Yo dawgs..All these scientists are collecting pay checks...BIGGEST meaningless piece of shit Al Gore made millions.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
What I posted are facts that are acknowledged even by the AGW crowd. With the exception of #5 of course since they choose to ignore that their policies are far more destructive than constructive.The fossil fuel industry is rolling in cash compared to research money.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
False, its global temperature change, not local.
The only times CO2 levels have been higher there have been mass extinctions and dramatically higher oceans. Wishing that on us again is suicide.
False, 14 of the 15 warmest years have happened this century. 2014 was the warmest year on record and 2015 is on record to break that. The claim that there was a 'pause' has been retracted under better research and modelling.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Ontario is already running 80% of its energy off of nuclear and hydro. Costa Rica is green. More countries are investing in wind and solar then new fossil fuel plants.
Nonsense.
That's just ridiculous nonsense.
Just click through this to recognize how ridiculous you sound.
Even the anti-vax crowd sound more realistic.
Your responses reflect those of someone who is utterly detached from reality.
But this 'branding' wasn't done by scientists in the first place, it was the media. They rephrased it to climate change to reflect the fact that while global temperatures will go up, there will also be radical changes and some local areas may get colder, as the East Coast here has with the slowing down of the thermohaline circulation. How the heck is that evidence of fraud?I more inclined to believe in the global warming is a lie because when they rebranded global warming to climate changes to sell it to the general public show me how deceiving they are! If you cannot sell the truth then you use a old marketing trick just rebranded or in this case rename global warming to climate changes and it become easier to sell to the general public. So if you get a hurricanes. Like katarines or a drought in california you can now blame it on global warming aka climate changes.
Most of the lists I have seen are people with no expertise in climate science, just like this Nobel physicist who studied quantum mechanics in the 60s.1 guy? There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who disagree with the bogus consensus.
...
I more inclined to believe in the global warming is a lie because when they rebranded global warming to climate changes to sell it to the general public show me how deceiving they are! ...
Says enough about your views right there. You believe that despite all the science out there and all the money at play backing various opinions that somehow the world at large has decided to play along with the 'lie'. That is the quintessential core of conspiracy theories.
And sure. Let's get together in 15 years for a beer. I'll bring the ice; we'll need it.
You do know that Gore is a politician, not a scientist right?Yo dawgs..All these scientists are collecting pay checks...BIGGEST meaningless piece of shit Al Gore made millions.
Then why do people quote him,...and have influence over his government,...he should be told to STFU,...then shouldn't he,...!!!You do know that Gore is a politician, not a scientist right?
Actually,... Al Gore is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management. He is a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and a member of Apple, Inc.’s board of directors.
He may have been a politician,...I guess the smell doesn't wash off,...!!!
FAST
"Following the money" is only a valid basis for establishing skepticism. Even if you find the source of the money, that information does not, by itself, establish the truth.
This is a scientific debate. This particular presenter relies upon some specific scientific data and analysis. If either is wrong, there ought to be some way to demonstrate why, in a manner that can be understood by people without an advanced degree in science. I would have thought that Ball had a high enough profile that someone who disagreed with his analysis would prepare a video dissecting it, point by point. The other arguments about lawsuits, funding, known associates, consensus, conspiracy theory, etc., are just noise.
p.s. The whole "but they're not climate scientists" point reminds of the terminology "human rights activist". The latter term seems only to be applied to persons who are trying to expand the rights of identifiable groups, and never to those who think they are already appropriate. Yet both groups of people may have equal expertise and understanding of the issues, just different points of view arising from that understanding. In other words, don't just tell me that scientists who dispute the impact of man made climate change don't carry the right label. Tell me why they're wrong. And the answer isn't "because this other scientist says he's wrong". Explain why he's wrong. Science is not a democracy. Thankfully, most great scientists did not care that nearly everyone else in their field preferred an older (and less worthy) view.
This is a scientific debate. This particular presenter relies upon some specific scientific data and analysis. If either is wrong, there ought to be some way to demonstrate why, in a manner that can be understood by people without an advanced degree in science. I would have thought that Ball had a high enough profile that someone who disagreed with his analysis would prepare a video dissecting it, point by point. The other arguments about lawsuits, funding, known associates, consensus, conspiracy theory, etc., are just noise.
p.s. The whole "but they're not climate scientists" point reminds of the terminology "human rights activist". The latter term seems only to be applied to persons who are trying to expand the rights of identifiable groups, and never to those who think they are already appropriate. Yet both groups of people may have equal expertise and understanding of the issues, just different points of view arising from that understanding. In other words, don't just tell me that scientists who dispute the impact of man made climate change don't carry the right label. Tell me why they're wrong. And the answer isn't "because this other scientist says he's wrong". Explain why he's wrong. Science is not a democracy. Thankfully, most great scientists did not care that nearly everyone else in their field preferred an older (and less worthy) view.
Could it be because "An Inconvenient Truth" is a far catchier title and far easier to get a hold of than "Experiment, monitoring, and gradient methods used to infer climate change effects on plant communities yield consistent patterns" or "Predicting competitive shifts and responses to climate change based on latitudinal distributions of species assemblages"?Then why do people quote him,....
So are you suggesting that my degree in Engineering makes me fully qualified to judge fully the scientific merit of climate change suppositions? If you think yes, then my word as a scientist is that AGW is a better theory than any other ones out there. If not, why would a guy who studied quantum mechanics in the 60's have any relevance to the discussion?...
p.s. The whole "but they're not climate scientists" point reminds of the ....
Simply put, if you don't have the time or ability to fully research the issue, it makes sense to listen to the people who actually spend their lives studying it and a clear majority of scientists who actually study the material agree that human CO2 has had a significant impact on climate.
Here's a very good post that dissects some of Ball's claims.Explain why he's wrong. Science is not a democracy. Thankfully, most great scientists did not care that nearly everyone else in their field preferred an older (and less worthy) view.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/tim-ball-fails-carbon-cycle-101-at-wuwt.html
Have a read.
Ball's science is very suspect, as he is.
Has earth had more Co2 in the atmosphere in the past? Yes
Has earth been hotter? Yes
Has earth been colder? Yes
Are we still around? Yes
What is the statistical significance of 400PPM CO2 that we are at now? None
What is the statistical significance of our warm temperatures that we experiencing now? None
Does marching 10000 scientists infront of a AGW banner change change the statistical significance? No
Has earth been hotter? Yes
Has earth been colder? Yes
Are we still around? Yes
What is the statistical significance of 400PPM CO2 that we are at now? None
What is the statistical significance of our warm temperatures that we experiencing now? None
Does marching 10000 scientists infront of a AGW banner change change the statistical significance? No
The last time CO2 hit 400ppm mastodons and sabre tooth tigers were around, but they were wiped along with the Neanderthals around this time in a mass extinction.Has earth had more Co2 in the atmosphere in the past? Yes
Has earth been hotter? Yes
Has earth been colder? Yes
Are we still around? Yes
Mass extinctions don't really sound like fun for me, I'm assuming that means fewer SP's....
You never studied statistics, did you?What is the statistical significance of 400PPM CO2 that we are at now? None
What is the statistical significance of our warm temperatures that we experiencing now? None
Does marching 10000 scientists infront of a AGW banner change change the statistical significance? No
Oh you are playing the retarded mass extinction game. I can play that too. O2 is a very very very caustic element, before O2 it was all CO2 and nitrogen, when O2 showed up it was a real mass extinction like nothing before it, everything died and everything had to start anew. Do you cry for the trillions of single celled microbes that got wiped out due to lack of CO2 and the introduction of O2?The last time CO2 hit 400ppm mastodons and sabre tooth tigers were around, but they were wiped along with the Neanderthals around this time in a mass extinction.
Mass extinctions don't really sound like fun for me, I'm assuming that means fewer SP's....
You never studied statistics, did you?
I was under the impression that those animals you described were wiped out in part due to the Ice age, are you implying that 400PPM CO2 can trigger an Ice age or does it trigger global warming? You should get your propaganda right before you open your mouth.
Was there 7+ billion humans on the earth at those times?Has earth had more Co2 in the atmosphere in the past? Yes
Has earth been hotter? Yes
Has earth been colder? Yes
Are we still around? Yes
What is the statistical significance of 400PPM CO2 that we are at now? None
What is the statistical significance of our warm temperatures that we experiencing now? None
Does marching 10000 scientists infront of a AGW banner change change the statistical significance? No
My point is that a significant change in climate will make our current society and population levels unsupportable. Last ice age there were about 5 million people worldwide. Now we have that many in the GTA. With current technology we'd be able to support a lot more but many millions if not billions will die off because of it.No there was not and that is exactly the point. CO2 and temperatures were both higher lower than it is now all without human intervention.
Lemme just say... your responses are pretty awesome.The last time CO2 hit 400ppm mastodons and sabre tooth tigers were around, but they were wiped along with the Neanderthals around this time in a mass extinction.
Mass extinctions don't really sound like fun for me, I'm assuming that means fewer SP's....
<snip>
You never studied statistics, did you?
