Evidence that global warming IS happening

[Abraham3]

The oldest ice cores ever taken go back 800,000 years. Let's look on that geological clock diagram and see where that puts us.

Well, that barely visible bump indicating the first hominids is 2 million years back. So our ice core would be 40% of that.

Yeah, that works.

We could even work out the actual time on the clock. Let's say the clock is scaled to 24 hours. Let's see:

(800,000/4,527,000,000) = (x/24)
x=24 * (800/000/4,527,000,000)
x= 0.00424121935056328694499668654738 hours
x=15.268 seconds

Yeah. Man, now THAT'S geological!

Let's see.... did I do that math right? Hmm... yup! If we scale the Earth's GEOLOGICAL history to 24 hours, the longest ice core (800,000 years) scales down to 15.268 seconds.

 

[westwall]

Abraham still has not proven that man made global warming is a fact. There is no consensus in the scientific community. Period.

I will never prove ANYTHING in the natural sciences. Neither will anyone else. But I can show evidence demonstrating the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of all manner of things. Regarding the consensus of climate scientists in support of the IPCC position that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation), I offer the following:

Here is an abbreviated version of the information noted in

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys...climate_change

1) 2004, Science Historian Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of the scientific literature on climate change:
Out of 928 papers' abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, NONE disagreed with the consensus position (AGW).

2) 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected member of either the AMS or the AGU:
97% agreed that temperatures had increased over the prior 100 years
84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring
74% agreed that scientific evidence substantiates human-induced warming is taking place
5% said they thought human activity did NOT contribute to greenhouse warming

3) 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch invited 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different countries to participate in a web-bases survey.
373(18.2%) of invited scientists responded.
o To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", ALL respondents answered that they agreed to some small extent, some large extent or very much. NONE responded that they did not agree at all.
o To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"98.65% of respondents agreed to a small extent, a large extent or very much. 1.35% did not agree at all.

4) 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, at UI at Chicago, polled 10,257 Earth scientists and received responses from 3,146 of them. Results were analyzed both globally and by specialization. 79 respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise AND had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.
Among the 79 actively publishing climate scientists:
o 96.2% (76) believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.
o 94.9% (75) believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures
Among ALL 3,146 Earth scientist respondents:
o 90% agreed that temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels
o 82% agreed that humans signficantly influenced global temperatures

5) 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and found:
o 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
o the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

6) 2011, Farnsworth and Lichter, Repeated the 2007, Harris Interactive survey of AMS and AGU members. Published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research a survey and analysis of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry.
o 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century
o 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring
o 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global
warming

7) 2013, Environmental Research Letters, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

8) Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers. Among the 1,381 authors who chose to participate, 97.2% rated their own papers as supporting the AGW consensus.

9) 2014, James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed 13,950 published research papers on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and a follow-up analysis of 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 and found:
o 24 out of 13,950 (0.172%) rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.828%]
o 1 out of the 2,258 (0.044%) papers in the follow-up rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.956%]

***********************

So, Owl, do you still believe no consensus among climate scientists has been shown to exist?

Then please do so. Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Abraham still has not proven that man made global warming is a fact. There is no consensus in the scientific community. Period.

I will never prove ANYTHING in the natural sciences. Neither will anyone else. But I can show evidence demonstrating the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of all manner of things. Regarding the consensus of climate scientists in support of the IPCC position that the primary cause of the last 150 years' global warming is human activity (GHG emissions and deforestation), I offer the following:



Here is an abbreviated version of the information noted in



Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



and



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys...climate_change



1) 2004, Science Historian Naomi Oreskes conducted a study of the scientific literature on climate change:

Out of 928 papers' abstracts from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, NONE disagreed with the consensus position (AGW).



2) 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected member of either the AMS or the AGU:

97% agreed that temperatures had increased over the prior 100 years

84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring

74% agreed that scientific evidence substantiates human-induced warming is taking place

5% said they thought human activity did NOT contribute to greenhouse warming



3) 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch invited 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different countries to participate in a web-bases survey.

373(18.2%) of invited scientists responded.

o To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", ALL respondents answered that they agreed to some small extent, some large extent or very much. NONE responded that they did not agree at all.

o To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"98.65% of respondents agreed to a small extent, a large extent or very much. 1.35% did not agree at all.



4) 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, at UI at Chicago, polled 10,257 Earth scientists and received responses from 3,146 of them. Results were analyzed both globally and by specialization. 79 respondents listed climate science as their area of expertise AND had published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.

Among the 79 actively publishing climate scientists:

o 96.2% (76) believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.

o 94.9% (75) believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures

Among ALL 3,146 Earth scientist respondents:

o 90% agreed that temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels

o 82% agreed that humans signficantly influenced global temperatures



5) 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and found:

o 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

o the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers



6) 2011, Farnsworth and Lichter, Repeated the 2007, Harris Interactive survey of AMS and AGU members. Published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research a survey and analysis of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry.

o 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century

o 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring

o 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global

warming



7) 2013, Environmental Research Letters, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting that 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.



8) Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers. Among the 1,381 authors who chose to participate, 97.2% rated their own papers as supporting the AGW consensus.



9) 2014, James Lawrence Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed 13,950 published research papers on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and a follow-up analysis of 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 and found:

o 24 out of 13,950 (0.172%) rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.828%]

o 1 out of the 2,258 (0.044%) papers in the follow-up rejected anthropogenic global warming [leaving 99.956%]



***********************



So, Owl, do you still believe no consensus among climate scientists has been shown to exist?

Then please do so. Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.

He has a dodgy idea of what actually constitutes evidence. Consensus certainly isn't it. Not long ago nearly 100% would have said that stomach ulcers were caused by stress and that quasicrystals didn't exist

 

[westwall]

to reiterate-- a cooling trend is likely to be 'corrected' even if it is authentic, a warming trend is likely to be accepted even if it is spurious. the homogenization process adds a large increase to the warming trend, but in a non-transparent way that is difficult to track down or remove.

Nobody in the field cares about McIntyre's claims any more, because McIntyre doesn't have a clue and refuses to get one. People tried to help him out and explain to him where he botched it, but that just brought more abuse from McIntyre, so people wised up and no longer give him the attention he craves.

Sure thing admiral. McIntyre doesn't make "claims". That's what you clowns do. He DESTROYS those claims in days, sometimes hours. EVERYBODY in the field is terrified of McIntyre. He knows how to do math and statistics, something they don't.

 

[Abraham3]

Then please do so. Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.

Then there is really no point in discussing anything with you. You are not debating or discussing or arguing or having a conversation. Your mind is completely shut. That's the way to improve yourself. That's the way to improve the world.

Fooking idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

to reiterate-- a cooling trend is likely to be 'corrected' even if it is authentic, a warming trend is likely to be accepted even if it is spurious. the homogenization process adds a large increase to the warming trend, but in a non-transparent way that is difficult to track down or remove.

Nobody in the field cares about McIntyre's claims any more, because McIntyre doesn't have a clue and refuses to get one. People tried to help him out and explain to him where he botched it, but that just brought more abuse from McIntyre, so people wised up and no longer give him the attention he craves.

Sure thing admiral. McIntyre doesn't make "claims". That's what you clowns do. He DESTROYS those claims in days, sometimes hours. EVERYBODY in the field is terrified of McIntyre. He knows how to do math and statistics, something they don't.

Here's a fantasy that needs a reality check: "Steven McIntyre is exceptional at statistics". Or even more ridiculous, that ANYONE is afraid of the man. I'm sure there are lots that dislike him. Not the same thing. And there are undoubtedly a hundred thousand PhDs that would blow his doors off. His behavior in forums discussing these matters is that of an adolescent... An emotionally immature adolescent. If you don't see that, you need to look harder and raise your standards.

 

[westwall]

Then please do so. Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.

Then there is really no point in discussing anything with you. You are not debating or discussing or arguing or having a conversation. Your mind is completely shut. That's the way to improve yourself. That's the way to improve the world.

Fooking idiot.

No, it's you who are not debating. Like all faithers you trot out your consensus bullshit and expect thinking people to park their brains at the door. We don't do that, you guys are very accomplished at not thinking. We get bored by not using our brains.

Here's a pointer to you....when you trot out Appeals to Authority it's YOU WHO ARE CLOSED MINDED!

 

[tinydancer]

The IPCC has said there has been no warming. What the **** is this kid on about?

 

[Wyld Kard]

Evidence that global warming/climate change IS bullshit!

Climate Change Hoax Exposed
October 13, 2013 Exclusive From AFP

• Censored portion of UN report leaked; says data exaggerated

By John Friend

The recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of an international group of scientists sponsored by the United Nations (UN), is extremely alarmist in nature, despite the fact that numerous top climate scientists have admitted that many of their “global warming” predictions were wrong or seriously exaggerated.

The 36-page summary report, issued to governments and world leaders last week, contends:

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The full 2,216-page report entitled “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” “was accepted but not approved in detail,” whatever that means.

The summary report goes say that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that many of the changes “are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” The report also emphasizes that “human influence on the climate system is clear,” noting that “man-made climate change is almost certain,” according to a report by CNN.

Scientists working with the IPCC contend with a 95% certainty that human activity is to blame for the majority of the changes in the environment and climate, which they allege has led to rising temperatures and sea levels, warming of the oceans, loss of ice sheets, and shrinking glaciers. The report also warns that “man-made climate change” will also impact the intensity and size of storms, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

The IPCC, along with many high profile politicians and international figures, have long been calling for a reduction in fossil fuel use and a limitation on so-called “green house gas emissions.” The report argues: “Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” Last Friday, the UN Climate Panel met in Stockholm, Sweden to release and discuss the latest findings of the IPCC, and for the first time “formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases,” The New York Times reported.

The mainstream mass media has hysterically publicized the latest findings of the IPCC without the slightest bit of skepticism or investigation. The dire predictions and ominous future outlined by the IPCC prompted one meteorologist to vow never to fly again. Eric Holthaus, who once covered the weather for The Wall Street Journal, also “decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy,” the UK’s Daily Mail reported.

Many scientists are extremely skeptical of the IPCC, its findings, and the very nature of the organization. Dr. Eric Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography at California State University – Stanislaus, argues that the IPCC has a political agenda promoted by international elites.

“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life,” Dr. Karlstrom explained to AFP in an informal email exchange.

Dr. Karlstrom, who also manages a website, went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:

“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60′s and 70′s. This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”

“The IPCC is essentially operating with pre-determined conclusions, namely that human activity and carbon emissions cause ‘global warming’ and other environmental and climate problems, even though there is little objective scientific evidence to demonstrate ‘global warming’ is in fact a real phenomenon,” Dr. Karlstrom says. Climate scientists working with the IPCC and other international bodies have been known to not only spin scientific data to fit their pre-determined conclusions, but also to outright fabricate “evidence” to support their idea of “man-made climate change.”

“Bottom line, they don’t want to share resources with the unwashed masses,” Dr. Karlstrom concludes.

Climate Change Hoax Exposed | American Free Press

 

[Abraham3]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

 

[westwall]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography? Do you also know that geographers are failed geologists for the most part? Geology majors do very well the first year, then, when the math hit's them in the second year, they turn to geography.

What is humorous is your continued belief that climatologists are somehow endowed with mystical powers so that only they can understand what they are talking about. That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.

 

[Abraham3]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography?

No, I don't. Do you have some evidence to support that?

Do you also know that geographers are failed geologists for the most part?

No, I don't. Do you have some evidence to support THAT?

Geology majors do very well the first year, then, when the math hit's them in the second year, they turn to geography.

And you know this because... you've asked them all?

What is humorous is your continued belief that climatologists are somehow endowed with mystical powers so that only they can understand what they are talking about.

You seem to believe that you know geology better than do I. Is that belief based on some mystical power you possess? No. You believe it because you claim to have had a great deal more education in that field and claim to have done original research on geological topics. And that is why I believe that PhDs doing climate research, getting published in peer reviewed journals and getting cited by other PhDs doing climate research know more about the climate that those who do NONE of those things.

That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major.

1) We aren't talking about teaching classes
2) To my knowledge (and I imagine this will soon change) no college in the US offers a program in "climatology".
3) What you say is simply untrue.

A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.

A PhD from any field would be unable to teach upper level classes from any different field. There's a reason these subjects are separated. There's a reason you can't get a BS in "Science" or even "Physical Science" or "Natural Science". You've got an ego problem and it shows every time you try to push on us how incredibly tough a program is - ooooo - G E O L O G Y. Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty certain that not a single individual at this board buys that your contention is valid or that you have the life experience to even make it.

 

[SSDD]

Then please do so. Trotting out your same old list of sycophants and scientists whose monetary well being depend on the continuation of the fraud does not constitute evidence.

Then there is really no point in discussing anything with you. You are not debating or discussing or arguing or having a conversation. Your mind is completely shut. That's the way to improve yourself. That's the way to improve the world.

Fooking idiot.

In that you are right...there really is no point till you are able to come up with something like actual evidence to support your claims....all that you have produced so far is laughable...and we both know that nothing substantial is likely to be forthcoming. If you have any ability to think for yourself at all, surely you must see that the hoax is crashing down around your ears....

Rather than your continued blustering and bloviation, perhaps you should take a cue from matthew and start trying to develop an exit strategy....that way you won't be one of the truly stupid who rode the AGW crazy train all the way over the cliff. Sure it will sting a bit, but how much worse when you have to leave the board out of sheer humiliation?

 

[SSDD]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that most climatologists' Bachelors is in geography? Do you also know that geographers are failed geologists for the most part? Geology majors do very well the first year, then, when the math hit's them in the second year, they turn to geography.

What is humorous is your continued belief that climatologists are somehow endowed with mystical powers so that only they can understand what they are talking about. That is laughable on its face, ANY PhD scientist from the hard sciences can teach any class in a climatology major. A PhD climatologist on the other hand would have serious difficulty teaching some of the second year geology classes.

He has clearly never looked at the educational requirements for a degree in climatology....if he had, he would fully understand that climate science is a soft science...as opposed to a hard science like geology. When the hoax finally crumbles, climatologists won't even be able to get jobs as weathermen as a degree in meteorology is superior to one in climatology. With the fall of the hoax, a degree in climatology will be equivalent to a degree in phrenology.

 

[IanC]

I found it kinda funny back in the day when STEM guys would take upper level courses in other fields as electives, and then proceed to blow away the competition who were supposed to know what they were talking about. My son has noticed the same thing happening today.

It is also very telling that our high schools here offer 'Earth Sciences' and 'Environmental Science' for the kids who can't hack the real science courses but need one for their transcript.

I can totally see that there is more than a grain of truth in what Westwall says about climate science not attracting the 'best and brightest', especially two or three decades ago.

 

[Abraham3]

Fooking idiot.

In that you are right...there really is no point till you are able to come up with something like actual evidence to support your claims....all that you have produced so far is laughable...and we both know that nothing substantial is likely to be forthcoming. If you have any ability to think for yourself at all, surely you must see that the hoax is crashing down around your ears....

Rather than your continued blustering and bloviation, perhaps you should take a cue from matthew and start trying to develop an exit strategy....that way you won't be one of the truly stupid who rode the AGW crazy train all the way over the cliff. Sure it will sting a bit, but how much worse when you have to leave the board out of sheer humiliation?

You have presented ZERO evidence that any of these surveys, polls and studies are invalid. You have tried, but you have failed. The results of these studies are remarkably consistent and the numbers accepting AGW, both in personal statements and published studies, have grown over time. This makes your claim that a hoax is crashing down around my ears look more than a little, schizophrenically detached from reality. Your choice to reject them is yours and yours alone as it is simply and completely unsupported by the evidence.

The vast majority of active climate scientists and a very strong majority of ALL scientists accept AGW as valid. That point is indisputable. That you try to do so simply tells us that you have real problems.

 

[SSDD]

Fooking idiot.

In that you are right...there really is no point till you are able to come up with something like actual evidence to support your claims....all that you have produced so far is laughable...and we both know that nothing substantial is likely to be forthcoming. If you have any ability to think for yourself at all, surely you must see that the hoax is crashing down around your ears....

Rather than your continued blustering and bloviation, perhaps you should take a cue from matthew and start trying to develop an exit strategy....that way you won't be one of the truly stupid who rode the AGW crazy train all the way over the cliff. Sure it will sting a bit, but how much worse when you have to leave the board out of sheer humiliation?

You have presented ZERO evidence that any of these surveys, polls and studies are invalid. You have tried, but you have failed. The results of these studies are remarkably consistent and the numbers accepting AGW, both in personal statements and published studies, have grown over time. This makes your claim that a hoax is crashing down around my ears look more than a little, schizophrenically detached from reality. Your choice to reject them is yours and yours alone as it is simply and completely unsupported by the evidence.

The vast majority of active climate scientists and a very strong majority of ALL scientists accept AGW as valid. That point is indisputable. That you try to do so simply tells us that you have real problems.

They are no more than smoke and mirrors based on assumptions. What's to prove? The burden of proof rests heavily on your shoulders and we, and everyone else knows that you can't satisfy iy

 

[Abraham3]

The majority of those items were published in peer reviewed journals. The burden is most DECIDELY YOURS.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.

 

[Abraham3]

Emeritus Professor of Geography? Do you understand what that is? Do you know what "Emeritus" means? Do you understand what a geographer studies? Do you know about which subjects he's knowledgeable? Do you understand why that is an absolutely pathetic choice if one were looking for some sort of climate expert to put up against the people that wrote, compiled, edited and reviewed the latest IPCC report?

Do you understand that you are a moron who is trying to convince others that global warming is real based off of disinformation and fraudelent science.

No.

What disinformation and what "fraudelent" science?