Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[eliotness]

So Up2u2, you believe what is on the internet is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that reported science cannot be wrong. Ever heard of the science of eugenics ? Joseph Goebbels would have loved you, he could have had a field day with the internet. The use of 1/2 truths is so very dangerous.

All you seem to do is quote from information you gleaned from the internet. From your total avoidance to mention any internationally recognised qualifications or work experience it is obvious your practical experience in this matter is limited. An armchair expert, and yes there are many, can be prone to find the facts to fit their theory, rather than see the big picture. I do admire your focus, but I find your view of the bigger picture to be rather narrow.

You constantly glue man-made global warming and climate change together, so how do you explain periods of climate cooling ? You questioned my reference to historical records to show climate change has happened in recorded history by saying something along the lines of "where is the scientific data to prove that". So you think the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings and all the recorders of historical events since were wrong ? And Victorians were misguided when the River Thames froze over every winter.

Climate change IS A FACT. Man's contribution to any possible change in the Earth's climate has never been fully quantified, speculated on, yes, actually "what we need to do to reverse it or keep stable" quantified NO. Any raising of such a potential global problem, without mentioning possible mitigation or even solutions is politically motivated scare tactics.

I saw one report that said "with increased global warming the European Med coast will become a desert, but the Lakeland Fells in North Western England will be able to grow grapes. How do you think that was received by the poor cold and wet folks in the Lake District ?

And finally, and I do really mean it this time, if mankind doesn't address the time-bomb of unsustainable population growth, then whatever we do to lower our carbon footprints, which is absolutely a 1st world concept and has no meaning in the 3rd world, then we will have to learn to adapt, because we ain't going to change anything.

Goodbye.

[notmyself]

[up2u2]

I don't need to review any scientific reports to believe in C C/ G W as I do believe in C C/ G W and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes, so I don't know what you are going on about.

What has not been proven is if it is caused by humans.

So again what science do you rely on that shows GW is not anthropogenic?

I am assuming:

CC/GW = GW / CC (Global Warming leading to Climate Change)

Climate Change does not drive Global Warming. Increased CO₂ drives Global Warming which in turn drives Climate Change which in turn drives Extreme Weather Events.

Increased CO₂ drives Global Warming which in turn drives Climate Change which in turn drives Extreme Weather Events.

NOT PROVEN. increased CO2 may be a RESULT of G W not a causation.

As for extreme weather events, they have happened with the same severity and as often in the past, before ^CO2 levels.

What science do you have that shows that Global Warming is driving elevated CO₂ levels? What is that statement based on. I have read absolutely zero science that shows Global Warming (from somewhere?) is driving elevated CO₂ levels? Do you have a link to that research?

No I agree the extreme weather events have not set in yet. There have been a number of record breaking events but nothing as extreme that can be expected when GW reaches around +3 to +8^OC.

[up2u2]

If you want to stay up to date on GW / CC and what is happening politically Skeptical Science website is an excellent information resource.

Any website that has that prize idiot John Cook as one of its mainstays should be ashamed to put the word 'science' in the title. His attempt to prove a 97% consensus on climate change has rightly been lambasted as one of the most lame and bungling efforts at statistics since Lord Nelson said "I see no ships."

They should stick to cartooning and dressing up in uniforms.

Rick I think your personal attacks on John Cook says more about you than him.

The 'Toon of the Week' are always a bit of a laugh.

The 'Quote of the Week' goes to:

Bill Patzert, climatologist for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge

“There’s no longer a possibility that El Niño wimps out at this point. It’s too big to fail,”

I suppose Climate Scientists really need a sense of humour to deal with the unwarranted personal attacks they receive from Climate Deniers.

The EXCELLENT!!! Michael Mann video 'notmyself' posted above, John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

Edited October 13, 2015 by up2u2

[up2u2]

So Up2u2, you believe what is on the internet is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that reported science cannot be wrong. Ever heard of the science of eugenics ? Joseph Goebbels would have loved you, he could have had a field day with the internet. The use of 1/2 truths is so very dangerous.

All you seem to do is quote from information you gleaned from the internet. From your total avoidance to mention any internationally recognised qualifications or work experience it is obvious your practical experience in this matter is limited. An armchair expert, and yes there are many, can be prone to find the facts to fit their theory, rather than see the big picture. I do admire your focus, but I find your view of the bigger picture to be rather narrow.

You constantly glue man-made global warming and climate change together, so how do you explain periods of climate cooling ? You questioned my reference to historical records to show climate change has happened in recorded history by saying something along the lines of "where is the scientific data to prove that". So you think the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings and all the recorders of historical events since were wrong ? And Victorians were misguided when the River Thames froze over every winter.

Climate change IS A FACT. Man's contribution to any possible change in the Earth's climate has never been fully quantified, speculated on, yes, actually "what we need to do to reverse it or keep stable" quantified NO. Any raising of such a potential global problem, without mentioning possible mitigation or even solutions is politically motivated scare tactics.

I saw one report that said "with increased global warming the European Med coast will become a desert, but the Lakeland Fells in North Western England will be able to grow grapes. How do you think that was received by the poor cold and wet folks in the Lake District ?

And finally, and I do really mean it this time, if mankind doesn't address the time-bomb of unsustainable population growth, then whatever we do to lower our carbon footprints, which is absolutely a 1st world concept and has no meaning in the 3rd world, then we will have to learn to adapt, because we ain't going to change anything.

Goodbye.

Probably a good call eliot. I think for you it is more a political ideology that drives your view on GW / CC. It certainly isn't the scientific evidence. I have no idea where the Babylonians come into it. lol

[RickBradford]

. . . John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

Since Michael 'Piltdown' Mann is himself held in very low regard by people who deal in hard science, I don't see how simply interviewing him can put anyone in high regard.

The only requirement for interviewing Mann is a strong stomach and the ability to keep a straight face. It was Mann who showed that the word 'climate' qualifies 'science' like the word 'witch' qualifies 'doctor'.

Cook's own attempts to play scientist have been rightly demonstrated to be risible and it says plenty about Skeptical Science (which is neither) that they haven't disowned this clown.

[up2u2]

. . . John Cook was the actual interviewer. So he is held in VERY high regard within the scientific community.

Since Michael 'Piltdown' Mann is himself held in very low regard by people who deal in hard science, I don't see how simply interviewing him can put anyone in high regard.

The only requirement for interviewing Mann is a strong stomach and the ability to keep a straight face. It was Mann who showed that the word 'climate' qualifies 'science' like the word 'witch' qualifies 'doctor'.

Cook's own attempts to play scientist have been rightly demonstrated to be risible and it says plenty about Skeptical Science (which is neither) that they haven't disowned this clown.

Rick I am not really into personal attacks. If you don't agree with the science, sure, speak up and articulate why but ad hominem attacks just indicates you aren't able to refute the science so personal attacks are all you have.

The peer reviewed science by Mann and Cook just don't fit in with Climate Denier myths so they have to resort to personal attacks.

Cook's science is peer reviewed and is not questioned within the scientific community the same as Mann's. Provide a link where scientific institutions reject Cook and Mann's peer reviewed science. It simply doesn't exist. Climate Denier blog sites funded by the Fossil Fuel industry outside of science sure but who would take notice of that?

"they haven't disowned this clown." There is a good reason for that. I take it you are not aware Skeptical Science website is John Cook's website. lol

Of the peer reviewed science on GW / CC what is it you disagree with and why?

[RickBradford]

I've already wasted far too much of my time writing about John Cook and the SkS Kidz of Skeptical Science.

If you want to believe that these people have anything to contribute to a serious analysis of climate matters, then go ahead.

Most people regard Skeptical Science as the online version of The Toytown Book of Rubbish.

[up2u2]

I've already wasted far too much of my time writing about John Cook and the SkS Kidz of Skeptical Science.

If you want to believe that these people have anything to contribute to a serious analysis of climate matters, then go ahead.

Most people regard Skeptical Science as the online version of The Toytown Book of Rubbish.

I definitely recommend Skeptical Science website for people who want to learn about the science on GW / CC.

If GW / CC does not fit in with your political ideology then you will hate it stay well away. There is nothing there that will confirm your prejudice. It will infuriate you endlessly. It has mountains of science that demonstrates the fundamentals of GW / CC and once you understand the basics it is very difficult for the Climate Deniers to peddle their non scientific doubt.

it is pretty cool really.

Here is the Myth:

"It's not us"

Here is the quick response:

"Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change."

If you want to become more informed they then proceed to show the actual science that it is based on.

Multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

Even better they split it into 'Basic' 'Intermediate' and 'Advanced' so you can really increase your level of understanding to a very high degree.

[canuckamuck]

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.YwtKKl8p.dpuf

I know our resident Skeptical (of all other opinions) Science club member will cry denier blog on this immediately. But for the rest of us, just another failure of the models.

[up2u2]

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.YwtKKl8p.dpuf

I know our resident Skeptical (of all other opinions) Science club member will cry denier blog on this immediately. But for the rest of us, just another failure of the models.

The 'No Trick Zone' Is that the same as the Bill O'Reilly 'No Spin Zone' lol

and you are right to know I spot this Denier blogsites in the blink of an eye canuck

Why would anyone expect a big increase in Insurance payouts due to catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC?

[RickBradford]

I definitely recommend Skeptical Science website for people who want to learn about the science on GW / CC.

If GW / CC does not fit in with your political ideology then you will hate it stay well away.

Stay well away also if you hate creepy cross-dressing photography and infantile photoshopping.

This piece of top-notch SkS science shows the heads of three prominent skeptics (left to right, Antony Watts, Christopher Monckton, James Delingpole) photoshopped onto depictions of Spartan soldiers (there were only 300 Spartans, geddit?!)

The standard sometimes drops below this at SkS, but rarely rises above it, so it's quite easy to assess the mentality of people who regard this as a valuable resource on climate change.

[up2u2]

I definitely recommend Skeptical Science website for people who want to learn about the science on GW / CC.

If GW / CC does not fit in with your political ideology then you will hate it stay well away.

Stay well away also if you hate creepy cross-dressing photography and infantile photoshopping.

This piece of top-notch SkS science shows the heads of three prominent skeptics (left to right, Antony Watts, Christopher Monckton, James Delingpole) photoshopped onto depictions of Spartan soldiers (there were only 300 Spartans, geddit?!)

The standard sometimes drops below this at SkS, but rarely rises above it, so it's quite easy to assess the mentality of people who regard this as a valuable resource on climate change.

What is the link to that article on SkS Rick?

[RickBradford]

^^

The link was disappeared by the SkS Kidz once they realised how much of their stupidity it revealed.

[canuckamuck]

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.YwtKKl8p.dpuf

I know our resident Skeptical (of all other opinions) Science club member will cry denier blog on this immediately. But for the rest of us, just another failure of the models.

The 'No Trick Zone' Is that the same as the Bill O'Reilly 'No Spin Zone' lol

and you are right to know I spot this Denier blogsites in the blink of an eye canuck

Why would anyone expect a big increase in Insurance payouts due to catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC?

As you know in the fairy tale it says if the climate warms we get more storms and violent weather. How else are you going to put a bad spin on an improved climate. Oh yeah sea level rise. Funny how that doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Warming is good, get over it.

Edited October 13, 2015 by canuckamuck

[up2u2]

^^

The link was disappeared by the SkS Kidz once they realised how much of their stupidity it revealed.

I wouldn't get too carried away parroting Fossil Fuel funded WUWT website. It will certainly confirm your political ideology but falls very short on the actual science on GW / CC.

[up2u2]

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.YwtKKl8p.dpuf

I know our resident Skeptical (of all other opinions) Science club member will cry denier blog on this immediately. But for the rest of us, just another failure of the models.

The 'No Trick Zone' Is that the same as the Bill O'Reilly 'No Spin Zone' lol

and you are right to know I spot this Denier blogsites in the blink of an eye canuck

Why would anyone expect a big increase in Insurance payouts due to catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC?

As you know in the fairy tale it says if the climate warms we get more storms and violent weather. How else are you going to put a bad spin on an improved climate. Oh yeah sea level rise. Funny how that doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Warming is good, get over it.

Extreme catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC now? No. Where did you get that from? Not enough Warming yet.

[RickBradford]

^^

The link was disappeared by the SkS Kidz once they realised how much of their stupidity it revealed.

I wouldn't get too carried away parroting Fossil Fuel funded WUWT website. It will certainly confirm your political ideology but falls very short on the actual science on GW / CC.

The Green/Left's infantile stereotype of anyone who disagrees with them is one of the most telling aspects of their failure.

They believe (we can't dignify it with the word 'think') that everyone who opposes the capitalists-destroying-earth-must-decarbonise-immediately-or-die mantram is either:

* too stupid to understand the issues

* brainwashed by Fox News

* being paid off by Big Oil

Put another way, their belief is: "If you were as smart as me, or hadn't been suckered by watching Fox News, or hadn't been given money, you would see things my way."

Don't laugh. They really do believe it. All of them. Even Michael 'Piltdown' Mann, not on the face of it a moron, believes that all criticism about his poor science is coming from a 'vicious well-funded denialist machine.'

They are simply unable to concede that anyone who disagrees with them might be intelligent, well-meaning and independent. That's why their only form of discourse is abuse ('denier') and their only policy prescription is to shut down opposition ('the debate is over').

The great thing is that they'll never ever get it, and it's done enormous damage to their Cause, and continues to do so. Nobody enjoys being hectored by people who regard themselves as existing on a higher intellectual and moral plane, and that goes double for politicians.

And that's why plenty of hot air is expended and conferences organised around climate, but nothing substantive is done or will be done.

[canuckamuck]

Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average Global natural disasters in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/#sthash.YwtKKl8p.dpuf

I know our resident Skeptical (of all other opinions) Science club member will cry denier blog on this immediately. But for the rest of us, just another failure of the models.

The 'No Trick Zone' Is that the same as the Bill O'Reilly 'No Spin Zone' lol

and you are right to know I spot this Denier blogsites in the blink of an eye canuck

Why would anyone expect a big increase in Insurance payouts due to catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC?

As you know in the fairy tale it says if the climate warms we get more storms and violent weather. How else are you going to put a bad spin on an improved climate. Oh yeah sea level rise. Funny how that doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Warming is good, get over it.

Extreme catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC now? No. Where did you get that from? Not enough Warming yet.

Oh! My mistake, can you let me know where the threshold is where all hell breaks loose.

Maybe a little warming is good and then a little more is really bad.

[RickBradford]

Oh! My mistake, can you let me know where the threshold is where all hell breaks loose.

Maybe a little warming is good and then a little more is really bad.

What are you, some kind of Fox News-brainwashed Big Oil-funded Right-wing nutjob denialista moron?

Don't you know that the threshold was set by Schnellnhuber back in 2010?

For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."

But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.

[up2u2]

^^

The link was disappeared by the SkS Kidz once they realised how much of their stupidity it revealed.

I wouldn't get too carried away parroting Fossil Fuel funded WUWT website. It will certainly confirm your political ideology but falls very short on the actual science on GW / CC.

The Green/Left's infantile stereotype of anyone who disagrees with them is one of the most telling aspects of their failure.

They believe (we can't dignify it with the word 'think') that everyone who opposes the capitalists-destroying-earth-must-decarbonise-immediately-or-die mantram is either:

* too stupid to understand the issues

* brainwashed by Fox News

* being paid off by Big Oil

Put another way, their belief is: "If you were as smart as me, or hadn't been suckered by watching Fox News, or hadn't been given money, you would see things my way."

Don't laugh. They really do believe it. All of them. Even Michael 'Piltdown' Mann, not on the face of it a moron, believes that all criticism about his poor science is coming from a 'vicious well-funded denialist machine.'

They are simply unable to concede that anyone who disagrees with them might be intelligent, well-meaning and independent. That's why their only form of discourse is abuse ('denier') and their only policy prescription is to shut down opposition ('the debate is over').

The great thing is that they'll never ever get it, and it's done enormous damage to their Cause, and continues to do so. Nobody enjoys being hectored by people who regard themselves as existing on a higher intellectual and moral plane, and that goes double for politicians.

And that's why plenty of hot air is expended and conferences organised around climate, but nothing substantive is done or will be done.

This is typical political ideological rhetoric. Not one shred of science. If you disagree with the science on GW / CC simply show where the science is inaccurate. If you spent more time learning about the actual science on GW / CC rather than sites like WUWT funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries you probably would have a more balanced understanding of the issue.

Rather than just verbally attack Mann and Cook and scientists show where they are wrong and present your science that supports your view. Pretty simple. The science on GW / CC is very clear.

[up2u2]

As you know in the fairy tale it says if the climate warms we get more storms and violent weather. How else are you going to put a bad spin on an improved climate. Oh yeah sea level rise. Funny how that doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Warming is good, get over it.

Extreme catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC now? No. Where did you get that from? Not enough Warming yet.

Oh! My mistake, can you let me know where the threshold is where all hell breaks loose.

Maybe a little warming is good and then a little more is really bad.

Canuck why should I need to tell you this? If you know the slightest science on GW / CC this is very basic stuff. Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little. You have such strong opinions on GW / CC yet don't know this? Extraordinary.

[RickBradford]

If you spent more time learning about the actual science on GW / CC rather than sites like WUWT funded by the Fossil Fuel Industries you probably would have a more balanced understanding of the issue.

Priceless. You really do believe it, don't you?

Provide a link where scientific institutions reject Cook and Mann's peer reviewed science. It simply doesn't exist. Climate Denier blog sites funded by the Fossil Fuel industry outside of science sure but who would take notice of that?

It's like a cult -- Scientology, or the Moonies. Anyone outside the cult has to be labelled (stupid, brainwashed, fossil fueled) so that those inside the cult can continue to feel good about themselves.

It's even worse than the Catholic Church. The Pope (remember him?) has some dotty ideas about climate change, but at least he's mature enough not to have to rush around demonizing everyone who disagrees with him.

[canuckamuck]

As you know in the fairy tale it says if the climate warms we get more storms and violent weather. How else are you going to put a bad spin on an improved climate. Oh yeah sea level rise. Funny how that doesn't seem to be much of an issue either. Warming is good, get over it.

Extreme catastrophic weather events caused by GW / CC now? No. Where did you get that from? Not enough Warming yet.

Oh! My mistake, can you let me know where the threshold is where all hell breaks loose.

Maybe a little warming is good and then a little more is really bad.

Canuck why should I need to tell you this? If you know the slightest science on GW / CC this is very basic stuff. Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little. You have such strong opinions on GW / CC yet don't know this? Extraordinary.

Oh I have been to your site which is primarily a circle jerk of mutual approval for climate industry dependants. I have been to many sites, read lots of articles, pro and con over the years. And I have done my best to filter out facts from agendas. Not much new going on but your side has definitely become more agitated. And I have also noticed the natural occurrence camp becoming bored with this topic, as they have seen decades now of hype and hysteria all of which has failed to manifest in reality.

In fact we are living in a kinder gentler climate (storm wise) and maybe one more degree or so will be just about right. So hopefully the next climate crisis (and by climate crisis I mean cooling) will stay away long enough that some of the northern countries can get a bit of a break for a decade or so. Maybe a couple of years without record breaking cold snaps would be nice.

But hey if you do have an article about tipping points to share why not post a link.

Edited October 14, 2015 by canuckamuck

[RickBradford]

Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little.

Or go to a proper grownups' climate website and learn a lot....

[chuckd]

Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little.

Or go to a proper grownups' climate website and learn a lot....

Well said. Got a right chuckle out of me.

[up2u2]

Oh! My mistake, can you let me know where the threshold is where all hell breaks loose.

Maybe a little warming is good and then a little more is really bad.

Canuck why should I need to tell you this? If you know the slightest science on GW / CC this is very basic stuff. Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little. You have such strong opinions on GW / CC yet don't know this? Extraordinary.

Oh I have been to your site which is primarily a circle jerk of mutual approval for climate industry dependants. I have been to many sites, read lots of articles, pro and con over the years. And I have done my best to filter out facts from agendas. Not much new going on but your side has definitely become more agitated. And I have also noticed the natural occurrence camp becoming bored with this topic, as they have seen decades now of hype and hysteria all of which has failed to manifest in reality.

In fact we are living in a kinder gentler climate (storm wise) and maybe one more degree or so will be just about right. So hopefully the next climate crisis (and by climate crisis I mean cooling) will stay away long enough that some of the northern countries can get a bit of a break for a decade or so. Maybe a couple of years without record breaking cold snaps would be nice.

But hey if you do have an article about tipping points to share why not post a link.

Link ONE published peer reviewed scientific Paper or Article that agrees with your view on GW or CC?

[canuckamuck]

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

[up2u2]

Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little.

Or go to a proper grownups' climate website and learn a lot....

I do prefer the Skeptical Science website because it bases everything on published peer reviewed scientific evidence and gives links to the actual research / Papers / Articles. It also provides Basic, Intermediate and Advanced discussion and information. It posts the latest media information on GW / CC so it keeps you up to date with important announcements. As they are climate Scientists themselves and are involved in producing published peer reviewed science they also get access to leading Climate Scientists and on occasion will do interviews or sometimes write an exclusive article on an issue. The Denier 101 YouTube Channel is just brilliant if you want plan English explanations on GW and CC. Plus there is a Forum on each topic and you get some interesting views and discussions going on. I like The Carbon Brief for journalist reporting on GW / CC. A little 'high brow' but they stick to the science.

A great website if you are really interested in learning the science on GW / CC

If I want to look at primary source updated Data and research NASA, NOAA, UKMet, Berkeley Earth, Polar Science Center, IPCC Reports. Also if there is breaking GW / CC research I will track down the actual published peer reviewed research Paper or Article and at a minimum read the Abstract, the Methodology used and Conclusions. No real need to get out the calculator and check the Math as it is peer reviewed that has to be accurate or it doesn't pass peer review or is corrected prior to being published. Also the peer review process ensures the Research / Paper / Article conforms to the accepted known science and if it doesn't presents data to validate its diversion. A really good example of this is when Mears over wrote Roy Spencer's Maths on Satellite data analysis and demonstrate precisely where Roy Spencer's maths was wrong.

For anyone who is interested in learning about the science on GW / CC these are really good Primary sources of information.

Secondary source information probably The Guardian but will always fact check a story that doesn't sound correct.

I also like to check up on the Climate Denier blogs and websites that peddle non science gibberish like WUWT, Roy Spencer, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, UK Telegraph, The Australian, Fox News, Judith Curry, Bill O'Reilly (referred to as the 'Climate Denier Echo Chamber') . I enjoy finding out how they manage to derail the science and misinform people. It also helps to spot where people are parroting their Climate Denier clap trap from.

[canuckamuck]

Go onto Skeptical Science website and learn a little.

Or go to a proper grownups' climate website and learn a lot....

I do prefer the Skeptical Science website because it bases everything on published peer reviewed scientific evidence and gives links to the actual research / Papers / Articles. It also provides Basic, Intermediate and Advanced discussion and information. It posts the latest media information on GW / CC so it keeps you up to date with important announcements. As they are climate Scientists themselves and are involved in producing published peer reviewed science they also get access to leading Climate Scientists and on occasion will do interviews or sometimes write an exclusive article on an issue. The Denier 101 YouTube Channel is just brilliant if you want plan English explanations on GW and CC. Plus there is a Forum on each topic and you get some interesting views and discussions going on. I like The Carbon Brief for journalist reporting on GW / CC. A little 'high brow' but they stick to the science.

A great website if you are really interested in learning the science on GW / CC

If I want to look at primary source updated Data and research NASA, NOAA, UKMet, Berkeley Earth, Polar Science Center, IPCC Reports. Also if there is breaking GW / CC research I will track down the actual published peer reviewed research Paper or Article and at a minimum read the Abstract, the Methodology used and Conclusions. No real need to get out the calculator and check the Math as it is peer reviewed that has to be accurate or it doesn't pass peer review or is corrected prior to being published. Also the peer review process ensures the Research / Paper / Article conforms to the accepted known science and if it doesn't presents data to validate its diversion. A really good example of this is when Mears over wrote Roy Spencer's Maths on Satellite data analysis and demonstrate precisely where Roy Spencer's maths was wrong.

For anyone who is interested in learning about the science on GW / CC these are really good Primary sources of information.

Secondary source information probably The Guardian but will always fact check a story that doesn't sound correct.

I also like to check up on the Climate Denier blogs and websites that peddle non science gibberish like WUWT, Roy Spencer, Heartland Institute, Marshall Institute, UK Telegraph, The Australian, Fox News, Judith Curry, Bill O'Reilly (referred to as the 'Climate Denier Echo Chamber') . I enjoy finding out how they manage to derail the science and misinform people. It also helps to spot where people are parroting their Climate Denier clap trap from.

Sounds like SkS has been really good for you. Are you earning as a contributor, or just by driving traffic to the site?