500 scientists say there is no climate emergency

[Crick]

I know. But you land all over scientists who are genuine climate scientists. Yet this is not your field of study.

There are a great deal MORE climate scientists with whom I fully agree and support than there are that I reject. And since I am not a climate scientist, I have based my opinions on the comments and reviews of those who are. There are far more active scientists that reject the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Ball, Pielke Sr, Soon and Bailunas than agree with them. I have also shown you on multiple occasions that there are far more climate scientists who agree with the IPCC (particularly since the IPCC's conclusions are based on their work) than reject it. Yet you have chosen to go with the distinct minority. And when I ask you why, you have not been able to provide an answer. You should think about all of that Robert.

 

[jc456]

There are a great deal MORE climate scientists with whom I fully agree and support than there are that I reject. And since I am not a climate scientist, I have based my opinions on the comments and reviews of those who are. There are far more active scientists that reject the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Ball, Pielke Sr, Soon and Bailunas than agree with them. I have shown you on multiple occasions that there are far more climate scientists who agree with the IPCC (particularly since the IPCC's conclusions are based on their work) than reject it. Yet you have chosen to go with the distinct minority. And when I ask you why, you have not been able to provide an answer. You should think about all of that Robert.

yet you reject any opposing scientist almost every time. weird how you wish to cherry pick your stance. Just state, that no scientist that doesn't agree with you is useless. Why are you afraid to make that statement, your posts say it?

 

[ding]

There are a great deal MORE climate scientists with whom I fully agree and support than there are that I reject. And since I am not a climate scientist, I have based my opinions on the comments and reviews of those who are. There are far more active scientists that reject the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Ball, Pielke Sr, Soon and Bailunas than agree with them. I have also shown you on multiple occasions that there are far more climate scientists who agree with the IPCC (particularly since the IPCC's conclusions are based on their work) than reject it. Yet you have chosen to go with the distinct minority. And when I ask you why, you have not been able to provide an answer. You should think about all of that Robert.

It's not a popularity contest.

 

[jc456]

It's not a popularity contest.

Doesn’t the Nobel prize usually go to a single person? So crick’s saying those people don’t count because they aren’t a majority!

 

[Crick]

There are a great deal MORE climate scientists with whom I fully agree and support than there are that I reject. And since I am not a climate scientist, I have based my opinions on the comments and reviews of those who are. There are far more active scientists that reject the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Ball, Pielke Sr, Soon and Bailunas than agree with them. I have also shown you on multiple occasions that there are far more climate scientists who agree with the IPCC (particularly since the IPCC's conclusions are based on their work) than reject it. Yet you have chosen to go with the distinct minority. And when I ask you why, you have not been able to provide an answer. You should think about all of that Robert.

Robert? Do you have a response to this?

 

[Captain Caveman]

There are a great deal MORE climate scientists with whom I fully agree and support than there are that I reject. And since I am not a climate scientist, I have based my opinions on the comments and reviews of those who are. There are far more active scientists that reject the work of Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Ball, Pielke Sr, Soon and Bailunas than agree with them. I have also shown you on multiple occasions that there are far more climate scientists who agree with the IPCC (particularly since the IPCC's conclusions are based on their work) than reject it. Yet you have chosen to go with the distinct minority. And when I ask you why, you have not been able to provide an answer. You should think about all of that Robert.

The term, "Climate Scientist", is an euphemism for, "Political Scientist". Science is based on doubt, when you remove it, it's called, "Religion". Your religion is climate scientists.

 

[jc456]

The term, "Climate Scientist", is an euphemism for, "Political Scientist". Science is based on doubt, when you remove it, it's called, "Religion". Your religion is climate scientists.

She still doesn’t understand that

 

[Captain Caveman]

She still doesn’t understand that

Well, there's donkey years of data giving details of co2 ppm, temperature, oxygen levels etc.. for millions and hundreds of millions of years, and all of a sudden, the new breed called, "Climate Scientists", come up with bizarre reasons and predictions, pushed by money. This preys on the vulnerable adults in society, like Crick , and they're hook line sinker. Their climate Messiah had to pull a Tweet where she said the end of the world will happen in 2023.

But as you say, they don't understand.

 

[sparky]

 

[Crick]

The term, "Climate Scientist", is an euphemism for, "Political Scientist".

Wrong.

Science is based on doubt, when you remove it, it's called, "Religion".

Wrong.

Your religion is climate scientists.

Wrong.

God are you fucking stupid.

 

[Crick]

Well, there's donkey years of data giving details of co2 ppm, temperature, oxygen levels etc.. for millions and hundreds of millions of years, and all of a sudden, the new breed called, "Climate Scientists", come up with bizarre reasons and predictions, pushed by money.

Wrong.

This preys on the vulnerable adults in society, like Crick , and they're hook line sinker.

You have ZERO EVIDENCE that the world's scientists have made ANY attempt to deceive anyone about anything. The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand, has ADMITTED spending hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to fool ignorant people like you.

Their climate Messiah had to pull a Tweet where she said the end of the world will happen in 2023.

There is no "climate messiah"

But as you say, they don't understand.

Says the person with zero science knowledge rejecting the entirety of mainstream science.

God are you fucking stupid.

 

[ding]

You have ZERO EVIDENCE that the world's scientists have made ANY attempt to deceive anyone about anything. The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand, has ADMITTED spending hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to fool ignorant people like you.

Except for the fact that they completely skip the discussion on why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet with over 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2, hide the breakdown between radiative forcing/feedback and don't allow dissenting opinions in the IPCC reports.

 

[jc456]

Except for the fact that they completely skip the discussion on why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet with over 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2, hide the breakdown between radiative forcing/feedback and don't allow dissenting opinions in the IPCC reports.

Climategate told us

 

[Captain Caveman]

Wrong.

You have ZERO EVIDENCE that the world's scientists have made ANY attempt to deceive anyone about anything. The fossil fuel industry, on the other hand, has ADMITTED spending hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to fool ignorant people like you.

There is no "climate messiah"

Says the person with zero science knowledge rejecting the entirety of mainstream science.

God are you fucking stupid.

Take a graph, say co2 or temperature etc.. Over the millions of years, plot your readings and what do you see? A wave, an undulating analogue wave, and you can also lay the waves on top of one another.

Here's an example of co2 and temp -




And what are the p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ climate scientists doing that gets gullibles like you into hysterics? In you were to break the graph above into tiny time frames of years, a few hundred years, even hundreds of thousand years, they will look like the graphs that p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ climate scientists come up with. The waves are made up of straight lines, with rapid and slow events, but when you plot them over millions of years, that's when you can compare and contrast without shitting your pants.

Get back to your climate Messiah and leave the adults alone

 

[Crick]

Take a graph, say co2 or temperature etc.. Over the millions of years, plot your readings and what do you see? A wave, an undulating analogue wave, and you can also lay the waves on top of one another.

An analog wave?

Here's an example of co2 and temp -

View attachment 884945

These data are available at a wide range of scales and as might be expected, the shorter the scale, the more accurate the data.

And what are the p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ climate scientists doing that gets gullibles like you into hysterics?

Before asking yoru rhetorical question, you need to establish your premise: the existence of political climate scientists and perhaps some means of identifying those that are political and those that are not. Without any of that, they are nothing but your fantasy.

In you were to break the graph above into tiny time frames of years, a few hundred years, even hundreds of thousand years, they will look like the graphs that p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ climate scientists come up with.

Why don't you show us graphs from political climate scientists and graphs from non-political climate scientists so that we might see the difference.

The waves are made up of straight lines, with rapid and slow events, but when you plot them over millions of years, that's when you can compare and contrast without shitting your pants.

Get back to your climate Messiah and leave the adults alone

God, you are just inCREDibly, fucking STUPID.

 

[Captain Caveman]

An analog wave?

God, you are just inCREDibly, fucking STUPID.

I like your irony. After a day's work, I check in on USMB to see what stupidity Crick posts, you didn't disappoint. You don't know what analogue is? You numpt.

What percentage of the atmosphere is co2.

 

[Crick]

I like your irony. After a day's work, I check in on USMB to see what stupidity Crick posts, you didn't disappointed. You don't know what analogue is? You numpt.

What percentage of the atmosphere is co2.

I do know what analog means. What I'd like to hear from you is what a non-analog wave might be?

 

[jc456]

I do know what analog means. What I'd like to hear from you is what a non-analog wave might be?

no, no question until you answer his! you obtuse moron. What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? He asked you first after he answered your post. But you can't in kind answer his. you obtuse fool.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I do know what analog means. What I'd like to hear from you is what a non-analog wave might be?

What percentage of the atmosphere is co2?

 

[Crick]

What percentage of the atmosphere is co2.

Is this question rhetorical or do you not know how to convert PPM to percent or do you simply not know AND not know how to look this up?

CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently 419.28 ppm

Daily CO2

Continual updates of daily CO2 levels recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The page features NOAA MLO data and charts with charts and links for Scripps MLO data.

www.co2.earth

You could also get it from:

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

Earth's CO2 Home Page

CO2.Earth connects the general public with the latest data and information for stabilizing earth's atmosphere, climate and living environments.

www.co2.earth

Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

COâ emissions

How much CO₂ does the world emit? Which countries emit the most?

ourworldindata.org

Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

What's your Birth Carbon?

How much have carbon dioxide levels increased during your lifetime? Start by seeing what levels were like during the year you were born, and learn what we can do to solve climate change.

www.nature.org

Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

See how levels have never been higher with this fully interactive CO2 graph featuring current & historical CO2 levels and global temperatures. A project by the 2 Degrees Institute.

www.co2levels.org

Now, to convert PPM (parts per million) to percent (parts per 100) we need to do some very simple math.

Here is a website with a good explanation: 420 PPM to Percent (Convert 420 parts-per million to percent)

420 ppm = 0.0420%

For future reference, note that last line. You can convert any ppm value to percent, by dividing it by 10,000. This is because 1,000,000 / 100 = 10,000