Climate Change Deniers Claim to Understand Science

[mamooth]

I think they should start and lead by example. off themselves to take some of the "humans" causing all their wails and concerns off Mother earth. give her a break you know.

Yet another denier who wants all her opponents dead.

I wish I could say that was unusual, but most deniers are that violent and fascist. It's just a matter of whether they'll openly admit it. None of them have ever criticized the bloodlust of their fellow deniers, that's for sure.

In contrast, nobody on the rational side ever calls for anyone's death. The two sides are very different in that regard. Deniers tend to be genocidal stalinists, while the reason-based people ... aren't.

 

[Stephanie]

here ya go. Now you all gotta do what Obama and his ilk says. Not WHAT THEY DO

just sickening the cost we have put out for this mans jaunts around the country.

BUT if Hillary's elected they are hoping to pass A CARBON tax on ya so WE can PAY for them and more government.
SNIP:
Obama’s Earth Day Flights Cost Taxpayers $866,615



AP

BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 24, 2015 4:23 pm


President Obama’s Earth Day Air Force One flights cost taxpayers with more than $800,000, according to newly released documents by Judicial Watch.

The documents, obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, show Air Force One runs a cost of $206,377 per hour to operate. Obama’s trips to and from Miami to deliver his speech in the Florida Everglades totaled 4.2 hours, costing taxpayers $866,615.40. Additionally, Air Force One used 9,180 gallons of jet fuel.

During Obama’s Earth Day speech, he assailed Republicans on global warming.

“The irony of using Air Force One for an unnecessary jaunt to discuss global warming aside, these documents show that taxpayers are being gouged for President Obama’s abuse of the perks of office,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “Taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for his continual savaging of political opponents.”

Using FOIA’s and subsequent lawsuits, Judicial Watch discovered the Obamas and Bidens have spent more than $40 million in taxpayer dollars on trips since 2009.

ALL of it here
Obama s Earth Day Flights Cost Taxpayers 866 615 Washington Free Beacon

 

[Billy_Bob]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Summary of this thread's Opening Post..

Gardisil, AIDs, vaccination, GWarming --- ALL of the dissenters are equally stupid. As far as GW deniers, there has been NO EVIDENCE that the AGW is about anything other than science.

................ Says a blogger from his couch... Not a shred of evidence, never seen any evidence of the begging and whining at UN Climate Conferences about redistribution. Or comments of key IPCC officials affirming their mission..

Did I sum up the OP? Anyone want to discuss? That's actually why this thread is here...

You missed the adhom bombs and ignoring any and all actual science presented... The threads title is a lie as the OP doesn't have a clue what we believe or why and then equates us with those who reject the genocide attempt by Hitler, ever happened to the Jews.. all while advocating that the elderly and young should freeze to death under its oppressive socialist command and control scheme to deprive all of us the use of fossil fuels.

It just occurred to me that his whole premiss is a lie based on lies... And he says we are scientifically challenged..

 

[Carla_Danger]

here ya go. Now you all gotta do what Obama and his ilk says. Not WHAT THEY DO

just sickening the cost we have put out for this mans jaunts around the country.

BUT if Hillary's elected they are hoping to pass A CARBON tax on ya so WE can PAY for them and more government.
SNIP:
Obama’s Earth Day Flights Cost Taxpayers $866,615



AP

BY: Joe Schoffstall
June 24, 2015 4:23 pm


President Obama’s Earth Day Air Force One flights cost taxpayers with more than $800,000, according to newly released documents by Judicial Watch.

The documents, obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, show Air Force One runs a cost of $206,377 per hour to operate. Obama’s trips to and from Miami to deliver his speech in the Florida Everglades totaled 4.2 hours, costing taxpayers $866,615.40. Additionally, Air Force One used 9,180 gallons of jet fuel.

During Obama’s Earth Day speech, he assailed Republicans on global warming.

“The irony of using Air Force One for an unnecessary jaunt to discuss global warming aside, these documents show that taxpayers are being gouged for President Obama’s abuse of the perks of office,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “Taxpayers should not be forced to foot the bill for his continual savaging of political opponents.”

Using FOIA’s and subsequent lawsuits, Judicial Watch discovered the Obamas and Bidens have spent more than $40 million in taxpayer dollars on trips since 2009.

ALL of it here
Obama s Earth Day Flights Cost Taxpayers 866 615 Washington Free Beacon

So, should President Obama ride a bicycle to give his speeches, or do you think there may be other ways to slow down Global Warming?

 

[Liminal]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Summary of this thread's Opening Post..

Gardisil, AIDs, vaccination, GWarming --- ALL of the dissenters are equally stupid. As far as GW deniers, there has been NO EVIDENCE that the AGW is about anything other than science.

................ Says a blogger from his couch... Not a shred of evidence, never seen any evidence of the begging and whining at UN Climate Conferences about redistribution. Or comments of key IPCC officials affirming their mission..

Did I sum up the OP? Anyone want to discuss? That's actually why this thread is here...

You missed the adhom bombs and ignoring any and all actual science presented... The threads title is a lie as the OP doesn't have a clue what we believe or why and then equates us with those who reject the genocide attempt by Hitler, ever happened to the Jews.. all while advocating that the elderly and young should freeze to death under its oppressive socialist command and control scheme to deprive all of us the use of fossil fuels.

It just occurred to me that his whole premiss is a lie based on lies... And he says we are scientifically challenged..

If we could tap into your head we would find all the fossil fuel we'd ever need.

 

[flacaltenn]

Apparently all the deniers have to work with are false equivalencies.
How science deniers use false equivalence - Skeptical Raptor

Bullshit!

It's actually the vast majority of global alarmists who cannot understand that confimation bias and soothsaying are not science. They also think tree rings are thermometers.

Got this from some after-article comments.. Don't know where it came from..

"I think that I shall never see.....
A thermometer as bad as a tree.... :"

Funny thing is those kinds of proxies are what say there was a Medieval Warm Period and the deniers then take MWP proxies as gospel.

Ed -- Take an individual proxy from say a lake in Africa that's been well studied and you get a glimpse of past climate. When you are desperate enough to get a comparative WORLDWIDE proxy and you select only 73 sites across the globe --- you are forced to do all manners of normalization and data processing..

The results are known to ATTENUATE the magnitudes and rates of past warming (like the Med Warm Period) because after all that processing they lack any time resolution greater than a couple hundred years. Put a relatively flat graph like next to the modern temperature and you got hockey sticks..

Marcott & Shakun for instance admit this --- but that didn't stop Michael Mann from leaping in and making claims for THEIR study that were not backed even by the original researchers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

 

[cnm]

I realize that the US is not the world but we are in the world. How the world can warm and the US not is a great mystery to me. And no heating one area does NOT cool another.

So anything you can't understand cannot happen? Is that the way your reasoning works?

 

[cnm]

I read the books back then and they DID not state that warming was coming. That was a foreign concept at the time. BUT if they did then their predictions obviously went wrong as i have provided the links you can see for yourself.

Were they books by the majority of climate scientists?

Source

 

[cnm]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Absolutely. Where a poster can't understand how US temperature records showing no warming don't apply to the rest of the world. Specific enough for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here are a few of the Hansen predictions:

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Here is another good article on the accuracy of predictions concerning the weather.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry


Yeah, yeah, I know what you all are going to say. It is better to scare the piss out of everyone and shut down their place of employment then to do nothing. I disagree.

Yes, Dr. Hansen GHG sensitivity was too high in the model he used in 1988. However, he made this prediction in 1981 concerning the effects of the warming, and was a little bit incorrect then. The effects have happened far sooner than he predicted

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

Looks to me like the switch to renewables is increasing employment;

Employment Opportunity in Renewable Energy Is Rising - Indeed Blog

Earth Day is just a week away and this year, we’re celebrating the job creation around renewable energy sources and the people who work in green industries. In the US, the solar industry alone employs more than 170,000 thousand people, a 21.8% increase since 2013 —10 times the growth rate of the US economy overall.

Solar requires more people per megawatt of electricity than any other energy source. So, while the sun is certainly doing its part, it’s those people who power the industry’s rapid growth. This job growth is reflected on Indeed. Since January 2013, the share of solar job postings has steadily accelerated, growing 43% from 2013 to 2014. Searches for solar jobs have also been increasing over the same time period, but not as dramatically.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Absolutely. Where a poster can't understand how US temperature records showing no warming don't apply to the rest of the world. Specific enough for you?

That is just an observation. Happens to be true.. No different than than NASA GISS making these comments about the monthly data being higher than ever. Even tho the average hasn't moved by more than 0.03degs for many years. Then the following week, declare that they have 30% confidence in that factoid.

You can tell a million ''half truths" with the right statistic. Even change the subject mathematically and make apples look like oranges. That's why folks need skin in the game to keep folk honest..

 

[cnm]

That is just an observation.

He can't understand how local US records don't apply globally. Literally 'it's a mystery' to him. Can you not understand that point? You asked for examples of deniers not understanding the science. Are you going to deny this now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Global annual average temperature anomalies (relative to the 1961-1990 average) for 1950-2013 based on an average of the three data sets from NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office. Coloring indicates whether a year was classified as an El Niño year (red), an ENSO neutral year (grey) or a La Niña year (blue).

2014 Putting The Hottest Year On Record In Perspective Climate Nexus

Look at the chart. Do you see what the warmth has been since 1998? Does that look like any kind of cooling, or let up of the heat increase? And 2015 is going to be a very hot year, far exceeding what has gone on before.

 

[Liminal]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Why would the standard of evidence be higher? Deniers rely almost exclusively on childish conspiracy theories and wild speculation to make their alleged arguments. Why would I ever need to do any better than that to debate a denier?

 

[edthecynic]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

You obviously missed just how stupid this claim I posted earlier from the most listened to climate skeptic on Earth because YOU lack the scientific knowledge needed. So I will explain it to you, there is not one single molecule of CO2 in the entire universe that ever came from water vapor (H2O).

May 29, 2012
RUSH: People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.

August 12, 2014
RUSH: Low-information people tend to overestimate their level of information. They fail to recognize how other people know much more than they do. They fail to recognize just how little they know, even when they're confronted with it.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. ... The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

March 01, 2012
RUSH: To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry hairball, but as usual...you couldn't possibly be more wrong

I'm absolutely right. Almost all the scientists predicted warming. A survey of scientific literature proved that. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You've been shown that proof, over and over, which means you're deliberately lying.

A CIA report does not change that, being a CIA report is not the science, and only a liar pretends that a CIA report is the science. The science would be the scientific literature, almost all of which predicted warming.

Sorry hairball, but again, you are quite wrong. The CIA report makes it clear that climate science was in its infancy and what agencies existed that were interested in climate science were onboard with the cooling. NOAA, NCAR, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences were all promoting the cooling as the paper clearly states.

The CIA report clearly describes the state of the science and the early formation of the climate science establishement that we know today as a result of the cooling scare. Lying and denial won't make it otherwise.

I repeat from the report:

n the summer of 1973, the Wisconsin Plan for Climate Research was presented to the National Security Council. NOAA and the National Science Foundation were requested to review this plan to suggest how it should be implemented. The Wisconsin plan stimulated activity in many agencies.

In the Fall of 1973, three agencies sin the government became active in the development of climatic research plans: NSF, NOAA and the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences established the Committee on Climatic Variation, chaired by Dr Larry Gates. The committed members completed tier recommendations for a National Climatic Research Plan in June of 1974. This plan is presently under assessment by the National Academy of Sciences. Its final approval is expected late this year. Early in 1974 NOAA began developing a plan which would include a Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment as suggested by preliminary recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences Committee

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources.

[/B]
Deny till your black little hearts content...but the facts are what they are. The agencies who were looking at climate were all in agreement that cooling was on its way. The foundation for the climate science establishment being laid is clearly described in the CIA paper. It doesn't claim to be doing science...it does however describe climate science as it existed at the time and the position it was taking...

Sorry hairball...your propaganda doesn't trump this...That paper describes the landscape as it existed at the time and the consensus was cooling. Hell, even the NAS was onboard...NOAA certainly was, and NCAR. Who else was there at the time?

 

[SSDD]

Just interested.. Is there anywhere in this thread where there are SPECIFIC examples of where Climate skeptics don't understand the science? At least demonstrably worse than the Climate warmers.

Absolutely. Where a poster can't understand how US temperature records showing no warming don't apply to the rest of the world. Specific enough for you?

The US has in place the most advanced temperature monitoring network in the world....triple redundant and so pristinely placed, no adjustments are required. This network shows a 10 year cooling trend in the US...the standard network which requires adjustment shows the same warming trend in the US as in the rest of the world. What makes you think that if the pristine network were extended across the world and no adjustment were necessary, the same cooling trend would not be evident everywhere?

 

[Crick]

You know what we know to an even GREATER degree of precision and reliability?

The area of the United States

and

The area of the World.

Why oh why do you waste our time so?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know what we know to an even GREATER degree of precision and reliability?

The area of the United States

and

The area of the World.

Why oh why do you waste our time so?

But then you tell us that a storm in Texas is evidence of global climate warming change?????