The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

The UN web-site for Sustainable Development calls the Paris Agreement a milestone in their agenda, a.k.a "the plot to takeover (control/transform) the western world".
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/processes/timeline

Climate Change is just one part of a much larger transformation taking place, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Especially when the UN is kind enough to layout their whole agenda for everybody to read.

Cool, we've got two of you here that believe the UN is involved in a nefarious plot to take over the world.
Had no idea that there would so many of the new or one world order/Tim Ball type conspiracy theory deniers here.

So, eznutz, why do you think the UN is trying to take over the world?
And why do you think they chose climate change as the way to do so?
And finally, who do think is pulling the strings at the UN?

This should be fun, and FAST, c'mon, you have to let us in on this plot.

 

[FAST]

Coward

FAST

 

[JohnLarue]

I see.

No you do not

You are decided, you decided that you won't read any of the legit science from the IPCC or NASA because I recommended it.

if I come across them via a different route, then perhaps
You continue to present a biased case by declaring them absolute legitimate. That is for the reader to determine

I don't really care about what reason you pick, though that one is really quite pathetic and shows that you are totally closed minded.

You should care if you ever want to convince anyone of anything
What is quite pathetic and closed minded is that you still think your approach will fool anyone

Note that I do actually read the links the deniers here post up, usually they are quite entertaining, but I do read them and consider them.

How can you consider them with an open mind if you pre-label them as sourced from "deniers" ?????

Besides we have already observed how you handle views that oppose yours
As I recall you slandered Dr. Carter and used someone else's work to cast doubts about his character and abilities as a scientist

Do you really think you can fool anyone into thinking you are in any universe "objective"
GIVE US A BREAK

You, on the other hand have decided that you won't read any of the legitimate sources, for whatever reason.

I never said that.
I said I would not read any thing you promote because you are untrustworthy, I do not respect your opinion and you have an agenda
I am sure I will come across some articles in the future and at that point I will judge whether I believe they are legitimate or not

That puts you firmly in the denier camp.

again I am undecided, so how does that make me a denier ??
How are you able to interrupt scientific papers when you can not process simple logic?

Thanks for confirming that.

I have confirmed nothing other than the fact I do not respect or trust you

 

[FAST]

The UN web-site for Sustainable Development calls the Paris Agreement a milestone in their agenda, a.k.a "the plot to takeover (control/transform) the western world".
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/processes/timeline

Climate Change is just one part of a much larger transformation taking place, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Especially when the UN is kind enough to layout their whole agenda for everybody to read.

A little warning for ya Eznutz, don't bother answering any of the cowards questions, because its a one way street with him, he will NOT answer yours, but will lie and slither around obviously to everybody, to avoid answering questions he doesn't like the answer to, will not stand up and be a man.

The coward is a waste of bandwidth and oxygen.

FAST

 

[eznutz]

A little warning for ya Eznutz, don't bother answering any of the cowards questions, because its a one way street with him, he will NOT answer yours, but will lie and slither around obviously to everybody, to avoid answering questions he doesn't like the answer to, will not stand up and be a man.

The coward is a waste of bandwidth and oxygen.

FAST

Exactly, there's no point debating ideological zealots.

 

[Moviefan-2]

It's a fact that they are getting hotter . If you look just at the hottest year in each El Nino they have been getting progressively hotter.

In any case the thirty year averages cover multiple El Nino's and eliminate that as an excuse.

Either way you look at it our climate is warming.

You missed this bit from your link:

"For instance, he said, when the world continued to get warmer in future, naturally, and when an El Nino occurred, it would cause the overall temperature for the period to rise much higher than what was usually experienced."

He has explained that while global warming doesn't cause El Nino, it starts them from a higher baseline and so they reach a higher temperature, which is exactly what we see in the data. We see exactly that each El Nino is warmer than previous ones.

You just lose this debate.

You apparently missed the part where he said you're completely wrong.

And what happened to those stats you were going to produce that were supposed to show "statistically significant" warming in the 21st century prior to El Nino? :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

You missed this bit from your link:

"For instance, he said, when the world continued to get warmer in future, naturally, and when an El Nino occurred, it would cause the overall temperature for the period to rise much higher than what was usually experienced."

Try reading the article a little more closely. The sentence you quoted was about the possible impact in a specific region, not the global impact.

This is the key sentence from the story:

The current El Nino phenomenon that has brought prolonged drought and sweltering heat to Malaysia is the strongest of the 20 over the last 60 years, but there is no concrete evidence to link its heat intensity to global warming, says an expert.

"No concrete evidence" seems clear enough to me.

 

[fuji]

Try reading the article a little more closely. The sentence you quoted was about the possible impact in a specific region, not the global impact.

This is the key sentence from the story:



"No concrete evidence" seems clear enough to me.

You didn't understand what you just quoted, like your haven't understood anything we have discussed. You really aren't a person worth debating.

The size / intensity of the El Nino isn't caused by global warming. The starting point from which it raises temperatures is.

I have shown you conclusive proof that the climate is warming and been warming. Your own links called a few years a few years ago a "slowdown", not a cessation. All the data proves conclusively that there is warming.

You got Conway made a specific prediction that has proven very wrong.

Summary of where we are:

1. You got thumped in the debate on whether global warming is caused by human activity, the Nature study proved it is, and left you sputtering

2. Your cooling hypothesis has been proven spectacularly wrong

 

[K Douglas]

You are accusing the IPCC of 'lying'?
Why do you think all climatologists from all countries in the world would 'lie through their teeth' for onwards of 30 years now?

Absolutely, it's been proven. Their summary for policymakers was doctored and did not follow the majority of the scientists conclusions. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it's a political one with a clear agenda. Agenda 21 read up on it.

 

[K Douglas]

You didn't understand what you just quoted, like your haven't understood anything we have discussed. You really aren't a person worth debating.

The size / intensity of the El Nino isn't caused by global warming. The starting point from which it raises temperatures is.

I have shown you conclusive proof that the climate is warming and been warming. Your own links called a few years a few years ago a "slowdown", not a cessation. All the data proves conclusively that there is warming.

You got Conway made a specific prediction that has proven very wrong.

Summary of where we are:

1. You got thumped in the debate on whether global warming is caused by human activity, the Nature study proved it is, and left you sputtering

2. Your cooling hypothesis has been proven spectacularly wrong

Nice back track fuji
You will note that the 2015 El Nino was not as strong as the 1998 which did indeed create a global step in temperature.
You keep quoting this study in Nature. Was that study reconfirmed by other scientific observations? You know what other study appeared in that publication right - the infamous fraudulent hockey stick. Which is why it's reputation has taken quite a hit over the years. Bottom line is I take studies published from that magazine with a serious grain of salt.

 

[Frankfooter]

A little warning for ya Eznutz, don't bother answering any of the cowards questions, because its a one way street with him, he will NOT answer yours, but will lie and slither around obviously to everybody, to avoid answering questions he doesn't like the answer to, will not stand up and be a man.

The coward is a waste of bandwidth and oxygen.

FAST

I answered two of your questions and yet here you are refusing to answer even one of mine.
All I'm asking is for you to give us a few more details on this theory that the UN faked climate change to take over the developed world.
C'mon, tell us more, I really, really want to hear it.

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Absolutely, it's been proven. Their summary for policymakers was doctored and did not follow the majority of the scientists conclusions. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it's a political one with a clear agenda. Agenda 21 read up on it.

Agenda 21?
That's the plot to take over the world?

Please, give me more.
Tell me how this is supposed to work.

 

[Frankfooter]

And what happened to those stats you were going to produce that were supposed to show "statistically significant" warming in the 21st century prior to El Nino? :biggrin1:

Here you go:

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

Lets just say that the chances that you aren't totally full of bullshit are now officially pegged at 0.01%.
Those are the odds that the warming wasn't 'statistically significant'.

 

[Frankfooter]

again I am undecided, so how does that make me a denier ??

You are a denier because you refuse to look at both sides of the issues. You claim to be undecided yet you also clearly stated that you won't read any of the legit scientific work done by NASA, NOAA or the IPCC. That is 'denying' to look at the science.

Instead you peddle incredibly foolish ideas about the causes of warming:

The planet may well be warming simply because the sun is getting warmer. (apparently mars is thawing out of a really long cold spell).
How long do you expect a flaming ball of gas to remain stable????

The planets climate may be changing due it its orbit. After all we have only really known the earth was spinning around the sun for maybe 700 years.
The variations in climate may just be the normal cycle of the planet & Man's impact may be irrelevant.

5 or 10 minutes of googling and checking your sources should clear up those ridiculous claims, yet you 'denied' the findings of 97% of the research that those are not the causes of our warming, and instead repeated 'talking point' type ridiculous claims.

And look at some of your questions, all quite basic:

The earth is 5 Billion years old
When was the last time CO2 hit ppm?

The last time we hit CO2 this high was 4 million years ago.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...it-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-4-million-years/

Did Exxon factually state that observed climate change was caused by man-kind?

Yes, they specifically stated that burning the oil they produced would cause the climate change we are experiencing.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

It may well be a dangerous path, however did 97% factually state it is caused by man-kind?

Yes:

Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/


Those are all things that are known.
Questions that science has answered and you would understand if you hadn't decided that you don't believe them, or you 'denied' their findings.

And while you refuse to read the real research or admit those basic truths, you still admit this:

If it is driven by man-kind then doing nothing would be the biggest sin man-kind ever committed

Why are you actively working here to help commit what you call the 'biggest sin man ever committed'?

 

[FAST]

Lying coward

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

(I am a) Lying coward

FAST

Whatcha talking about, FAST.
I'm right here and ready for more high brow debate.

Got any more details on your conspiracy theory that the UN is trying to destroy the first world?

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

 

[eznutz]

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2862197-AG-Coalition-Resp-Letter-2016-06-15.html

 

[FAST]

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2862197-AG-Coalition-Resp-Letter-2016-06-15.html

Absolutely, why shouldn't the Alarmists be prosecuted, plenty of evidence.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

GOP AGs warn Dems that if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2862197-AG-Coalition-Resp-Letter-2016-06-15.html

Now that would be such an entertaining court case.
On the one hand you'd have a bunch of people as smart as FAST and moviefan telling us about their theories of UN world domination and fraud at NASA and NOAA. And of course for evidence they'd be stuck with a handful of doddy old fools and the likes of Curry and Lindzen, both of which would have conflict of interest issues and wouldn't be able to testify since they take oil money.

And on the other hand you'd have pretty much all of science.

Please, tell them to try it.
That would be really fun.

 

[Frankfooter]

Absolutely, why shouldn't the Alarmists be prosecuted, plenty of evidence.

FAST

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Evidence like this (cue ominous music):

But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.

FAST

Or do you mean like the kind of evidence moviefan likes to use, like studies that say the total opposite of what he claims?
Both would be really fun to see in trial.