subject matter experts have to say. I'll form my opinions about global warming from scientists, not Obama and Trump.