Notice When It Started.........

[Old Rocks]

The people behind the denial of Climate Change are people who own businesses or stock in businesses that would have to change their way of doing things and that would CUT INTO PROFITS.

They don't give a fuck what the Earth is like 50 years from now because they figure they will be dead by then anyway and all they care about is making MORE MONEY NOW.

It puzzles me why so many 30K / year wonders so vigorously support them and deny Climate Change when there is no upside for them to do so.

They just look ignorant when you compare their ' no such thing as Climate Change rants ' to the scientific facts.

I don't understand why they support the position of the business owners who are using them like a tampon anyway ... use them up and throw them away because they aren't as profitable as they used to be or they found someone to work cheaper.

I fully understand people who own petroleum factories and coal mines and steel mills etc. etc. deny Climate Change. They don't want to spend any money and change their way of doing business because of the short term cost and the loss of PROFITS.

But why do their underpaid employees support them? There is no upside for them, especially in the long run.

The people that reject quasi-scientific theory as Gospel are people with brains. You assholes wouldn't need a consensus of opinion if you had facts.

I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOL

 

[Compost]

According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL

LOL yourself, you dumb ass. That is halfway to the danger mark. Except we are already seeing effects that were predicted to come much further down the line and at a higher level of GHGs.

Gotta love it when these people that failed their GED's get online and state how they are know so much more about a subject than a scientist that has spent decades studying it.

I am embarrassed for you, Oldrock. So the death knell has tolled because we're halfway to a scientist's guess at a nebulous "danger point". And you proclaim ME a "dumb ass".

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, you are truly a dumbass. As I also mentioned, many of the things predicted to happen at that point are already happening. So that point, 2 degrees, is, perhaps, a bit high.

Something you less than acute intellects should consider. A freight train with a half mile of cars has the same power at 60 mph as it does sitting still. But it takes a lot of time for that train to reach 60 mph. A matter of inertia. Today, we are at 400 ppm of CO2 and 1800 ppb of CH4. However, we have reached these levels in a very short time, and the atmosphere and oceans have huge inertia. So both, like the freight train gaining speed, are going to be gain temperature for a long time to come. And you silly flapyappers stating we have only increased the temperature by 1 C are like the guy 20 miles down the track stating that the train is only going five mph right now so why should he move the car?

 

[Arizona Willie]

I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOL

===========
He got a discount on his Doctorate in Planetary Ecology because he works the same place he bought it --- K-MART.

 

[Compost]

Why yes, you are truly a dumbass. As I also mentioned, many of the things predicted to happen at that point are already happening. So that point, 2 degrees, is, perhaps, a bit high.

Something you less than acute intellects should consider. A freight train with a half mile of cars has the same power at 60 mph as it does sitting still. But it takes a lot of time for that train to reach 60 mph. A matter of inertia. Today, we are at 400 ppm of CO2 and 1800 ppb of CH4. However, we have reached these levels in a very short time, and the atmosphere and oceans have huge inertia. So both, like the freight train gaining speed, are going to be gain temperature for a long time to come. And you silly flapyappers stating we have only increased the temperature by 1 C are like the guy 20 miles down the track stating that the train is only going five mph right now so why should he move the car?

Here's the little trouble, one prediction does not guarantee future predictions no matter how many names you call me. Still, thank you for showing us how smart you are by equating freight trains with the weather. Alas, the atmosphere and the ocean, with or without "huge inertia", cannot fill the void that is your mind.

 

[Iceweasel]

The people behind the denial of Climate Change are people who own businesses or stock in businesses that would have to change their way of doing things and that would CUT INTO PROFITS.

They don't give a fuck what the Earth is like 50 years from now because they figure they will be dead by then anyway and all they care about is making MORE MONEY NOW.

It puzzles me why so many 30K / year wonders so vigorously support them and deny Climate Change when there is no upside for them to do so.

They just look ignorant when you compare their ' no such thing as Climate Change rants ' to the scientific facts.

I don't understand why they support the position of the business owners who are using them like a tampon anyway ... use them up and throw them away because they aren't as profitable as they used to be or they found someone to work cheaper.

I fully understand people who own petroleum factories and coal mines and steel mills etc. etc. deny Climate Change. They don't want to spend any money and change their way of doing business because of the short term cost and the loss of PROFITS.

But why do their underpaid employees support them? There is no upside for them, especially in the long run.

The people that reject quasi-scientific theory as Gospel are people with brains. You assholes wouldn't need a consensus of opinion if you had facts.

I see. So every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planet are buying into a quasi-scientific theory. LOL. And you, with your wide ranging academic credentials know better. LOL

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus. The LOL is echoing in the hollow chambers of your brain housing.

 

[Iceweasel]

He got a discount on his Doctorate in Planetary Ecology because he works the same place he bought it --- K-MART.

Says the guy that can't figure out how to quote posts on an internet forum. Ding! Your fries are done.

 

[Crick]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

 

[IanC]

According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL

the interesting part is that up until the 2000's the consensus was that there had been 0.7C warming since 1880. then another 0.3C magically appeared during the 'Pause'.

hmmmmmmm. could it be that AT LEAST 30% of the claimed warming is bogus adjustments since Mother Nature stopped cooperating with the CAGW boys?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the OP chart, the temperature rose from -.4 all the way to .6 in 120 years. Is that really the best you've got? LOL

And we accurately measured temperatures to a tenth of a degree 120 years ago too, amiright?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

Fact is that science does not work on Consensus

 

[Iceweasel]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

Bullshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:

"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"



View attachment 55920

Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.

 

[Iceweasel]

.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:

"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"



View attachment 55920

Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.

His data comes from divine revelation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

IN a word.... NO! those are not the facts.. 97% of the 77 papers accepted as evidence after the 11,944 papers originally questioned on their position were thrown out becasue they did not meet their expectations on their positions.. Your proof is always about heavily adjusted and manipulated data.

These are the facts minus your unwarranted adjustments

When you remove the crap blinders you find out you've been lied too or your lying to others about the facts..

 

[Billy_Bob]

.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:

"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"



View attachment 55920

Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.

His data comes from divine revelation.

Which Church?

The Church of the Way-ward and Far Out or is it the Al Gore We All Gonna Burn Church?

 

[Iceweasel]

.........that's right sports fans....at the same time the automobile started:

"Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study"



View attachment 55920

Why do you use the heavily adjusted global mean data? I noticed you refuse to source your data.

His data comes from divine revelation.

Which Church?

The Church of the Way-ward and Far Out or is it the Al Gore We All Gonna Burn Church?

From their pamplet:

"Come, visit The Immaculate Church of Global Warming, where you will find kindred spirits seeking a new way to interact with our planetary existence. Experience the love of Mother Earth and hear Her pleas for help, as revealed by visionaries in the climate community.

Enjoy a cup of green tea in the lobby after the sermon and feel free to ridicule the Satanic denier cult as you meet new friends."

 

[Crick]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

Fact is that science does not work on Consensus

For the umpteenth time Frank, what do the terms "accepted theory", "widely accepted theory" and "settled science" mean to you? Does your god tell you what theories to accept and which to deny? Is there some council or Grand Pooh-Bah that makes the final call? How DO you know when some scientific theory about which you have no personal knowledge (and that would seem to be all of them) is the most likely explanation? Answer me that Frank.

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

 

[Crick]

Like I said, if you had facts you wouldn't need a consenus.

The fact that better than 97% of the world's climate scientists, familiar with the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject, accept the IPCC's central position: that human activities (CO2 emissions and deforestation) are the primary cause of the warming observed to have taken place over the last 150 years and to an even greater extent over the last 50.

Those are the facts.

Bullshit.

Think so? Then explain this: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

HOW DO YOU KNOW, FRANK, WHEN SOME SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE PHENOMENON IT EXPLAINS?

Like the Steady State model of the universe?