MMGW is bogus. Why I believe so.

[Crick]

AGW as a significant problem simply doesn't add up

In what way?

most especially when the so-called scientists

Why do you say "so-called"? Are you a climate scientist? Do you have a doctorate in a related field? Are you actively researching some aspect of climate? Are you published? Cited?

have to cherry pick or manipulate or even falsify data to make a case for it being a significant problem.

What data do you believe has been falsified, manipulated or cherry picked?

When the IPCC Summary for Policymakers isn't even written by scientists.

Can you point out a scientific error in the document? And pretend I repeated all the queries above.

To date not a single one of their models has produced results that they have predicted.

That is incorrect.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

RealClimate: Model-Observation Comparisons

RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates since 2009 of climate model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature projections from...

www.realclimate.org

Those pushing the AGW doctrine do not live their own lives as if they believed what they are pushing.

What do you know of the lifestyles of the authors of AR6 or the many studies on which its assessment is based? I would hazard a guess: NOTHING.

At the same time, it took homo sapiens several hundred thousands of years to increase to 1 billion people (around 1804). It has taken us only a little over 200 years to reach 8+ billion people. And that kind of increase in ANY species, plant or animal, will have an impact on various environments around the world.

Yes.

But environment is not the same thing as climate. So the ice caps melt.

What are you saying? That the ice caps are melting due to overpopulation or that they are not?

That has happened many times in the paleontological record.

It has not happened many time since the appearance of homo sapiens.

The last time it happened at both poles is an estimated 18 to 20,000 years ago, long before humankind was any kind of factor in any environment.

The North Pole was ice free in the summers of the Holocene Optimum and likely during prior interglacial optimums. Antarctica has not been ice free since the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, 34 million years ago. That global temperatures have been warm in the past is irrelevant. Temperatures are approaching if not already past the highest points in human history and that is certainly true of the CO2 concentrations. Even were GHG emissions to stop this instant, temperatures would continue to rise for many decades to more than a century. And, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, the danger is not the absolute CO2 level and the absolute temperature, but the rate at which both are changing.

The arctic has been ice free numerous times since then. If the ice didn't melt from time to time we would all be up to our hoohaws in ice.

The failure of the ice to melt does not put us at risk of glaciation.

That humans build their cities next to the ocean or on flood plains or on top of earthquake producing faults or in wildfire prone areas or at the foot of volcanoes, etc. just means that they are willing to ignore or be ignorant of or accept the risks that come from inevitable weather, shifting of the Earth's tectonic plates, inevitable climate change. And many millions more people and structures occupying those areas means the damage from naturally occurring Earth events will be much more severe than it once was.

It doesn't mean that climate change is somehow significantly different than what it has always been.

What tells us that climate change IS significantly different than what it has been are data collected for many years now showing us that temperatures are rising BECAUSE of human GHG emissions and that CO2 levels are higher than at any point in several TIMES the entire length of human history and that temperatures will also soon be at an all time record. And, as I just noted, the most significant point is the RATE at which CO2 and temperatures are rising; faster than life can adapt. And, as you pointed out, millions more people occupy the land, many in vulnerable locations (you left out coastlines in the face of rising seas) and the damage will be severe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In what way?

Why do you say "so-called"? Are you a climate scientist? Do you have a doctorate in a related field? Are you actively researching some aspect of climate? Are you published? Cited?

What data do you believe has been falsified, manipulated or cherry picked?

Can you point out a scientific error in the document? And pretend I repeated all the queries above.

That is incorrect.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

RealClimate: Model-Observation Comparisons

RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates since 2009 of climate model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature projections from...

www.realclimate.org

What do you know of the lifestyles of the authors of AR6 or the many studies on which its assessment is based? I would hazard a guess: NOTHING.

Yes.

What are you saying? That the ice caps are melting due to overpopulation or that they are not?

It has not happened many time since the appearance of homo sapiens.

The North Pole was ice free in the summers of the Holocene Optimum and likely during prior interglacial optimums. Antarctica has not been ice free since the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, 34 million years ago. That global temperatures have been warm in the past is irrelevant. Temperatures are approaching if not already past the highest points in human history and that is certainly true of the CO2 concentrations. Even were GHG emissions to stop this instant, temperatures would continue to rise for many decades to more than a century. And, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, the danger is not the absolute CO2 level and the absolute temperature, but the rate at which both are changing.

The failure of the ice to melt does not put us at risk of glaciation.

What tells us that climate change IS significantly different than what it has been are data collected for many years now showing us that temperatures are rising BECAUSE of human GHG emissions and that CO2 levels are higher than at any point in several TIMES the entire length of human history and that temperatures will also soon be at an all time record. And, as I just noted, the most significant point is the RATE at which CO2 and temperatures are rising; faster than life can adapt. And, as you pointed out, millions more people occupy the land, many in vulnerable locations (you left out coastlines in the face of rising seas) and the damage will be severe.

and that temperatures will also soon be at an all time record.

In the last 140 years. Wow!

 

[Foxfyre]

In what way?

Why do you say "so-called"? Are you a climate scientist? Do you have a doctorate in a related field? Are you actively researching some aspect of climate? Are you published? Cited?

What data do you believe has been falsified, manipulated or cherry picked?

Can you point out a scientific error in the document? And pretend I repeated all the queries above.

That is incorrect.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/hausfather_2020_evaluating_historical_gmst_projections.pdf

RealClimate: Model-Observation Comparisons

RealClimate: Since we have been periodically posting updates since 2009 of climate model output comparisons to observations across a range of variables, we have now set up this page as a permanent placeholder for the most up-to-date comparisons. We include surface temperature projections from...

www.realclimate.org

What do you know of the lifestyles of the authors of AR6 or the many studies on which its assessment is based? I would hazard a guess: NOTHING.

Yes.

What are you saying? That the ice caps are melting due to overpopulation or that they are not?

It has not happened many time since the appearance of homo sapiens.

The North Pole was ice free in the summers of the Holocene Optimum and likely during prior interglacial optimums. Antarctica has not been ice free since the Eocene-Oligocene boundary, 34 million years ago. That global temperatures have been warm in the past is irrelevant. Temperatures are approaching if not already past the highest points in human history and that is certainly true of the CO2 concentrations. Even were GHG emissions to stop this instant, temperatures would continue to rise for many decades to more than a century. And, as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions, the danger is not the absolute CO2 level and the absolute temperature, but the rate at which both are changing.

The failure of the ice to melt does not put us at risk of glaciation.

What tells us that climate change IS significantly different than what it has been are data collected for many years now showing us that temperatures are rising BECAUSE of human GHG emissions and that CO2 levels are higher than at any point in several TIMES the entire length of human history and that temperatures will also soon be at an all time record. And, as I just noted, the most significant point is the RATE at which CO2 and temperatures are rising; faster than life can adapt. And, as you pointed out, millions more people occupy the land, many in vulnerable locations (you left out coastlines in the face of rising seas) and the damage will be severe.

Flawed Climate Models

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated than the polemics suggest.

www.hoover.org

 

[Crick]

Flawed Climate Models

The relationship between CO2 and temperature is more complicated than the polemics suggest.

www.hoover.org

Henderson's article is a classic bit of dubious denier claptrap. Henderson, an economist with no experience creating or operating climate models, relies on the "expertise" of famous failure Willie Soon. This is an article in a right wing rag, not a peer reviewed journal publication as I provided you from Harvard. You had not a single comment on anything I said.

Try again.

 

[mamooth]

I was growing up when the environmental manbearpig was "The New Ice Age",

No, it wasn't. Only your side of denier kooks pushed the new ice age crap. You were morons back in the 1970s, and you're just as stupid now. The funny part is how you're so clueless about actual history, and so belligerent with your stupidity. You know only what the conservative MSM and your propaganda masters have fed you. We know the real facts, so you can't gaslight us.

Your side has been completely wrong about every single thing for over 40 years running now. Your record of failure with predictions is perfect and unblemished. That's why the entire planet correctly classifies you as brainwashed cult clowns.

In contrast, the predictions from mainstream climate science have been excellent. Even back in the 1970s, they were correctly predicting warming. That's why mainstream science such credibility. The scientists earned it by getting everything right.

If you want the laughter directed at you to stop, you have to engage in a similar pattern of success for 40+ years. No, whining about how all the normal people are conspiring against you won't get everyone to stop laughing.

(I almost feel sorry for this one. We see the same pattern happen here a lot. A clueless rightie, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, comes in spouting the propaganda he's been spoonfed, thinking he'll surely own the libs. Of course he sprinkles in some weirdass fantasies about the phantom marxists that haunt his fevered mind. And then he gets humiliated. It's sort of a rite-of-passage for right-wing cranks. You're not really one of them until you've been humiliated by the libs on a broad range of topics.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it wasn't. Only your side of denier kooks pushed the new ice age crap. You were morons back in the 1970s, and you're just as stupid now. The funny part is how you're so clueless about actual history, and so belligerent with your stupidity. You know only what the conservative MSM and your propaganda masters have fed you. We know the real facts, so you can't gaslight us.

Your side has been completely wrong about every single thing for over 40 years running now. Your record of failure with predictions is perfect and unblemished. That's why the entire planet correctly classifies you as brainwashed cult clowns.

In contrast, the predictions from mainstream climate science have been excellent. Even back in the 1970s, they were correctly predicting warming. That's why mainstream science such credibility. The scientists earned it by getting everything right.

If you want the laughter directed at you to stop, you have to engage in a similar pattern of success for 40+ years. No, whining about how all the normal people are conspiring against you won't get everyone to stop laughing.

(I almost feel sorry for this one. We see the same pattern happen here a lot. A clueless rightie, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, comes in spouting the propaganda he's been spoonfed, thinking he'll surely own the libs. Of course he sprinkles in a lot of bitter loser propaganda about all the phantom marxists that haunt his fevered mind. And then he gets humiliated. It's sort of a rite-of-passage for right-wing cranks. You're not really one of them until you've been humiliated by the libs on a broad range of topics.)

Your side is always right and then you push the worst solutions.

Why aren't you supporting the construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors?

 

[mamooth]

Let's start with the same question I ask all of you (and you all run from it every time):

What are you personally doing to fight "global warming"?

Everything that I ask of anyone else.

Marvin, you lying about us doesn't make us hypocrites. It just makes you a liar.

So, aside from that big lie, did you have anything else? No? You mean completely helpless on the topic, and can only regurgitate one dumb propaganda point? Imagine that.

Don't worry. Everyone expects you to run. After all, deniers always run when you debunk their crap, no exceptions. Their cult forbids honesty, after all.

 

[mamooth]

Why aren't you supporting the construction of dozens of new nuclear reactors?

Because renewables are much, much cheaper.

Nobody's stopping you from investing in nuclear power, so why aren't you?

Remember, we're liberals. That means practical people. Money matters. Unlike your side, we think that things have to be paid for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because renewables are much, much cheaper.

Nobody's stopping you from investing in nuclear power, so why aren't you?

Remember, we're liberals. That means practical people. Money matters. Unlike your side, we think that things have to be paid for.

Because renewables are much, much cheaper.

Cool story!

How much is a MWh of solar at midnight?

Nobody's stopping you from investing in nuclear power, so why aren't you?

Why isn't the federal government pushing it, instead of unreliable wind and solar?

Remember, we're liberals.

I'll try to use small words.

That means practical people. Money matters.

DURR

 

[mamooth]

How much is a MWh of solar at midnight?

Zero. What's that got to do with anything? I mean, if 100% of the grid was solar, and there was no storage at all, it would matter. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Zero. What's that got to do with anything? I mean, if 100% of the grid was solar, and there was no storage at all, it would matter. But that's not the case, so it doesn't.

I can buy solar generated electricity for $0 at midnight?

Tell me more!!!

I mean, if 100% of the grid was solar, and there was no storage at all, it would matter.

I can buy stored solar at midnight? Where?

 

[marvin martian]

Because renewables are much, much cheaper.

Nobody's stopping you from investing in nuclear power, so why aren't you?

Remember, we're liberals. That means practical people. Money matters. Unlike your side, we think that things have to be paid for.

You do nothing, just like rightwinger. You're both lying hypocrites and now we know you don't even believe your own bullshit.

lol

 

[Crick]

You do nothing, just like rightwinger.

You haven't the faintest idea what anyone else here does.

You're both lying hypocrites

Neither Rightwinger nor Mamooth have demonstrated the slightest hypocrisy.

and now we know you don't even believe your own bullshit.

And neither has gone against their own stated positions on these issues.

You're just flinging shit into the wind.