Turns out Hansen warming predictions dead wrong!

[Natural Citizen]

You and I ultimately both consent to what our elected representative government does in our name.

Nope. I do not consent. I'm a refusenik.

Certainly I have to live with what they do, but I do not consent to what they do. Largely anyway.

In fact, a lot of times, I stand in no standing zones. I'm a gosh darned rebel, man, A rebel.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

You're just a common vacuous drone.

You assholes force anyone who wants to build anything to get "environmental impact studies" done at their own expense and then you drag them into court and try and prevent them from actually doing anything with their property because you found some beetle or spider with a slight color difference than most of the other bugs and you call it an "endangered species".

I've been to island resorts in the pacific over the last 10 years and guess what moonbat? Not a slight difference in the water levels over the entire course of the decade. If you ask the locals that have lived there for over 60 years if they've seen any difference where the water hits the rocks they will all tell you the same thing. Sands shift, solid ******* rock shows the oceans eroding the same area they have been for centuries.

I can see with my own eyes that you sniveling authoritarian parasites are full of shit.

.

Petey, me lad, you are a liar.

11 Islands That Will Vanish When Sea Levels Rise

2007 estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change's most conservative estimates suggest that global sea level will reach increase 8 to 16 inches above 1990 levels by 2090. The National Academy of Sciences predictions from 2009 suggest that by 2100, sea level could increase by anywhere from 16 inches to 56 inches, depending how the Earth responds to changing climate.

That's GREAT NEWS GoldiRocks. Because at the current rate of 3mm/yr that only 12inches in 100 years. So none of those great accelerations or all positive feedback doomsday scenarios seem to be in the cards. And given that the CLOSEST any of IPCC (or Hansens') 1980 predictions have come to reality in over 40 years --- they've only just barely "grazed" the bottom of any "prediction" that was made back then. While the media, political leadership, IPCC, and the activists in labcoats went for the TOP OF THE PREDICTIONS -- just the cause the entire planet to shit their britches over a crisis.

Besides, there are other SOLID explanations for all those islands dynamically changing. They are just shifting sand sitting atop volcanic atolls that are reshaped and relocated by nature since time began.

What did those islands DO with all the "mitigation" GW blackmail money? They built international airports at about 6 feet above sea level. Seems they are not worried once the checks clear.

 

[Wyatt earp]

He/SkookerAssbil is NOT my Pal
He's a GIANT ASSHOLE/Juvenile TROLL only here because this board sucks.
I've made scores of complaints against his Trolling.
This board's Policy is it will not give up any page views/ad or membership dollars for decency.
Half the posters here are Trolls. (and mods will admit it privately)
That's USMB in a NUTshell.

We have one poster 'Mindwars' daily posting/OPing 'Infowars' in the major political sections.
No one cares even after it's reported.
There are NO standards here.
ZERO

`

Translation ~ we Destroy you with logic and reason and you can't handle your "believes being ripped a part" ..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tidal gauge reading at Vanuatu.

While at the Maldives -- that new airport from GW extortion money is a reality now.

Maldives Builds Giant New Airport Runway Despite Global Warming

Major upgrade at just SIX FEET about MSLevel.. HUGE intl. $$$ involved.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

Always been my position that there is an Anthropomorphic GW issue of SOME magnitude. But the hysteria and fear that's been artificially created in no way resembles the consensus or content of the science. In fact, the whole field of climate science didn't really exist until about 35 years ago when we had the ability to measure from space. It's a brand new field relative to most others. And the Climate community acknowledges that in a survey by Bray/von Storch in 2015 that the science HAS been distorted by the media and political leadership...

Science has been distorted.

 

[JBvM]

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

Always been my position that there is an Anthropomorphic GW issue of SOME magnitude. But the hysteria and fear that's been artificially created in no way resembles the consensus or content of the science. In fact, the whole field of climate science didn't really exist until about 35 years ago when we had the ability to measure from space. It's a brand new field relative to most others. And the Climate community acknowledges that in a survey by Bray/von Storch in 2015 that the science HAS been distorted by the media and political leadership...

Science has been distorted.

Taking the discussion away from the fringe folk is difficult, as certain special interests have fed a fake dispute within the scientific community

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

Always been my position that there is an Anthropomorphic GW issue of SOME magnitude. But the hysteria and fear that's been artificially created in no way resembles the consensus or content of the science. In fact, the whole field of climate science didn't really exist until about 35 years ago when we had the ability to measure from space. It's a brand new field relative to most others. And the Climate community acknowledges that in a survey by Bray/von Storch in 2015 that the science HAS been distorted by the media and political leadership...

Science has been distorted.

Taking the discussion away from the fringe folk is difficult, as certain special interests have fed a fake dispute within the scientific community

The fringe folk only have this quaint notion of "consensus" with very LITTLE actual effort to read the science. Climate science is not difficult to read actually. If you can read Scientific American -- you can pretty much work your way thru 80% of "climate papers". What they don't understand about consensus is -- in SCIENCE and rigorous areas of other fields -- a consensus only exists on ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. And any complex issue has at least DOZENS of issues that need to be questioned to get anything but noise.

So most of them can't STATE the question that there was consensus on. And when they TRY it's usually something like "Is the planet warming and does man does something to do with this warming"? Hell yeah. That's a 98% consensus to that idiotic question. But it doesn't tell us how FAR the seas will rise or what the Temp will be in 2100 or even if they can DEPEND on their modeling 40 years out. Here's another answer from the MOST CONCISE surveys ever taken of ACTUAL opinion of ACTUAL climate scientists on about 100 questions about CChange..

This poll question from Bray/von Storch 2015 just blows away the assertions that Climate science has a CONSENSUS on looking at every recent weather disaster and attributing it to Global Warming as is done for EVERY extreme event in the news..

 

[flacaltenn]

Or even THIS question for which there is no REAL consensus on...

 

[JBvM]

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

Always been my position that there is an Anthropomorphic GW issue of SOME magnitude. But the hysteria and fear that's been artificially created in no way resembles the consensus or content of the science. In fact, the whole field of climate science didn't really exist until about 35 years ago when we had the ability to measure from space. It's a brand new field relative to most others. And the Climate community acknowledges that in a survey by Bray/von Storch in 2015 that the science HAS been distorted by the media and political leadership...

Science has been distorted.

Taking the discussion away from the fringe folk is difficult, as certain special interests have fed a fake dispute within the scientific community

The fringe folk only have this quaint notion of "consensus" with very LITTLE actual effort to read the science. Climate science is not difficult to read actually. If you can read Scientific American -- you can pretty much work your way thru 80% of "climate papers". What they don't understand about consensus is -- in SCIENCE and rigorous areas of other fields -- a consensus only exists on ONE QUESTION AT A TIME. And any complex issue has at least DOZENS of issues that need to be questioned to get anything but noise.

So most of them can't STATE the question that there was consensus on. And when they TRY it's usually something like "Is the planet warming and does man does something to do with this warming"? Hell yeah. That's a 98% consensus to that idiotic question. But it doesn't tell us how FAR the seas will rise or what the Temp will be in 2100 or even if they can DEPEND on their modeling 40 years out. Here's another answer from the MOST CONCISE surveys ever taken of ACTUAL opinion of ACTUAL climate scientists on about 100 questions about CChange..

This poll question from Bray/von Storch 2015 just blows away the assertions that Climate science has a CONSENSUS on looking at every recent weather disaster and attributing it to Global Warming as is done for EVERY extreme event in the news..

The one side of the fringe groups is always attacking any consensus within the scientific community. It is a substitute for dealing with the actual science. I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on the www, but I do know what a consensus means, when actual scientists say there is a consensus, within the scientific community, on the actual science

 

[JBvM]

Or even THIS question for which there is no REAL consensus on...

Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

 

[Pete7469]

The one side of the fringe groups is always attacking any consensus within the scientific community. It is a substitute for dealing with the actual science. I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on the www, but I do know what a consensus means, when actual scientists say there is a consensus, withing the scientific community, on the actual science

OK...

I will assert that this drone is one of deanturd's socks.

As evidence I will point out that it completely ignored every point in the post it responded too, and vacuously parroted inane psychobabble.

This is why I rarely waste time engaging these stupid, servile, vapid pieces of tick shit and ridicule them mercilessly in hopes that somehow a single synapse of thought leads to shame, and that shame inspires them to remove themselves from the gene pool, neutralize their carbon foot print and return their nitrogen to the soil so that worms can create a better source of fertilizer.

I'm not doing this just to be mean, I'm being pragmatic.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL...

Sorry bed wetter...

Did I wipe your ass blood off my cock with your Elizabeth Warren Teddy Bear?

I know more about EVERYTHING, than you know about anything. You believe in bullshit like utopian collectives, meat puppet community agitators, billionaire sociopaths and actors being "experts" in everything but being who they are in real life.

Go cry in your hate closet now turd.

.

You are one sick ignorant fool. Now how about the ice melt being so good that coastal towns require oceans rise to be included in new construction plans.

That largely stems from fed and state EDICTS that ocean rise be considered in project approvals. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. DEMANDED by folks who have had the shit scared out them by horrendous catastrophic predictions for 30 years that don't correctly represent the actual science.

In 1971, climate scientist, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, predicted: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. . .if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today. . ."

He got it pretty wrong, didn't he?

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea level rise and increased hurricanes due to AGW would create massive population disruptions. They showed us a map showing Caribbean and some Pacific Islands becoming uninhabitable. By 2005 some 50 million climate refugees would be fleeing those places.

Give the population explosion on those places now, it is safe to assume they don't feel too threatened.

In 2003, the Pentagon put out their 'scientific' study--at taxpayer expense--indicating AGW was a security issue. That study was dutifully parroted on message boards such as this as well as in the media. According that study, 10 years later we would be in an environmental disaster zone with much of California flooded, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be devastating.

When questioned about this in the Washington Times in a June 1, 2014, article, the co-author of that report, Doug Randall, said: "When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to precisely predict what's going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent."

And unwittingly he therefore confirmed what many of us have said. None of the AGW scenarios are in any way based on any kind of sound science, but the purpose is to 'motivate us' to accept the policies, rules, regulations, and laws imposed by governments that gives them much more latitude to control us.

Always been my position that there is an Anthropomorphic GW issue of SOME magnitude. But the hysteria and fear that's been artificially created in no way resembles the consensus or content of the science. In fact, the whole field of climate science didn't really exist until about 35 years ago when we had the ability to measure from space. It's a brand new field relative to most others. And the Climate community acknowledges that in a survey by Bray/von Storch in 2015 that the science HAS been distorted by the media and political leadership...

Science has been distorted.

Taking the discussion away from the fringe folk is difficult, as certain special interests have fed a fake dispute within the scientific community

But at what cost?


It looks fine to me

 

[Pete7469]

[
Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

Exactly.

That's what proves global warming alarm-ism is bullshit.

Holy shit.... a drone learned something.


.

 

[JBvM]

[
Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

Exactly.

That's what proves global warming alarm-ism is bullshit.

Holy shit.... a drone learned something.

With friends like you, your side needs no enemies. You're about as intelligent and convincing as an empty glass

 

[JBvM]

The people who put men and craft into space still insist Humans are contributing to Global Warming
Search Results – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


They have pages full of evidence and facts

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Questions (FAQ) | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[flacaltenn]

Or even THIS question for which there is no REAL consensus on...

Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

These questions are not "cherry picked".. There are over 100 of them in every paper that Bray/von Storch published. And they are quite succinctly worded and comprehensive. It's the ONLY attempt to HAVE a comprehensive, SCIENTIFIC survey of CC questions that has ever been done. And it's a SERIES of at least 3 polls taken a couple years apart. So it IS the best source of "opinion" on attitudes, opinions and beliefs that exist. BECAUSE it includes all the vital questions that any "consensus" needs to ask..

There is what rational people would CALL consensus on the "soft ball" questions like I said above. But the softball questions don't scratch the surface of the opinion CONFIDENCE when it comes to the many scientific details involved. PARTICULARLY --- there IS a consensus that the science has been politicized and misrepresented. Which is a question that would NEVER BE ASKED by the warmer faithful.

 

[miketx]

The thing is Hansen KNEW he was full of shit. It's not something he merely miscalculated or was misguided by faulty data.

He is part of the scam.

And your expertise is in what? In bullshit, that is what your expertise is in. The scam is that deniers like you even have the idiocy to post your nonsense. Dr. Hansen is the world's foremost atmospheric physicist, and you are a willfully ignorant anonymous poster on an internet message board.

Troll flame smoke spin...lather rinse repeat.

 

[JBvM]

Well anyone can cherry pick data or questions in order to attempt to discredit a larger point. But that would be disingenuous and downright ignorant on a level most people could form a consensus on

These questions are not "cherry picked".. There are over 100 of them in every paper that Bray/von Storch published. And they are quite succinctly worded and comprehensive. It's the ONLY attempt to HAVE a comprehensive, SCIENTIFIC survey of CC questions that has ever been done. And it's a SERIES of at least 3 polls taken a couple years apart. So it IS the best source of "opinion" on attitudes, opinions and beliefs that exist. BECAUSE it includes all the vital questions that any "consensus" needs to ask..

There is what rational people would CALL consensus on the "soft ball" questions like I said above. But the softball questions don't scratch the surface of the opinion CONFIDENCE when it comes to the many scientific details involved. PARTICULARLY --- there IS a consensus that the science has been politicized and misrepresented. Which is a question that would NEVER BE ASKED by the warmer faithful.

"a question that would NEVER BE ASKED by the warmer faithful?"

you not only divine people's intent, but you belittle scientists as a way of trying to discredit science?

Are you misunderstanding and maybe misrepresenting Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray? Let us start from where von Storch and Bray enter the picture. Okay?



Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey
08 Aug 2007 | 15:45 BST | Posted by Olive Heffernan | Category: Communicating Climate Change, Hans von Storch, In the News, Opinion

Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray

In 1996 and 2003 we surveyed the opinions on climate change held by climate scientists. The results of these surveys have been subject to many misuses and erroneous claims. Some have selected individual statements out of context (scroll down to number 5) to bolster their claims, while others have argued that the 2003 part of the survey would be strongly biased by skeptics misusing the online-sampling for multiple submissions.

Climate scientists’ views on climate change: a survey : Climate Feedback