On 11/27/2018 at 6:36 PM, BritManToo said:

Don't even need to read it.

Just more BS from the same people who published the last BS.

We've been doomed every 5 years since 1980, and yet we're still here and the doom is still 5 years in the future.

QED

On 11/19/2018 at 8:55 PM, BritManToo said:

Let's face it, both ideas were from the same bunch of scientists, who have been busy rewriting their personal research history with the collusion of the media, governments are research institutes they worked for. A bit like today's Germans, that never had any parents/grandparents/uncles who were Nazis.

I see that bereft of any real argument you have resorted to "reductio ad hitlerum".

 

I expect you'll be suitably embarrassed in the morning?

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you mean that the natural processes of climate change have mysteriously stopped because mankind has now become in charge of the climate?

Do you realise how daft a question like that is...... all it demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of the issue.

 

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

Do you realise how daft a question like that is...... all it demonstrates is your total lack of understanding of the issue.

 

No, I don't realize how daft it is. If you can explain to me why and how it is daft, I will consider your explanation and consider its validity.

 

There are many people who have no knowledge of climate matters and assume that climate is naturally and normally static over the relatively short periods of a few hundred years. They might be aware of the last ICE AGE several thousand years ago, but not much else. Such people are very vulnerable to the uncertain scientific claims that the current slight warming period is mainly due to mankind's emissions of CO2.

 

They are also very vulnerable to the uncertain claims that the slight warming will be bad, in terms of extreme weather events.

 

I'm simply trying to unravel the nonsense.

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

No, I don't realize how daft it is. If you can explain to me why and how it is daft, I will consider your explanation and consider its validity.

 

There are many people who have no knowledge of climate matters and assume that climate is naturally and normally static over the relatively short periods of a few hundred years. They might be aware of the last ICE AGE several thousand years ago, but not much else. Such people are very vulnerable to the uncertain scientific claims that the current slight warming period is mainly due to mankind's emissions of CO2.

 

They are also very vulnerable to the uncertain claims that the slight warming will be bad, in terms of extreme weather events.

 

I'm simply trying to unravel the nonsense.

Do you seriously think that climate scientists haven't taken these "mini ice ages" into consideration and only you know about them?

You must have a very deluded sense of self-importance....and of all the climate events we know about you have fixated on that one.... and drawn a very non scientific conclusion...... daft enough for you?

Do you seriously think that climate scientists haven't taken these "mini ice ages" into consideration and only you know about them?
You must have a very deluded sense of self-importance....and of all the climate events we know about you have fixated on that one.... and drawn a very non scientific conclusion...... daft enough for you?

I think it safe to assume name-calling and whatnot is the best you can do.

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

Do you seriously think that climate scientists haven't taken these "mini ice ages" into consideration and only you know about them?

Of course not. Why would you think that only I know about them? Now that is something that is really crazy.

 

All my knowledge about climate comes from climate scientists. Do you think I just invent stuff?
I consider all sides of the arguments and all opinions. There's nothing that I have written in this thread that is not supported by scientific evidence.

 

Do you imagine that I claim to be a time traveler, who can visit the Sahara Desert 10,000 years into the past, and claim that it was a lush grassland with lots of wildlife, or visit Greenland a thousand years ago to observe that it was actually green, and observe the Vikings growing crops and grazing cattle on the southern shores?

 

This information comes from reputable scientific studies. Have you even bothered to read the links to the IPCC reports I've provided at least 3 times in this thread, in relation to the claimed increase in extreme weather events? Obviously not.

 

You must have a very deluded sense of self-importance....and of all the climate events we know about you have fixated on that one.... and drawn a very non scientific conclusion...... daft enough for you?

 

Which one have I fixated on. I've mentioned frequently that climate is changing all the time, by different degrees in different parts of the world, in big cycles and in small cycles. I'm not aware of any fixation on my part, but I'm very much aware of a fixation on rising CO2 levels by the non-scientific alarmists.

 

Got it?

On 11/27/2018 at 3:47 AM, honu said:

The U.S. Global Change Research Program just released a full report about what the impacts of global climate change will be:

 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

 

But this should mean nothing to those of you who think climate change isn't real.  It's all a hoax, right?  Like those crazy theories about lead or DDT.

Who claims that climate change is not real? Please provide an answer. Climate is always changing on this planet. Sometimes fast changes, sometimes slow. Sometimes little changes, sometimes a lot. Paleoclimatology is a very interesting study. 

    I DO know people who want to bankrupt us all to STOP climate from changing. Apparently they would like us to go back to Little Ice Age conditions, yet they like to live in the hot tropics. Try to figure that one out. 

  I strongly suspect that most of them are Socialists/Marxist-Leninists. 

    Now please...I’ll ask once more...

Who claims that climate change is not real? 

1 hour ago, Catoni said:

Who claims that climate change is not real? Please provide an answer. Climate is always changing on this planet. Sometimes fast changes, sometimes slow. Sometimes little changes, sometimes a lot. Paleoclimatology is a very interesting study. 

    I DO know people who want to bankrupt us all to STOP climate from changing. Apparently they would like us to go back to Little Ice Age conditions, yet they like to live in the hot tropics. Try to figure that one out. 

  I strongly suspect that most of them are Socialists/Marxist-Leninists. 

    Now please...I’ll ask once more...

Who claims that climate change is not real? 

Ah, so all the world's governments who signed up to the IPCC reports and the 97 % of climate scientists who did the research and are convinced by the weight of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change and the need to act urgently to reverse the effects are mostly Socialists/Marxists-Leninists in your view. Thanks for that nugget of wisdom and incredible insight into the way the world works. It is great to know that such geniuses as yourself are on board with the alternative view that there is no need to act, as ACC is all one big hoax dreamed up by this apparent Marxist-Leninist conspiracy theory that has taken over the world's scientific community and community of nations that are members of the UN. 

There is someone who can help with all of this, someone who by his own admission is extremely intelligent and he can make things happen.

 

He is going to bring coal mining and production industries in the USA up to full speed because “beautiful, coal is clean”, this despite the fact that most of the rest of the world is trying to move away from fossil fuels.

 

He is going to bring overseas manufacturing back to the USA so that the average citizen there can pay at least three or four times what they currently pay for something like an iPhone – – thereby benefiting the US citizens?

 

He is going to build a wall costing billions of dollars to keep out thieves, murderers, drug dealers and rapists………If he can get the money and get over the water problem.

 

And he has a team of highly intelligent and incorruptible people around him to help do this.

Yet perhaps his masterstroke is in the fact that he has encoded all of the plans and solutions to the above in one word which he released a while ago, “COVFEFE”.

 

Yes, it’s all in there, just waiting to be deciphered by those of a similar mental capacity.

How many of the catastrophic climate change/global warming deniers who negate the work of 1,000's of trained educated  scientists using mountains of data, believe in Jesus Christ who was born of a virgin and rose after death - a belief with zero proof of any of its claims including that person's very existence.?

 

 

24 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

How many of the catastrophic climate change/global warming deniers who negate the work of 1,000's of trained educated  scientists using mountains of data, believe in Jesus Christ who was born of a virgin and rose after death - a belief with zero proof of any of its claims including that person's very existence.?

 

 

So in your view of reality we should acclaim the "thousands of trained educated scientists" as the new ayatollahs, but on another point of view it's fair to ask a few questions, like what is a feasible solution ?

Perhaps the scientists could stop the wars and the killing of innocent people for a start, let all the world's heads of state agree on a common strategy to reduce pollution, and finally there is a problem with over-population..

Should everyone agree with the climate change alarmists, what can be done ?

.. Meanwhile, in the real world billions of people are struggling to make the best of today.

 

5 hours ago, plachon said:

Ah, so all the world's governments who signed up to the IPCC reports and the 97 % of climate scientists who did the research and are convinced by the weight of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change and the need to act urgently to reverse the effects are mostly Socialists/Marxists-Leninists in your view. Thanks for that nugget of wisdom and incredible insight into the way the world works. It is great to know that such geniuses as yourself are on board with the alternative view that there is no need to act, as ACC is all one big hoax dreamed up by this apparent Marxist-Leninist conspiracy theory that has taken over the world's scientific community and community of nations that are members of the UN. 

Oh no.... here we go with the old disgraced 97% number again....  They always like to throw out that number. 

       There are all kinds of evidence to debunk that number....    To begin with.... the studies that are supposed to reflect 97% of the climate scientists did NOT ask whether they thought it was dangerous and needed to be urgently acted on to reverse the effects...   You made that claim up out of thin air... 

 

     Just what is it that supposedly 97 per cent of experts agreed on....  Let's take a look, shall we? 

In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.”  But the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. 

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. (26,6% of the members replied.....oops ! )  Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

 

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC.

 

The phoney claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagogy to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

 

   More here:   https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-con-consensus-not-only-there-no-97-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many

 

  

 John Cook et al. of SkepticalScience.com had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#4fedffff3f9f