what do global warming people want ??

[cnm]

what about the cooked science behind it ?

That you think a consensus can exist with cooked science shows you don't understand the system.

Scientists like nothing better than to show how clever they are by falsifying a theory or hypothesis.

 

[cnm]

...and say their is no consensus...

typical stupid liberfool who does not know the differnce between "their" and " THERE!!

you need to start over in the second grade and learn English.

Typical flat earther, late again.

 

[cnm]

Hey, look! It's a grammar nazi! Cool, bro.

And late, too.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Stop exhaling.

Hey dumbass, the difference between fossil fuel emission and exhalation is that exhalation is of carbon that was already part of the short term carbon cycle, where's fossil fuel emission unlocks carbon that was trapped for hundreds of millions of years
Or are you a young earth creationist too? Often that goes hand in hand with global warming denial.

Nope. Earth is 4.5 billion at last count, give or take, and apparently evolution hasn't yet quite driven the Henny Penny gene out of some of the humans.

Photosynthesis, by the way.

 

[washamericom]

1. I believe the fear is based mostly on hubris. The scientific community, at least what appears to be the majority, have a lot vested in CC/GW/CD or whatever they call it today. Until they answer the question, what should the temperature be I am thinking they are guessing that cooler is better. Everyone wants to be relevant. Everyone wants to contribute. Those pushing for CC, Gore, want those things too. They have invested much of their life to the belief that CC is bad. I personally believe their ego and hubris will never allow them to say, "we were wrong" or "we exaggerated the threat."

2. My opinion is yes, the majority of peer reviews have signed off on the data provided to them. Is the data necessarily wrong? Who know they are tight fisted with the information but there are those who report having access and report their is gross fudging of the numbers. For example, the melting of the Arctic. The GW advocates place their sole reasoning on GW for what they say is a loss of ice coverage. But are there other more plausible reasons? One offered is that the atmosphere is actually getting cleaner thus allowing more of the Sun's radiation onto the exposed ice, thus melting it. Another is that pollution, not CO2, is laying on the ice causing the Sun to melt the ice. Neither of the latter do you hear of in the discussion concering CC.

what about job security ? that's a huge number. i think it is a wonderfully interesting subject, but great money invites politics.

 

[cnm]

[...] the "consensus" is largely another facet of the ambitions of globalist interests to implement global control by increments.

Yeah, just about every scientific association in the US, every government agency in the US, every world government.

'Flat earther' does not label the lunacy fairly.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

[...] the "consensus" is largely another facet of the ambitions of globalist interests to implement global control by increments.

Yeah, just about every scientific association in the US, every government agency in the US, every world government.

'Flat earther' does not label the lunacy fairly.

Corruption follows the grant money.

 

[washamericom]

what about the cooked science behind it ?

That you think a consensus can exist with cooked science shows you don't understand the system.

Scientists like nothing better than to show how clever they are by falsifying a theory or hypothesis.

this is sort of my overall query, do the people that support it really know what they are talking about ?

MIT Climate Scientist: Global warming believers a "cult"

MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.

During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.

Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”

But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree.

Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”


“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

16%

’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:


“I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”

 

[cnm]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

convince China, India, Pakistan and many other countries to limit and control their Co2 emissions first and we might agree.

O fucking K??

So reality or scientific consensus depends on what other countries do?

Oh well.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Fixing globull warming will solve the ISIS problem...I know this because Dear Leader said that is why they are killing, raping and pretty much being assholes

 

[cnm]

Corruption follows the grant money.

Yeah yeah, just about every scientific association in the US, every government agency in the US, etc etc.

Nothing will penetrate the anti reality shields of flat earthers, while insisting they have the finest military in the world they'll happily accept the Pentagon and the DoD have been corrupted by grant money .

 

[cnm]

this is sort of my overall query, do the people that support it really know what they are talking about ?

I'm sure the climate scientists who comprise the consensus know what they're talking about. Why, do you know more than them?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Corruption follows the grant money.

Yeah yeah, just about every scientific association in the US, every government agency in the US, etc etc.

Nothing will penetrate the anti reality shields of flat earthers, while insisting they have the finest military in the world they'll happily accept the Pentagon and the DoD have been corrupted by grant money .

I am not aware that the Pentagon and the DoD receive grants. Documentation?

 

[Davros]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

 

[Seawytch]

Fixing globull warming will solve the ISIS problem...I know this because Dear Leader said that is why they are killing, raping and pretty much being assholes

You refer to the Pentagon as "Dear Leader"? That's a little weird.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

this is sort of my overall query, do the people that support it really know what they are talking about ?

I'm sure the climate scientists who comprise the consensus know what they're talking about. Why, do you know more than them?

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice. That didn't fly, so they pivoted to global warming.

Now, since there is no evidence of warming for the last eighteen years or so, they've switched to the more encompassing "climate change", and even more recently the ol' "Coming Ice Age" gambit once again.

I may not "know more" than they, but put shit on a throne, and I'll call it shit every time.

 

[Seawytch]

I think the people who trust the 97% of scientists who agree that the planet is warming want the same thing that the nutty climate deniers want...clean air and water.

 

[cnm]

I am not aware that the Pentagon and the DoD receive grants. Documentation?

Yet they accept the scientific consensus on global warming. So do all the world governments.

 

[cnm]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice.

They did not. The majority of scientific papers in the 70s predicted warming.