16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
You really are ridiculous calling these accusations 'baseless'.
Its a total Dunning-Kruger effect claim, as if you know more about this case then the AG who is leading the inquiry.
You talk as if all the documents from Exxon now available didn't exist.
California looks to be next on the list to bring charges on Exxon and their ilk.
http://www.iflscience.com/environme...fuel-companies-misleading-public-over-climate
http://www.iflscience.com/environme...fuel-companies-misleading-public-over-climate
By the way, even if it could somehow be proven that ExxonMobil had definitive "proof" about what the future looks like, does anyone think shareholders would have cared?
The general public has been hearing about global warming and climate change for years. That hasn't stopped people from buying cars and using gasoline.
Indeed, Obama, McGuinty and others were quick to bail out the U.S. auto industry when it was in trouble a few years back.
The general public has been hearing about global warming and climate change for years. That hasn't stopped people from buying cars and using gasoline.
Indeed, Obama, McGuinty and others were quick to bail out the U.S. auto industry when it was in trouble a few years back.
Given your track record, I suspect you don't know what the word "baseless" means.
Here, I'll give you an example.
You continue to claim that the climate change we are experiencing is 'natural', despite having no evidence or theory to back up this claim.
Your claim is baseless.
In fact, its so baseless that the chance that you are correct are 0.01%.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study
Your claims are the very definition of 'baseless'.
That's not a particularly good characterization of my position, but we'll let it go.
The Earth's temperature in the 21st century prior to the current El Nino was stagnant. That constitutes evidence that man-made emissions may not have been the cause of the warming that occurred in the late 20th century.
I was right. You don't know what the word "baseless" means.
There's another baseless claim.
This is what you claim to be stagnant:
Yet another baseless claim.
As opposed to my fully documented rebuttal.
Whether climate change is man made or not, is not the issue here. But this below does become a huge issue,
This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.
The free flow of ideas, when did this become an issue, to the point of prosecution and investigation !!! You realise what your witnessing here. I hope?
This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.
The free flow of ideas, when did this become an issue, to the point of prosecution and investigation !!! You realise what your witnessing here. I hope?
I guess you missed the "prior to the current El Nino part".
If you want to see something "fully documented," I could update your greatest hits. You've had some jaw-droppers lately in another thread on global warming.
The last 15 years fill the top of the global temperature charts, were they all el Nino years?
S
**Sophie**
No but the magnetic poles have a lot to do with climate change and according to nasa:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html
"While parts of Earth's outer core are too deep for scientists to measure directly, we can infer movement in the core by observing changes in the magnetic field. The magnetic north pole has been creeping northward – by more than 600 miles (1,100 km) – since the early 19th century, when explorers first located it precisely. It is moving faster now, actually, as scientists estimate the pole is migrating northward about 40 miles per year, as opposed to about 10 miles per year in the early 20th century"
What does that mean for the climate?
https://planet-earth-2017.com/heat-not-from-the-sun/
"The magnetic field has weakened in the Western Hemisphere on average by 10% between the years of 1850 and 2000. Additional collapse of 5% is added in the last decade. The weaker the field, the longer spiral-path around the magnetic field force lines, will the protons oscillate between two magnetic poles. The longer protons travel, the more probability to collide with one another on the Thermosphere layer. The Thermopheres layer temperature will rise above the minimum +500/ +2,000 degrees celcius. A higher thermal energy will reach the surface of the earth, causing over all increase in average temperature"
There are many factors that effect climate change.
Absolutely correct Sophie, this is just one of the "other" causes including deforestation, that the recent, very minor increase in global temps can be attributed to.
But you will NOT hear this from the clubs that depend on selling disaster, that claim is ONLY caused by burning fossil fuels to keep people warm and grow food.
And contrary to a certain jealous, cry baby here, who could care less about the climate, but is more interested in seeing the down fall of developed civilized, cultures.
FAST
Last edited:
The "last 15 years" nonsense is just spin to try to cover up the fact that the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
The Earth has been warming slightly for about the past 350 years. The temperature increased about 1C in the past 135 years and plateaued at the turn of the century.
However, the prediction was that the Earth's temperature would continue the late 20th century trend and shoot upwards in the 21st century. In fact, prior to El Nino, the Earth's temperature has been stagnant.
The Earth has been warming slightly for about the past 350 years. The temperature increased about 1C in the past 135 years and plateaued at the turn of the century.
However, the prediction was that the Earth's temperature would continue the late 20th century trend and shoot upwards in the 21st century. In fact, prior to El Nino, the Earth's temperature has been stagnant.
There are many factors, scientists call them 'forcings', and they've all been considered.
The fact is that each one of those effects is relatively minor and the only ones that can account for the changes we are seeing right now are man made.
I'll post this link again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Click on the page and scroll down, it shows the relative influences of all the legit forcings. They don't talk about the magnetic field or pole, but that's because there is no evidence that is changing the climate now.
NOTSOFAST continues to claim that scientists don't include deforestation, for instance, yet the bloomberg chart clearly shows they do and the influence is minor.
No, its you that is spectacularly wrong.
For instance, using your spectacular Dunning-Kruger effect reasoning, you bet that the globe wouldn't heat up to 0.83ºC in 2015.
You were spectacularly wrong as the 2015 temperature hit 0.87ºC.
That rise in temperature puts the globe right on track for the IPCC projections, which is what we based our bet on.
And yet you still deny that the globe warmed up more then you bet it would.
Loser.
As reported by Scientific America,...
Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads
Although this minor contribution is supported by IPCC, but is strangely reversed by the climate experts at Bloomberg, a site oft quoted by those who live in their mother's basement, are anti-western culture, and support terrorism,...but don't want to mention any name(s).
FAST
Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming
From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads
Although this minor contribution is supported by IPCC, but is strangely reversed by the climate experts at Bloomberg, a site oft quoted by those who live in their mother's basement, are anti-western culture, and support terrorism,...but don't want to mention any name(s).
FAST
I'll keep saying it: I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.
As for the stagnant temperatures in 21st century, that isn't disputed by serious people who understand the data.
Hey Frank those computer models sure are accurate aren't they? LMAO.I'll keep saying it: I reject your calculation that 0.74ºC + 0.15ºC = 0.83ºC.
As for the stagnant temperatures in 21st century, that isn't disputed by serious people who understand the data.
