9 minutes ago, JohnDyson said:

It's all fluff. Temps have hardly changed in 20 years. They label anyone who challenges the hoax as a "denier". The facts are temps have hardly moved in 20 years so they keep fiddling with data and pushing the timeframe out. Gore used to say 2010 was a tipping point then it was 2020 and now 2030.

 

Meanwhile in Chiang Mai or anywhere in Asian they do whatever they want.

 

In 2028 the hoaxers will say the world is doomed in 2050 etc

 

Religious types did they same for 2000 years. Same scam, different people.

If it wasn't for the hard data you used to back up your claims, I'd call your assertions false and nonsensical.

Troll posts removed.   Continue and face a suspension.  

 

On 10/16/2018 at 11:13 AM, connda said:

Of course, there is no natural variability in temperature over time and there has never been wild temperature shifts or 'climate change' in the past.  Nope, it's all cow fart and car emission - and a whole lot of fear monger to boot. 

 

If those little red dots at the end of the chart, or mm's hocky stick were reality, there would be a much higher rate of sea level rise then a few mm/year *maybe* and the sea level rise is a maybe because in more recent years the noaa is accused of funny business in order to keep the data in the black, nothing on the tide gauges.. and still alot of data from both poles and greenland showing ice increases..

historical records and scientific studies show sea levels considerably higher just a thousand years ago, where as today and in the last 30 years since the political establishment made global warming such a big thing, almost nothing .. the real climate is still alot cooler than most of the previous 10,000 years, like what all the NOAA charts from 30 years ago were showing and even the first ipcc assessment report had a chart showing a thousand years ago being considerably warmer than today.. the establishment science now says "oh that was just the climate in europe"  so in the fantasy world of AGW you can have a climate much warmer in europe than today and a climate much colder in the rest of the world at that time to offset the much warmer europe .. and you can have a USA that doesn't warm in 100 years 1895-1989 but that is again offset by the rest of the world, most of which had no reliable temp measurements .. 

 

http://notrickszone.com/?s=sea+levels

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/05/sea-levels-are-stable-to-falling-at-about-half-of-the-worlds-tide-gauges/

 

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/18/new-science-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-more-extensive-today-than-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/

 

 

i think 'climate change denier' is a reference to 'holocaust denier' i.e any objection to the drivel means i'm in the same basket as hitler/stalin/genghis khan/timur/napoleon etc,

i.e a mass murderer with destruction of mankind as my reason to exist, am i right or am i right ?

 

since when did CO2 drive climate ?

historical data shows its the other way around,

climate changes, as it always does and always did before dawn of man, and then as a result CO2 follows after a few hundred years

1 hour ago, poanoi said:

i think 'climate change denier' is a reference to 'holocaust denier' i.e any objection to the drivel means i'm in the same basket as hitler/stalin/genghis khan/timur/napoleon etc,

i.e a mass murderer with destruction of mankind as my reason to exist, am i right or am i right ?

 

since when did CO2 drive climate ?

historical data shows its the other way around,

climate changes, as it always does and always did before dawn of man, and then as a result CO2 follows after a few hundred years

Yes they insult people who question their claims with schoolyard tactics.

 

Interesting the latest forecast has a 22 year range. So when 2030 arrives and they are wrong they give themselves another 22 years to be right. By 2052 those people will be dead or retired so no accountability.

 

Where did the 1.5 degrees come from? They made it up using dubious models.

 

Temps only went up 0.21 degrees in 20 years yet here they have 1.5 in 12 to 34 years.

 

What happens in actual co2 tests in controlled environments  is the sensitivity decreases as you add more co2 so any model should be flattening out not increasing.

 

So by 2030 from now 0.06 to 0.12 is more likely. The 1.5 is ridiculous nonsense.

On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:45 AM, kwilco said:

Climate change is a massive and complicated topic and engagingin arguments with obfuscation and deniers is particularly unproductive and very long-winded...

If you really want to understand climate change and in particular how it relates to climate deniers, may I suggest you join this free course run by the University of Queensland.

 

https://m.facebook.com/denial101x

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/denial101x

 

I doubt anyone on here "denies" that climate changes, however, for myself, I doubt that the pro man made climate change clique actually have a clue as to how to stop it, without plunging the world economy into crisis. Till people en mass realise that they are being conned, there is plenty of opportunity for lots of conferences in exotic places at other people's expense, so the illusion that they know how to change it ( and they don't even pretend to know what they want to change it to ) will keep on keeping on.

If anything shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are, it's jetting around the world polluting the atmosphere, so they can tell us to stop using fossil fuel.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt anyone on here "denies" that climate changes, however, for myself, I doubt that the pro man made climate change clique actually have a clue as to how to stop it, without plunging the world economy into crisis. Till people en mass realise that they are being conned, there is plenty of opportunity for lots of conferences in exotic places at other people's expense, so the illusion that they know how to change it ( and they don't even pretend to know what they want to change it to ) will keep on keeping on.

If anything shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are, it's jetting around the world polluting the atmosphere, so they can tell us to stop using fossil fuel.

Of course man can't do much about it and there isn't even a problem. The world would be better if temps went up 1 degree as it would be more fertile for crops.

 

So even if you think temps will go up it's a bonus not a negative.

 

The IPCC in the past got laughed at for predicting 3 to 5 degree increases so now it's 1.5 which is 1 unlikely and 2 actually not a bad thing in the remote chance of it happening.

 

The real deniers are the hoaxers who keep trying to scare people into paying money to achieve nothing.

 

If the IPCC got real and said look sorry for our previous dud forecasts and actually over the next 30 to 50 years temps might go up 0.5 degrees their whole reason for existing stops so they won't do it, hence they keep moving the goal posts.

 

 

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Till people en mass realise that they are being conned, there is plenty of opportunity for lots of conferences in exotic places at other people's expense, so the illusion that they know how to change it ( and they don't even pretend to know what they want to change it to ) will keep on keeping on.

That is especially true of the report mentioned in the OP.

 

The scientists did the work, and let's assume that they did their honest best.

 

The bureaucrats then take that work and tailor it to a political agenda; that is, one that will be accepted by the various parties involved. For example, among the authors of the reports is Roz Pidcock, who prior to joining the IPCC was a campaigner for the Carbon Brief – a front organisation entirely funded by the European Climate Foundation, which in turn is entirely funded from various billionaires’ ‘philanthropic’ foundations.

 

At the top of the authors' list is Professor Myles Allen, who moonlights as a strategist in litigation campaigns against energy companies. 

 

This political construct is then forwarded to the media, who make as much of a meal of it as possible.

 

The BBC, for example, kept changing the headline of their article on the report. It started as ‘Climate report: scientists politely urge “act now, idiots”’. Then it was changed to ‘Climate report: scientists urge deep rapid change to limit warming’, and finally it became ‘Final call to save the world from “climate catastrophe”’.

 

It is not the IPCC’s science that appeals to these vapid hacks – it is the cover it provides for their profoundly undemocratic impulses.

 

It actually becomes near impossible to tell whether there is a problem with climate; by the time the bureaucrats and media have finished with the thing, even snow in Canada in January could be made into a climate crisis.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

If those little red dots at the end of the chart, or mm's hocky stick were reality, there would be a much higher rate of sea level rise then a few mm/year *maybe* and the sea level rise is a maybe because in more recent years the noaa is accused of funny business in order to keep the data in the black, nothing on the tide gauges.. and still alot of data from both poles and greenland showing ice increases..

historical records and scientific studies show sea levels considerably higher just a thousand years ago, where as today and in the last 30 years since the political establishment made global warming such a big thing, almost nothing .. the real climate is still alot cooler than most of the previous 10,000 years, like what all the NOAA charts from 30 years ago were showing and even the first ipcc assessment report had a chart showing a thousand years ago being considerably warmer than today.. the establishment science now says "oh that was just the climate in europe"  so in the fantasy world of AGW you can have a climate much warmer in europe than today and a climate much colder in the rest of the world at that time to offset the much warmer europe .. and you can have a USA that doesn't warm in 100 years 1895-1989 but that is again offset by the rest of the world, most of which had no reliable temp measurements .. 

 

http://notrickszone.com/?s=sea+levels

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/05/sea-levels-are-stable-to-falling-at-about-half-of-the-worlds-tide-gauges/

 

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/18/new-science-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-more-extensive-today-than-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/

 

 

I started with one link and could see right away either how ignorant or dishonest the people who contribute to this site are.

For example, the sea rise in parts of africa.  I like to think I was well brought up and so hate to use frank and shocking languate but I have 2 little words for you and if the mods penalize me for this so be it:

isostatic emergence. (ok, maybe not so little)

and here's a choice phrase:

"steric expansion of seawater relating to warmer ocean temperatures associated with the Holocene hypsithermal event on the eastern Agulhas Bank."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/104061829500040P

Do you really believe climatologists just ignore these studies and hope on one notices?

As for the world being warmer for most of the last 10000 years

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

 

Enough of dealing with your persiflage.

4 hours ago, poanoi said:

i think 'climate change denier' is a reference to 'holocaust denier' i.e any objection to the drivel means i'm in the same basket as hitler/stalin/genghis khan/timur/napoleon etc,

i.e a mass murderer with destruction of mankind as my reason to exist, am i right or am i right ?

 

since when did CO2 drive climate ?

historical data shows its the other way around,

climate changes, as it always does and always did before dawn of man, and then as a result CO2 follows after a few hundred years

If climatologists claimed that CO2 is the only cause of past episodes of global warming, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

What they do say is that as other factors cause warming and a subsequent an increase in CO2 levels, a feedback loop kicks in. And what was once a consequence of warming, starts being a cause of it. And as more CO2 is released, the effect gets stronger.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

If climatologists claimed that CO2 is the only cause of past episodes of global warming, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

What they do say is that as other factors cause warming and a subsequent an increase in CO2 levels, a feedback loop kicks in. And what was once a consequence of warming, starts being a cause of it. And as more CO2 is released, the effect gets stronger.

The feedbacks are negative not stronger.

43 minutes ago, JohnDyson said:

The feedbacks are negative not stronger.

As the sea warms it releases carbon dioxide. The warmer it gets the more CO2 is released.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes things warmer. So the more there is, the warmer things get. It's called a feedback loop.

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As the sea warms it releases carbon dioxide. The warmer it gets the more CO2 is released.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes things warmer. So the more there is, the warmer things get. It's called a feedback loop.

Doesn't work like that and research indicates oceans were 2 to 3 degrees warmer 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

 

The law of diminishing returns applies and feedback becomes negative if it isn't already which explains no significant warming in 20 years.

 

I'll bet any amount of money my forecast for 2030 is far more accurate than the IPCC.

On 10/16/2018 at 11:54 PM, bristolboy said:

Well, what about the vast majority of scientists who are, as you allege, kowtowing. How do they accomplish this kowtowing? By your logic, the results of their research must be false. So either they're badly mistaken or their doing it on purpose. Since the odds of their being both mistaken and that their mistakes are all in alignment are vanishingly small, then by your logic they must be engaged in some kind of active conspiracy. 

Edit: I posted this and then saw that sure enough, you are alleging a conspiracy. There is no point in discussing this with someone who believes that over 25,000 sciientists worldwide are engaging in a conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists live in their own hermetic world of improbabilities and it's best to leave them to inhabit it undisturbed.

     Wake up.... where is your reference/cite of over 25,000 scientists.   Just what is it that they agree on?  Who polled them... and what were the questions on the poll?   Or dont you know? 

    Do you really believe something just because 25,000 scientists say something is so ? ? 

 

  Don't you realise that there are more than 7,000,000 scientists in the world ? ?   

 

   Great..... so 0.35 % of scientists agree to something.....(One third of one percent.. 55555)  perhaps as simple as the world has warmed about .86 of one degree between 1880 - 2012  (I.P.C.C. Third and Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports) 

   The approx 550 years of the L.I.A. just ended circa 1850.    You're in a state of shock and alarm, suffering from Thermophobia ? ?   I doubt it.  More likely you are just following the Leftist/Socialist politico-economic agenda.  

 

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

 

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, joined Maurice Strong in addressing the Climate Summit audience. He said: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

 

 Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

 

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

 

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

 

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

 

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that:   "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this.One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, ..."

 

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed his view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. 

    Schneider said:  "we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

 

   WONDERFUL ! !   LOL   5555555 ????

 

   You need to get some serious professional help pal.. 

The actual number of alarmist scientists is more like 60 or 70. All of which are getting paid to say so.

 

Most scientists are skeptics.

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If climatologists claimed that CO2 is the only cause of past episodes of global warming, you might have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

What they do say is that as other factors cause warming and a subsequent an increase in CO2 levels, a feedback loop kicks in. And what was once a consequence of warming, starts being a cause of it. And as more CO2 is released, the effect gets stronger.

but, unfortunately, so far it has always bounced back to freezing cold, so clearly CO2 is not the way to keep climate warmer. for the foreseeable future we also havnt got the tech to enforce the sun to always keep up with demand,

i also think messing with the sun would be the most dangerous enterprise man could ever get into

All of this is about cycles which repeat...It really is simple for those who know what to study.. 

 

In 985 Greenland was so lush and green that is how it got its' name. Not 300 years later all the farmers had left because it was to darn cold.

 

I have not seen anyone saying climate is not changing that is what it does as history can show.

The scientist who were scheduled to leave Antarctica are still stuck due to early severe storms. Also regardless of what some may think the ice is not disappearing there.

 

Everyone better hope we are entering a period of global warming for if it is going to be global cooling there will be millions if not billions who will perish.

 

23 hours ago, poanoi said:

but, unfortunately, so far it has always bounced back to freezing cold, so clearly CO2 is not the way to keep climate warmer. for the foreseeable future we also havnt got the tech to enforce the sun to always keep up with demand,

i also think messing with the sun would be the most dangerous enterprise man could ever get into

As I guess I'm going to have to state ad nauseam, climatologists do not claim that greenhouses gases are the sole cause of global warming.  So, it's no disproof of the role they areplaying and have played to state that because other factors will done day put pressure on temperatures to go down, therefore greenhouse gases don't count. What anthropogenic global warming deniers don't seem to understand is that it's a question of rate of increase or decrease, not the simple fact of increase or decrease.

59 minutes ago, 727Sky said:

All of this is about cycles which repeat...It really is simple for those who know what to study.. 

 

In 985 Greenland was so lush and green that is how it got its' name. Not 300 years later all the farmers had left because it was to darn cold.

 

I have not seen anyone saying climate is not changing that is what it does as history can show.

The scientist who were scheduled to leave Antarctica are still stuck due to early severe storms. Also regardless of what some may think the ice is not disappearing there.

 

Everyone better hope we are entering a period of global warming for if it is going to be global cooling there will be millions if not billions who will perish.

 

No Greenland was not lush and green in 989. It did have some birch forest during the medieval warm period but as climate scientists repeatedly say and deniers repeatedly are deaf to, the medieval warm period was not global.

As scientist who study its glaciers know over 80% of Grreenland has been covered with glaciers for at least the last 400000 years. The last Time Greenland was fairly green was about 425000 years ago. According to the Vikings it got its name from Eric the Red who called it that to dupe his people into settling there. 

And climate scienists do not say that climate isn't changing. What they are saying is that the rate of change has speeded up dramatically.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

As I guess I'm going to have to state ad nauseam, climatologists do not claim that greenhouses gases are the sole cause of global warming.  So, it's no disproof of the role they areplaying and have played to state that because other factors will done day put pressure on temperatures to go down, therefore greenhouse gases don't count. What anthropogenic global warming deniers don't seem to understand is that it's a question of rate of increase or decrease, not the simple fact of increase or decrease.

well, CO2 makes up a fraction of a single percent of greenhouse gasses, out of which that fraction is made up for the vast majority of other sources than anything related to humans. Co2 doesnt drive climate and never has,

its merely a bi-product of climate changes caused by the sun,

and, well, my digestive system too

50 minutes ago, poanoi said:

well, CO2 makes up a fraction of a single percent of greenhouse gasses, out of which that fraction is made up for the vast majority of other sources than anything related to humans. Co2 doesnt drive climate and never has,

its merely a bi-product of climate changes caused by the sun,

and, well, my digestive system too

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2016/06/20/water-vapor-vs-carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/#3c9e9e03238f

This is terrifying ..  I used to think it was due to me putting the cola cans in the wrong rash  bin!

7 hours ago, poanoi said:

well, CO2 makes up a fraction of a single percent of greenhouse gasses, out of which that fraction is made up for the vast majority of other sources than anything related to humans. Co2 doesnt drive climate and never has,

its merely a bi-product of climate changes caused by the sun,

and, well, my digestive system too

Asia climate denier your demonstrated total lack of knowledge of chemistry does you proud.

26 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Asia climate denier your demonstrated total lack of knowledge of chemistry does you proud.

unlike yourself, i do have an engineering degree

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As I guess I'm going to have to state ad nauseam, climatologists do not claim that greenhouses gases are the sole cause of global warming.  So, it's no disproof of the role they areplaying and have played to state that because other factors will done day put pressure on temperatures to go down, therefore greenhouse gases don't count. What anthropogenic global warming deniers don't seem to understand is that it's a question of rate of increase or decrease, not the simple fact of increase or decrease.

Climate change (formerly global warming) is based on the theory that temperatures increase with increases in greenhouse gasses (primarily by increases in a trace element CO2). The theory never has been the temperature can go up or go down based on increasing CO2 gases, of course there can be variability from year to year. However, saying that the temperatures can do anything (go up OR down) in response to increases in greenhouse gases means that it is a completely bogus theory and this claim actually negates any relationship between the greenhouse gases and temperature, because temperature is obviously independent of the levels of gases in the atmosphere. Maybe the quoted response was not worded correctly?

 

All that needs to be done to fix this problem is to get rid of all the cars in the world, get rid of all the trucks, get rid of all the fossil fuel powered electrical power plants, get rid of all the airplanes, and get rid of all transport shipping. I don't understand why the world has a big problem with fixing this and "saving the planet"? As George Calin once famously said "the planet will be just fine" 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Climate change (formerly global warming) is based on the theory that temperatures increase with increases in greenhouse gasses (primarily by increases in a trace element CO2). The theory never has been the temperature can go up or go down based on increasing CO2 gases, of course there can be variability from year to year. However, saying that the temperatures can do anything (go up OR down) in response to increases in greenhouse gases means that it is a completely bogus theory and this claim actually negates any relationship between the greenhouse gases and temperature, because temperature is obviously independent of the levels of gases in the atmosphere. Maybe the quoted response was not worded correctly?

 

Completely and utterly wrong. The theory is that increasing the level of greenhouse gases will tend to raise the temperature. Anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the issue knows that among other thing, fluctuations in the earth axis can result in warmer or colder weather such as ice ages. But changes such as that happen over thousands of years. The question is the rate of change. And the current rate is unprecedented since the last asteroid struck planet earth.

What makes your argument completely ridiculous is that if it weren't for greenhouse gases, earth would be a much much colder place. This is an undisputed fact. Or at least undisputed by scientists acquainted with the facts. So why wouldn't an increase in the levels of those gases raise the temperature?

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

All that needs to be done to fix this problem is to get rid of all the cars in the world, get rid of all the trucks, get rid of all the fossil fuel powered electrical power plants, get rid of all the airplanes, and get rid of all transport shipping. I don't understand why the world has a big problem with fixing this and "saving the planet"? As George Calin once famously said "the planet will be just fine" 

 

 

Nice misleading quote. Actually what Carlin said in full was was "The planet will be just fine. The people are f**ked."

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nice misleading quote. Actually what Carlin said in full was was "The planet will be just fine. The people are f**ked."

My quote was not misleading. My point was that the planet will be just fine. Human, like every other species on the planet will adapt to changing conditions or we will (like 90% of every species that has been here and has gone extinct) also go extinct. I am betting we will adapt and develop technology to overcome almost any climate change that is predicted to occur.

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Completely and utterly wrong. The theory is that increasing the level of greenhouse gases will tend to raise the temperature. Anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the issue knows that among other thing, fluctuations in the earth axis can result in warmer or colder weather such as ice ages. But changes such as that happen over thousands of years. The question is the rate of change. And the current rate is unprecedented since the last asteroid struck planet earth.

What makes your argument completely ridiculous is that if it weren't for greenhouse gases, earth would be a much much colder place. This is an undisputed fact. Or at least undisputed by scientists acquainted with the facts. So why wouldn't an increase in the levels of those gases raise the temperature?

I was responding to an earlier quote that you made. I said that the theory is temperatures increase with increases of greenhouse gases, then you said nearly the exact same thing but modified it slightly to "increasing the level of greenhouse gases will. tend to raise temperature." I don't have a problem with "tend to increase temperatures" but completely and utterly disagree that this slight change made what I said was "completely and utterly wrong" .