The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[P@triot]

You obviously didn't look at the "study" on which this article is based. It's over six years old and is a piece of unreviewed, self-published shite that's been debunked a dozen times. It's no more than a letter to the editor.

So you ask for evidence, I provide dozens and dozens of it, and your reply is literally to stick your fingers in your ears & close your eyes while screaming “la la la la la la la I can’t hear you” like a toddler

You’re clearly like Al Gore - trying to make money off of this grift. Shameful.

 

[P@triot]

Hey Crick - you’re awfully silent about post #1097. Any particular reason why?

(I’m kidding Crick - we all know why!)

 

[Crick]

Hey Crick - you’re awfully silent about post #1097. Any particular reason why?

(I’m kidding Crick - we all know why!)

I hadn't noticed it. My wife and I were having dinner.

 

[ding]

I hadn't noticed it. My wife and I were having dinner.

But you believe that global warming is catastrophic, right?

 

[Crick]

But you believe that global warming is catastrophic, right?

How would you like to define catastrophic? Let's look that up

• involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
• extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
• involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.

No, I don't think that quite fits. What is happening and continuing to worsen will not happen suddenly.

 

[ding]

How would you like to define catastrophic? Let's look that up

• involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
• extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
• involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.

No, I don't think that quite fits. What is happening and continuing to worsen will not happen suddenly.

I define it according to your previous posts. Apparently you wish to soften those posts.

 

[Crick]

I define it according to your previous posts. Apparently you wish to soften those posts.

Well, it's not a precise term, but you don't deserve the satisfaction. However, since facts don't mean shit to you, just pretend whatever you like and say whatever it was you were planning to say.

 

[ding]

Well, it's not a precise term, but you don't deserve the satisfaction. However, since facts don't mean shit to you, just pretend whatever you like and say whatever it was you were planning to say.

Facts mean everything to me. I wish you would stop ignoring the empirical climate data which is factual and start questioning their flawed models which are not factual and cannot explain the factual empirical climate data.

You have on more than one occasion expressed your beliefs on how dire our situation is and how catastrophic you believe our situation is. If I recall correctly you feared for your grandchildren's lives. That seems pretty dire and catastrophic to me. And all based upon results from flawed computer models which can't explain how the planet cooled for 50 million years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm or why the present temperature is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period when CO2 levels are 120 ppm higher today than the last interglacial cycle. Is this magic CO2? Did you buy this CO2 from Jack?

 

[Crick]

Facts mean everything to me.

I disagree. What means everything to you is the fantasy that you know better than everyone else.

I wish you would stop ignoring the empirical climate data which is factual

I am not ignoring it. I (and all of mainstream science) draw a completely different conclusion from it then do you.

and start questioning their flawed models which are not factual and cannot explain the factual empirical climate data.

You know absolutely nothing about GCMs and your opinions regarding them are thus of absolutely no value.

You have on more than one occasion expressed your beliefs on how dire our situation is

It is dire

and how catastrophic you believe our situation is.

That is a misuse of the term "catastrophic"

If I recall correctly you feared for your grandchildren's lives.

I fear for the suffering they will undergo. I have never said I fear for their lives. Despite that, many people WILL die from this issue that would NOT have died had we dealt with it when we should have.

That seems pretty dire and catastrophic to me.

Since you based that on things that were not true, your conclusion is faulty. Flawed.

And all based upon results from flawed computer models

Sorry, but no.

which can't explain how the planet cooled for 50 million years with CO2 levels greater than 600 ppm

The planet cooled since the PETM due to tectonic changes dramatically altering ocean circulation and the continental area in each hemisphere.

or why the present temperature is 2C cooler than the previous interglacial period when CO2 levels are 120 ppm higher today than the last interglacial cycle. Is this magic CO2? Did you buy this CO2 from Jack?

It's funny that you accuse me of having jumped to an unsupported conclusion when I am simply taking the word of the thousands of scientists who've been examining this for a very long time whereas you, completely by yourself, without the aid of higher education, have come to a conclusion that you share with absolutely no one. The really worrisome thing, however, is that those points don't seem to bother you.

 

[ding]

I disagree. What means everything to you is the fantasy that you know better than everyone else.

I couldn't care less what you believe. I believe the empirical climate data. You believe in computer models that can't history match the empirical climate data.

 

[ding]

I am not ignoring it. I (and all of mainstream science) draw a completely different conclusion from it then do you

Of course you are ignoring the empirical climate data. Walk me through the oxygen isotope curve and explain the climate changes using the temperature record of the planet. You can't do it. Hence, you are ignoring the empirical climate data.

 

[ding]

You know absolutely nothing about GCMs and your opinions regarding them are thus of absolutely no value.

Given that YOU don't know that the models predict a 2 to 3 times greater temperature feedback than the radiative forcing of CO2, I believe it is YOU who knows absolutely nothing about the GCM's.

 

[ding]

It is dire

And that's why you are emotional about this subject and unable to be objective about it. It isn't dire. The present temperature is still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods which had 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. Were previous interglacial periods dire? After all they which were 2C warmer than today. Why weren't previous interglacial periods dire if they were hotter than today?

 

[ding]

That is a misuse of the term "catastrophic"

Holy crap. You just referred to it as dire.

 

[ding]

I fear for the suffering they will undergo. I have never said I fear for their lives. Despite that, many people WILL die from this issue that would NOT have died had we dealt with it when we should have.

Like I wrote before, this is emotional for you. It's not for me. It's just weather.

 

[ding]

Since you based that on things that were not true, your conclusion is faulty. Flawed.

The oxygen isotope curve - which is the temperature record of the planet - is well established. The CO2 record for the planet - which is based upon direct measurements and proxies - is well established. So, no. I am not basing my beliefs on things that are untrue. I am basing my beliefs on empirical climate data.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

The data is overwhelming. The history is indisputable. The lies have all been captured.

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that 97.4% never materialized.

• Biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1970s that: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” and that “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

• In January 2006 Al Gore predicted that we had ten years left before the planet turned into a “total frying pan.” We made it.

• In 2008, a segment aired on ABC News predicted that NYC would be under water by June 2015.

• In 1970, ecologist Kenneth E.F. Wattpredicted that “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000, This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

• In 2008, Al Gore predicted that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely melted within 5-7 years. He at least hedged that prediction by giving himself “75%” certainty. By 2014 - the polar ice cap had expanded over 60% (more than 900,000 sq miles)

• On May 13th 2014 France’s foreign minister said that we only have 500 days to stop “climate chaos.” The recent Paris climate summit met 565 days after his remark.

• In 2009, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Wassen warned that Obama only had four years left to save the earth.

• On the first Earth Day its sponsor warned that “in 25 years, somewhere between 75% and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

• And another Earth Day prediction from Kenneth Watt: “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

Top 10 Climate Change Predictions Gone Spectacularly Wrong; This Is EPIC!

Democrats are a disease.

 

[ding]

Sorry, but no.

Like I said in another thread... the models the IPCC rely upon are flawed because...

1. It is ridiculous that the feedback is 2 to 3 times greater than the radiative forcing effect of CO2.
2. The planet cooled for millions of years with significantly higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The current temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than previous interglacial periods.

Was this spam or was this me replying to your spam?

 

[ding]

The planet cooled since the PETM due to tectonic changes dramatically altering ocean circulation and the continental area in each hemisphere.

You keep ignoring the polar regions being thermally isolated from warmer marine currents and the impact that has on climate fluctuations due to altering the threshold temperature for glaciation at the poles. It is the single biggest driver of the planet's climate. And it has cause the planet's climate to fluctuate greatly. You are mistaking natural climate variability for AGW.

 

[ding]

It's funny that you accuse me of having jumped to an unsupported conclusion when I am simply taking the word of the thousands of scientists who've been examining this for a very long time whereas you, completely by yourself, without the aid of higher education, have come to a conclusion that you share with absolutely no one. The really worrisome thing, however, is that those points don't seem to bother you.

Who are basing their beliefs on computer modeling while ignoring empirical climate data.