Is climate change a "contentious" issue ? Really ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

Is climate change a "contentious" issue ?

Depends on how many new nuclear power plants you think we should build.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

I doubt you actually watched YOUR posted very short video, since her reply was reasonable and appropriate for the job she is being questioned about.

Senator Harris was trying to trap Barrett, who saw it coming, her answer destroyed Senator Harris malicious entrapment attempt, which is why your post was dead on arrival.

From the video you never watched:

“Do you accept that COVID-19 is infectious?” Harris asked.

“Um, I think yes, I do accept that COVID-19 is infectious, that that’s something of which I feel like we could say you take judicial notice of. It’s an obvious fact, yes,” Barrett responded.

“Do you accept that smoking causes cancer?” Harris pressed.

“I’m not sure exactly where you’re going with this…” Barrett responded.

“The question is what it is, you can answer it… yes or no.”

“Senator Harris, yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer,” Barrett responded.

“And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?”

“Senator, again, I was wondering where you were going with that. You have asked me a series of questions that are completely uncontroversial like whether COVID-19 is infectious, whether smoking causes cancer, and then trying to analogize that to eliciting an opinion from me that is on a very contentious matter of public debate,” Barrett responded.

“And I will not do that. I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial, because that’s inconsistent with the judicial role, as I’ve explained,” the nominee added.

======

Your cheap shot against Oil company executives, makes clear you will say anything to smear someone, who doesn't accept your viewpoint, which was never important in the Q/A exchange between the two women.

Barrett is nominated for the Supreme Court, which is why the line of questions from Harris were completely political, Harris is a lousy low IQ Senator.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

Funny how scientists and governments have a consensus about the general mechanisms that cause current global warming. It's only politically contentious among dumb fuck US rightards.

This perfect for you and Tommy:


Feynman: Knowing versus Understanding

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“And do you believe that climate change is happening and is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink?”

Harris is such a moron.

How does climate change "threaten" our air or water?

 

[Flash]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

You are confused about this Moon Bat.

Moon Bats are usually just as confused about Climate Science as they are about Economics, History, Biology and Ethics. If you were an American we could add in confusion about the Constitution.

Nobody is disputing climate change. The climate of the earth has been changing from one state to another for eons.

The fact that stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats are claiming that humans are contributing substantially to climate change is nothing more than pure bullshit that is not substantiated by any science. That is why we have exposed them fabricating data.

The ridiculous claim that humans are putting enough CO2 in the air by burning fossil fuels has no scientific basis at all.

First of all there were times when the climate of the earth was substantially cooler than it is now but the CO2 levels were significantly higher. Like ten times as much.

Then we have the earth being warmer than it is now but the CO2 levels were lower.

On top of that we have significant data that shows that CO2 changes lags climate change, not lead.

If the science of AGW was as "settled" as the stupid uneducated Libtards have said it is then they wouldn't have to lie and fabricate data to fool the people.

AGW is nothing but another Liberal scam and anybody that falls for it is an idiot.

 

[fncceo]

Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

Political activists have taken a very complex subject and, for the sake of simplification, have boiled it down into one word "Carbon". The mantra goes, "If we can just control carbon ... we can save the planet".

But, anyone who is honest will admit that there is significantly more to climate change than Carbon, or CO2, or even greenhouse gas emissions. If greenhouse gas emissions were the whole story, or even the most significant factor in the story, there would be a linear correlation between emissions and warming. But, we don't see that. We see significant variation in both cooling and heating with an overall trend towards warming that is no more significant than there has been since the end of the last ice age, 12,000 years ago.

Carbon-only models, the kind we are pummeled with daily by activists, always fail to represent the actual climate change because they don't understand the bigger picture and the entire phenomenon.

However, since is it nearly impossible to panic large segments of the population with a complex explanation of the topic, we continue to be berated with the, "Carbon is evil" line.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to panic, or hand over power and money to anyone who claims that they can 'solve' a hugely complex natural phenomenon only by controlling first-world carbon production.

 

[Crick]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this?

 

[Oddball]

Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

Funny how scientists and governments have a consensus about the general mechanisms that cause current global warming. It's only politically contentious among dumb fuck US rightards.

Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.

 

[Oddball]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

How many times do you need to be told that correlation ≠ causation.

 

[Oddball]

Some of the things that are contentious are:

The exact mechanism that causes climate to change. That is contentious.

That is utter nonsense. The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists is that the global warming of the last 150 years is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on excess CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. You knew that was a fact several years ago, you just seem to lack the honesty to admit it.

The very nearly unanimous opinion of active climate scientists...

Opinion is even less scientific than "consensus", Chumlee.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

Why is 1880 your starting point?
Show the chart with 1580 as your starting point.

 

[Crick]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

Why is 1880 your starting point?
Show the chart with 1580 as your starting point.

Todd! If you've got real data to talk about, put it up here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

Why is 1880 your starting point?
Show the chart with 1580 as your starting point.

Todd! If you've got real data to talk about, put it up here.

If there is a linear correlation between CO2 and temperature, it should work back to 1580, right?

 

[Crick]

I am not denying the existence of other factors. But the massive and rapid increase of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and particularly in the last 50 years has come to be dominant. Between 1580 and 1750, CO2 was essentially a constant. You know all this Todd. Why are you fucking with me?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not denying the existence of other factors. But the massive and rapid increase of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and particularly in the last 50 years has come to be dominant. Between 1580 and 1750, CO2 was essentially a constant. You know all this Todd. Why are you fucking with me?

I am not denying the existence of other factors.

That is awesome!! Thanks.

Between 1580 and 1750, CO2 was essentially a constant.

Is the chart going to show temperature between 1580 and 1750 is constant?

What about 1280-1750? 980-1750?

Let's see if that linear correlation is robust.

Why are you fucking with me?

Easy target.

 

[whitehall]

The fact that a democrat senator would question a Supreme Court candidate about the concept of "global warming" is proof that it is a political rather than a scientific issue.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

Crick the engineer fooled by a chart using two difference scales to make up YOUR dishonest chart.

A better chart looks like this:

This first chart shows the temperature change plots of the IPCC's gold-standard global temperature dataset, along with the monthly cumulative growth of atmospheric CO2 levels (ppm) since June 1, 1988 through June 2020. Multiple periodicities of temperature change include 1-year (twelve month); 5-year (60 months); 10-year (120 months); 15-year (180 months); and, 20-year (240 months).

For example, the chart's 15-year temperature change ending June 2020 is almost identical to the 15-year temperature change ending June 1988. Respectively, those changes were +0.13°C and +0.11°C.

That tiny difference certainly confirms that over the past 30 years there has not been an extreme impact on longer-term temperature change despite some 850 billion tonnes of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere since 1988.

And the chart absolutely reflects an up/down pattern of temperature change for all periodicities, but clearly it does not demonstrate any significant relationship to the very substantial, monotonous linear growth of CO2 levels.


LINK


======

Now watch warmist/alarmists beclown themselves over the chart, I actually made a fool out of a PHD fella, two weeks ago on this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What do you mean there is no linear correlation between CO2 and temperature. WtF is this? View attachment 402598

Explain the process by which a de minimus increase in atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 700m.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

Why are you suck a stupid fucker ?

Dear you what....please present the science and tell us what you know about science so we can discuss this help you understand how to read data.

Go ahead.

That or admit you've got your stupid anglo head up Al Gore's ass.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dear me. It is only contentious amongst oil company executives and the gullible drones that parrot their fake science.

And you you fuckers want that dumbshit Camel-A harris to be second in command.

No wonder this country is in such deep shit.