Climate Scientist: We Don't Need Data, You Can See Global Warming on TV

[LaDexter]

What do higher taxes and big government have to do with the validity of the science?

Precisely, since "global warming" aka CO2 based climate change has precisely no scientific validity at all... which is why those who support big government and higher taxes are so very in love with such an obvious FRAUD...

 

[Crick]

Todd, please tell us why you think the science is compromised by the cost of fighting off global warming?

 

[oldsoul]

How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?

No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.

Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.

You failed at thinking critically. You're relying on the logical fallacy "climate has changed naturally, therefore humans can't change climate". By that same bad logic, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, since forest fires used to always be natural.

Rest assured that all the scientists and rational people recognize how bad your logic is.

Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"? What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What climate scientists can you name, pushing to spend trillions of dollars of tax money?

You seem to be arguing the grand conspiracy: they are lying because they will get rich. Number one: that is the hypothesis of paranoid fools. You're not a paranoid fool Todd. Two, taxes to pay for massive amelioration measures will not make climate scientists rich.

This comment from Mann can be taken another way: without further research, the claim that climate scientists are doing it to get rich off research grants goes poof, doesn't it.

What climate scientists can you name, pushing to spend trillions of dollars of tax money?

It's not the scientists? It's the politicians using the scientists?
That's a relief.

You seem to be arguing the grand conspiracy: they are lying because they will get rich.

The lies are being used to expand government control, taxes and spending.

Number one: that is the hypothesis of paranoid fools.

You're right, the idea that politicians do things to increase their power.......it's just crazy!!!!!

This comment from Mann can be taken another way: without further research, the claim that climate scientists are doing it to get rich off research grants goes poof, doesn't it.

How much has Mann made thanks to his phony hockey stick?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are already paying for global warming in your taxes. You think that the money for fighting the forest fires comes from some other source? County, city, state, and federal firefighters are paid out of our taxes. The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure comes out of our taxes. What about the floods on the East side of the nation this year? How much private money goes into rebuilding the roads that were destroyed? How much federal and state money went into emergency shelters for those displaced.

Yes, Todd, you are going to pay significant tax money for global warming. But the scientists are not getting that money, your neighbors and fellow citizens that have suffered from the increases in fires and floods are the ones getting that money.

You think that the money for fighting the forest fires comes from some other source?

Which forest fires were caused by AGW? Please show all your work.

The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructure comes out of our taxes. What about the floods on the East side of the nation this year?

Pick a flood. How many inches of that rain were caused by AGW, how many inches were natural?
Please show all your work.

Yes, Todd, you are going to pay significant tax money for global warming.

They're going to keep trying, that's for sure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, please tell us why you think the science is compromised by the cost of fighting off global warming?

Please tell us why you think billions in government funding doesn't corrupt scientists.

 

[Crick]

Because it's not going to go to them. It's going to alternative energy systems, coastal construction, mass transit systems and other ways to reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

[RollingThunder]

How arrogant of someone to state that mankind can have a significant long term effect on global climate. Are they really saying that we are more powerful than "Mother Earth"?

No. That's your loopy strawman. It's also a dumb statement because it's meaningless, unless you define "more powerful" and "Mother Earth" precisely. That is, it's fuzzy feelgood nonsense.

Just some food for thought, if you are still willing to THINK CRITICALLY, and have the ability.

You failed at thinking critically. You're relying on the logical fallacy "climate has changed naturally, therefore humans can't change climate". By that same bad logic, it's impossible for humans to cause forest fires, since forest fires used to always be natural.

Rest assured that all the scientists and rational people recognize how bad your logic is.

Really? "Strawman"? "Bad Logic"?

Yup! In spades, dumbshit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....as you make very obvious.

What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change? How do they "know" that the change is not normal? Has earth not had this type of climate change before? Think about it, everything in climate changes, always has, what proves that the current change is caused by mankind? As far as I know there are a bunch of theories, but nothing that has been PROVEN. There are symptoms that have been proven to be linked to climate change, there have been causes that have been linked to both climate change and Mankind, but NOTHING PROVES the theory of man-made climate change. That is why it is still no more than a THEORY!

Ignorant clueless bullshit, bozo.

If you haven't seen the evidence confirming the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and abrupt changes, then you have been deliberately closing your eyes to it because of your crackpot rightwingnut political and economic ideologies.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around, oldfart.

Here is about the ten thousandth scientific study confirming human caused global warming, numbnuts.

New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming
PhysOrg
February 22, 2016

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it's not going to go to them. It's going to alternative energy systems, coastal construction, mass transit systems and other ways to reduce our CO2 emissions.

Billions in government funding and none of it trickles down to the scientists?

 

[Crick]

The man is suggesting that no further research is required. How else would money "trickle down" to him? He doesn't build sea walls. He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids. He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.

The money isn't to make people rich, its to pay the cost of dealing with this situation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The man is suggesting that no further research is required. How else would money "trickle down" to him? He doesn't build sea walls. He doesn't design electric cars or smart power grids. He doesn't build nuclear power plants or photovoltaics.

The money isn't to make people rich, its to pay the cost of dealing with this situation.

Obviously the government should listen to this fraudster and stop wasting money on global warming.....errr....climate change....errr....extreme weathering.....errr....whatever the fuck they're calling it now.

The money isn't to make people rich

What's Mann's net worth?

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't know, and if you cannot present it from a credible source, what purpose does bringing that up serve?

 

[mamooth]

What, pray tell, does "science" have that proves that "climate change" is more that a normal phase of cyclical climate change?

The directly observed stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave prove it's not natural, as there's no natural explanation for those things.

It's clear you know very little about the actual science, so you shouldn't be annoying the grownups with your ignorant cult jabber.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know, and if you cannot present it from a credible source, what purpose does bringing that up serve?

To refute the claim that no one gets rich from lying about the science.

 

[Crick]

What's Mann's net worth?

Obviously, Todd, you think he's become unduly rich. Wikipedia has a rather detailed biography of the Mann. How about giving it a look and telling us where you see opportunity(ies) for him to have done so?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's Mann's net worth?

Obviously, Todd, you think he's become unduly rich. Wikipedia has a rather detailed biography of the Mann. How about giving it a look and telling us where you see opportunity(ies) for him to have done so?

If his wealth is based on his fraudulent hockey stick, isn't unduly a good description?

 

[Old Rocks]

What's Mann's net worth?

Obviously, Todd, you think he's become unduly rich. Wikipedia has a rather detailed biography of the Mann. How about giving it a look and telling us where you see opportunity(ies) for him to have done so?

If his wealth is based on his fraudulent hockey stick, isn't unduly a good description?

Well, first of all, you have not established that his claims are fraudulent, second, you have not established that he is wealthy, and third, if he is, you have not established that his wealth came from that source. I am disappointed in you, Todd, you critique of Mann is quite lacking in logic or evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's Mann's net worth?

Obviously, Todd, you think he's become unduly rich. Wikipedia has a rather detailed biography of the Mann. How about giving it a look and telling us where you see opportunity(ies) for him to have done so?

If his wealth is based on his fraudulent hockey stick, isn't unduly a good description?

Well, first of all, you have not established that his claims are fraudulent, second, you have not established that he is wealthy, and third, if he is, you have not established that his wealth came from that source. I am disappointed in you, Todd, you critique of Mann is quite lacking in logic or evidence.

Well, first of all, you have not established that his claims are fraudulent,

You still believe in his hockey stick? LOL!

 

[Old Rocks]

The Hockey Stick: The Most Controversial Chart in Science, Explained

The hockey stick was repeatedly attacked, and so was Mann himself. Congress got involved, with demands for Mann's data and other information, including a computer code used in his research. Then the National Academy of Sciencesweighed in in 2006, vindicating the hockey stick as good science and noting:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't.

In the meantime, those wacky scientists kept doing what they do best--finding out what's true. As Mann relates, over the years other researchers were able to test his work using "more extensive datasets, and more sophisticated methods. And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change." Thus the single hockey stick gradually became what Mann calls a "hockey team." "If you look at all the different groups, there are literally about two dozen" hockey sticks now, he says.

Either that, or believe that all the scientists involved in the more than two dozen studies are involved in fraud. What you are claiming is hardly different that what jc, Silly Billy, and LaDexter claim.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Hockey Stick: The Most Controversial Chart in Science, Explained

The hockey stick was repeatedly attacked, and so was Mann himself. Congress got involved, with demands for Mann's data and other information, including a computer code used in his research. Then the National Academy of Sciencesweighed in in 2006, vindicating the hockey stick as good science and noting:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."

It didn't change the minds of the deniers, though--and soon Mann and his colleagues were drawn into the 2009 "Climategate" pseudo-scandal, which purported to reveal internal emails that (among other things) seemingly undermined the hockey stick. Only, they didn't.

In the meantime, those wacky scientists kept doing what they do best--finding out what's true. As Mann relates, over the years other researchers were able to test his work using "more extensive datasets, and more sophisticated methods. And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change." Thus the single hockey stick gradually became what Mann calls a "hockey team." "If you look at all the different groups, there are literally about two dozen" hockey sticks now, he says.

Either that, or believe that all the scientists involved in the more than two dozen studies are involved in fraud. What you are claiming is hardly different that what jc, Silly Billy, and LaDexter claim.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.

Especially when you drop the MWP and LIA. Very impressive!

Is that why he won the Nobel Prize? How much money did he get for that?

And the bottom line conclusion doesn't change

Right. Because the lies were for a good cause.