Warmists Hung Out To Dry

[mamooth]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

 

[mamooth]

[Gee!!!!! Funny how suddenly that lack of oceans and very thin atmosphere play a significant factor in why Mars is experiencing climate change. Then you also call upon orbital eccentricity as a 'far greater changes' to Martian climate than possibly say... Increased solar radiation input from the sun.

Funny how you change the topic whenever one of your cult myths gets debunked.

Clue for you. The sun rings like a bell and at the time that those caps on Mars melted we were in a period of significant solar activity.

That weird statement has no relation to any reality,

Question for you...

How long is it going to take Terra's oceans to dissipate all that heat it's built up over the years?

Senseless question. The oceans are warming strongly, hence they are absorbing heat, not releasing it. That's what these amazing devices call "thermometers" show us.

Another question for you...

If we're expected to be in a extended period of solar inactivity, as a prominent Russian institute suggests, how cold is it going to get when Terra's oceans dissipate that heat?

You deniers have been predicting that new ice-age non-stop for the past 40 years. You've been totally wrong about that and everything else for the past 40 years. You have a perfect record of total failure on every topic.

Hence, if you claim something, we can be fairly sure the exact opposite is true. You're predicting a new ice age, hence we know strong warming will continue.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Gee!!!!! Funny how suddenly that lack of oceans and very thin atmosphere play a significant factor in why Mars is experiencing climate change. Then you also call upon orbital eccentricity as a 'far greater changes' to Martian climate than possibly say... Increased solar radiation input from the sun.

Funny how you change the topic whenever one of your cult myths gets debunked.

I didn't subject matter at hand. Perhaps you should take a reading course to help you understand that I was addressing the poster on the subject he was expounding upon.

Clue for you. The sun rings like a bell and at the time that those caps on Mars melted we were in a period of significant solar activity.

That weird statement has no relation to any reality,

Which tells us a lot about your knowledge of the sun much less the subject of astronomy.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Question for you...

How long is it going to take Terra's oceans to dissipate all that heat it's built up over the years?

Senseless question. The oceans are warming strongly, hence they are absorbing heat, not releasing it. That's what these amazing devices call "thermometers" show us.

So now you admit that the oceans are the prime mover of the climate we experience on Terra?

Another question for you...

If we're expected to be in a extended period of solar inactivity, as a prominent Russian institute suggests, how cold is it going to get when Terra's oceans dissipate that heat?

You deniers have been predicting that new ice-age non-stop for the past 40 years. You've been totally wrong about that and everything else for the past 40 years. You have a perfect record of total failure on every topic.

I claimed that when?

Hence, if you claim something, we can be fairly sure the exact opposite is true. You're predicting a new ice age, hence we know strong warming will continue.

Weren't those ice caps supposed to be gone prior to this decade we're in according to your hero Al Gore?

How's that working our for him and you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

DE, you are exposing just what an ignoramus you are with every post. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. The Scientific Societies that deal with the earth sciences are the most adamant on the subject, because they are already observing the effects of the warming.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

Position Statement.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

RATIONALE

Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground‐station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land‐ and satellite‐based measurements

 

[pillars]

How long have we on the Right been claiming that 'Global Warming' is a political scam?
Right....forever.

Now...here is Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

1. "Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

2. “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, ....

3. ...also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

4. ....National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

5. NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported 0.04 degrees Celsius Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.



6. ....USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT....


7. “It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”



8. “The White House positions, the press releases, the published stories – all of that is not exactly inaccurate but it is promoting something considerably less alarming or certain than the layperson might conclude from reading it all.”
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations




Soooo.....the above is the answer to the riddle...'when is science not science.'

Coincidentally, Lindzen was hired by Peabody Coal to challenge the climate change: Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

How funny that Poli Chic continues to post his propaganda that was bought and paid for by a coal company, who has a vested interest in fighting clean air regulations.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How long have we on the Right been claiming that 'Global Warming' is a political scam?
Right....forever.

Now...here is Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

1. "Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

2. “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, ....

3. ...also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

4. ....National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

5. NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported 0.04 degrees Celsius Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.



6. ....USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT....


7. “It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”



8. “The White House positions, the press releases, the published stories – all of that is not exactly inaccurate but it is promoting something considerably less alarming or certain than the layperson might conclude from reading it all.”
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations




Soooo.....the above is the answer to the riddle...'when is science not science.'

Coincidentally, Lindzen was hired by Peabody Coal to challenge the climate change: Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

How funny that Poli Chic continues to post his propaganda that was bought and paid for by a coal company, who has a vested interest in fighting clean air regulations.

Wow.. Character Assassination and not a lick of disproving the science he has presented...

Same old BS from the alarmist hacks every time.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

If you're point was valid then you wouldn't have to resort to abuse like a progressive throwing a tantrum. This in turn makes me suspect that the education you say have is nothing more than a lie. I've already read that paper and find it lacking in many respects except as a propaganda piece to sway the masses. But since you want to throw credentials around I've taken more courses than you in the area of science and math.

The shoddy scientific method and manipulation of data have made the global warming contingent something to laugh about.

Come back when you're willing to admit the models created don't follow the pattern predicted because important data is being ignored all for a political agenda.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

DE, you are exposing just what an ignoramus you are with every post. Virtually every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. The Scientific Societies that deal with the earth sciences are the most adamant on the subject, because they are already observing the effects of the warming.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

Position Statement.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose.

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

RATIONALE

Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground‐station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land‐ and satellite‐based measurements

Sure I am. you just keep telling yourself that.

If it's only virtually every society and institution that agrees then there are societies and institutions that disagree with your 'settled science'.

Is it because they don't think science is about manipulating data to fit the theory?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[westwall]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No, they aren't. That merely shows that CO2 is a GHG. Stop lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How long have we on the Right been claiming that 'Global Warming' is a political scam?
Right....forever.

Now...here is Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

1. "Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

2. “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, ....

3. ...also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

4. ....National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

5. NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported 0.04 degrees Celsius Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.



6. ....USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT....


7. “It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”



8. “The White House positions, the press releases, the published stories – all of that is not exactly inaccurate but it is promoting something considerably less alarming or certain than the layperson might conclude from reading it all.”
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations




Soooo.....the above is the answer to the riddle...'when is science not science.'

Coincidentally, Lindzen was hired by Peabody Coal to challenge the climate change: Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

How funny that Poli Chic continues to post his propaganda that was bought and paid for by a coal company, who has a vested interest in fighting clean air regulations.

Soooo.....your thesis is that any who accept funding are lying for the money?

Excellent!!!

Then every warmist who agrees with the scam is doing so for this:

"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to

climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education

campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

Despite the billions: “audits” of the

science are left to unpaid volunteers. A


The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to

climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education

campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

Despite the billions: “audits” of the

science are left to unpaid volunteers. A

dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots

movement of scientists has sprung up around

the globe to test the integrity of the theory and

compete with a well funded highly organized

climate monopoly. They have exposed major

errors.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126

billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more

carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the

carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making

carbon the largest single commodity traded.

Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked

for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what

the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon

trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a

connection between carbon and climate

creates enormous momentum and a

powerful set of vested interests. By

pouring so much money into a question

have we inadvertently created a selffulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased

investigation?

By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a selffulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?


Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf



That was simple,....not as simple as you are....but simple.

 

[mamooth]

So now you admit that the oceans are the prime mover of the climate we experience on Terra?

Of course. That's why climate scientists study it in such excruciating detail.

Did you have some point to make? If you do, then try stating it clearly and directly. Your weasel routine is boring, and it's nothing we haven't seen many times before.

I claimed that when?

I said "you deniers". All your pals have been claiming "ice age any day now!" for the past 40 years. Are you saying they're wrong?

As far as you go yourself, you clearly lack the guts to state any clear position. You're just a troll.

Weren't those ice caps supposed to be gone prior to this decade we're in according to your hero Al Gore?

Gore Rule invoked. Any Gore-obsessed fanboy who brings up Gore forfeits the thread for their own side. Those who can talk about the science, do. Those who can't, they talk about politicians.

(If it upsets you to have failed this badly, go comfort yourself by looking at your photo collection of Gore's pudgy bod. I know how that always makes you Gore-obsessives feel better.)

 

[pillars]

Wow.. Character Assassination and not a lick of disproving the science he has presented...

Same old BS from the alarmist hacks every time.

Taking money from a coal company to serve as its scientific mouthpiece is all the proof that is needed that he is not objective on the subject.

 

[Old Rocks]

How long have we on the Right been claiming that 'Global Warming' is a political scam?
Right....forever.

Now...here is Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

1. "Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

2. “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, ....

3. ...also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

4. ....National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

5. NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported 0.04 degrees Celsius Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.



6. ....USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT....


7. “It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”



8. “The White House positions, the press releases, the published stories – all of that is not exactly inaccurate but it is promoting something considerably less alarming or certain than the layperson might conclude from reading it all.”
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations




Soooo.....the above is the answer to the riddle...'when is science not science.'

Coincidentally, Lindzen was hired by Peabody Coal to challenge the climate change: Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

How funny that Poli Chic continues to post his propaganda that was bought and paid for by a coal company, who has a vested interest in fighting clean air regulations.

And that coal company is getting it's just deserts.

Peabody Energy’s Pathway Out Of Bankruptcy Leads … Backs To Bankruptcy, Says IEEFA

Peabody Energy’s Pathway Out Of Bankruptcy Leads … Backs To Bankruptcy, Says IEEFA
September 8th, 2016 by Joshua S Hill

After filing for bankruptcy in April of this year, the world’s biggest coal miner, Peabody Energy, has plans to emerge from bankruptcy that, according to experts, will only lead it straight back into bankruptcy.

Peabody Energy is the world’s largest private sector coal miner, but in April of this year it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection following months of rumors and speculation. Peabody’s bankruptcy followed hot on the heels of a number of other coal production companies similarly announcing bankruptcy, including Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources, Patriot Coal Corp., and Walter Energy Inc. The US coal industry has been particularly hard hit of late, with a massive decline in production and demand — a trend seen elsewhere, such as in India and China, but not to the same degree and dramatic business consequences.

Recently, Peabody Energy published its 2017-2021 Business Plan, which entailed its efforts to emerge from bankruptcy. However, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a research and analysis firm focused on the financial and economic issues pertaining to energy and the environment, “Peabody Energy’s plan to emerge from bankruptcy will most likely end ironically. In another bankruptcy, that is.”

IEEFA published a research memo (PDF) in late August investigating Peabody Energy’s Business Plan, and found it significantly lacking.

“It is overly optimistic on financial projections in key areas, in its coal-production outlook and in its expectations for cost-control results,” wrote Tom Sanzillo, IEEFA Director of Finance. “It fails to acknowledge that a post-bankruptcy Peabody may not be able to meet its self-bonding solvency requirements. The plan also misrepresents the true size of company assets and suggests wrongly that Peabody will be a larger enterprise than is likely.”

And we, the taxpayers will pay to clean up the messes that Peabody Coal has left us.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow.. Character Assassination and not a lick of disproving the science he has presented...

Same old BS from the alarmist hacks every time.

Taking money from a coal company to serve as its scientific mouthpiece is all the proof that is needed that he is not objective on the subject.

He also took tobacco money to testify before congress that tobacco is harmless. Lindzen will whore his reputation to the highest bidder. A reputation increasingly diminished by his lies.

 

[Old Rocks]

How long have we on the Right been claiming that 'Global Warming' is a political scam?
Right....forever.

Now...here is Steven E. Koonin, who served as under secretary for science in Obama’s Department of Energy from 2009 to 2011.

1. "Claims that 2016 was “the hottest year on record” are drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say it reflects how global warming has become more social crusade than evidence-based science.

2. “The Obama administration relentlessly politicized science and it aggressively pushed a campaign about that politicized science,” said Steven E. Koonin, ....

3. ...also blamed a “happily complicit” media for trumpeting the now-departed Obama administration’s dubious claim.

4. ....National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report declaring that “the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2016 was the highest among all years since record-keeping began in 1880.”

5. NOAA fixed the 2016 increase at 0.04 degrees Celsius. The British Met Office reported 0.04 degrees Celsius Both increases are well within the margin of error for such calculations, approximately 0.1 degrees, and therefore are dismissed by many scientists as meaningless.



6. ....USA Today wrote that “the planet sizzled to its third straight record warm year in 2016.” The New York Times’ front-page headline said, “Earth Sets Temperature Record for Third Straight Year.” The article declared that the latest readings were “trouncing” earlier numbers and the planet had thus “blown past” the previous records.

Such characterizations are absurd, according to Richard Lindzen, a meteorology professor at MIT....


7. “It’s typical misleading nonsense,” Lindzen said in an e-mail. “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations – even if real – don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”



8. “The White House positions, the press releases, the published stories – all of that is not exactly inaccurate but it is promoting something considerably less alarming or certain than the layperson might conclude from reading it all.”
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations




Soooo.....the above is the answer to the riddle...'when is science not science.'

Coincidentally, Lindzen was hired by Peabody Coal to challenge the climate change: Biggest US coal company funded dozens of groups questioning climate change

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list.

Contrarian scientists such as Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon also feature on the bankruptcy list.

How funny that Poli Chic continues to post his propaganda that was bought and paid for by a coal company, who has a vested interest in fighting clean air regulations.

Soooo.....your thesis is that any who accept funding are lying for the money?

Excellent!!!

Then every warmist who agrees with the scam is doing so for this:

"Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to

climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education

campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

Despite the billions: “audits” of the

science are left to unpaid volunteers. A


The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to

climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education

campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

Despite the billions: “audits” of the

science are left to unpaid volunteers. A

dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots

movement of scientists has sprung up around

the globe to test the integrity of the theory and

compete with a well funded highly organized

climate monopoly. They have exposed major

errors.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126

billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more

carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the

carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion making

carbon the largest single commodity traded.

Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked

for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what

the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon

trading in just the single year of 2008.

The large expenditure in search of a

connection between carbon and climate

creates enormous momentum and a

powerful set of vested interests. By

pouring so much money into a question

have we inadvertently created a selffulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased

investigation?

By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a selffulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?


Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf



That was simple,....not as simple as you are....but simple.

Still trying to prove how stupid you are? OK, link us to the Scientific Societies that are challenging the consensus on AGW. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No, they aren't. That merely shows that CO2 is a GHG. Stop lying.

LOL Not a single Geological Scientific Society on this planet agrees with you, Mr. Westwall. LOL

 

[westwall]

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect.

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans.

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No, they aren't. That merely shows that CO2 is a GHG. Stop lying.

LOL Not a single Geological Scientific Society on this planet agrees with you, Mr. Westwall. LOL

I'll let you know when I care what a POLITICAL organization thinks as opposed to a SCIENTIFIC group. That's the dif between you and I. I care about SCIENCE. You care about POLITICS. The two are mutually exclusive in a proper setting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Increased CO2 has no effect, because I say so!"

Let us know when you can muster an argument beyond "Because I say so!", eh cultist?

Which has jack to do with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. That would be the topic under discussion.

So, are you trying to run from the topic, or are you just being stupid?

Not funny, how you're just lying outright about the science now. But then, it is what the cult commands of you.

Snowflake, you trying to play internet tough guy just makes everyone laugh at you harder.

Exactly how many science courses that deal with actual science did you take in high school and college?

Don't worry those that understand science can see how much you know about the subject matter at hand.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Well, dumb ass, Chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. All the necessary course for a degree in Geology, geology courses to 470/570 Eng Geo. Math, three courses in calculus, and one in linear algebra. And I have been reading articles in peer reviewed for 50 years for enjoyment.

The physics of AGW are right here;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No, they aren't. That merely shows that CO2 is a GHG. Stop lying.

LOL Not a single Geological Scientific Society on this planet agrees with you, Mr. Westwall. LOL

I'll let you know when I care what a POLITICAL organization thinks as opposed to a SCIENTIFIC group. That's the dif between you and I. I care about SCIENCE. You care about POLITICS. The two are mutually exclusive in a proper setting.

He has to.
He is held sway in a movement that is totally political, and has convinced him that it is based on science.

He is an example of a perfect training subject for apprentice hypnotists.