Obama Expected to Bind US to CO2 Reduction at Paris Climate Meeting This Year

sotuIn his State-of-the-Union address, president Obama again confirmed that “saving the climate” remains one of his top priorities. Yet an official December 2014 confab in Lima, Peru didn’t really conclude anything — certainly no binding Protocol to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) — but it “kicked the can down the road” to the next international gabfest in Paris, scheduled for 2015.

The world is looking forward to the 21st annual COP (conference of the parties to the global climate treaty), which will be held in Paris in December of 2015. It is hoped by many that Paris will end up with a climate protocol that will continue and even surpass the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which expired in 2012 and achieved practically nothing except to waste hundreds of billions that might have been better spent addressing genuine world problems — without accomplishing its main goal of reducing global emissions of the much-maligned greenhouse gas CO2. 

On the contrary, emissions rose — mainly from greatly increased industrial growth in China, which was fueled primarily by coal-fired power plants. At the same time, of course, global agriculture benefited from these higher levels of CO2, which is a natural plant fertilizer; the starving of the world really owe a vote of thanks to China.

Three “big guns” billionaires –Tom Steyer, Hank Paulson, Mike Bloomberg — have already pledged their support for Paris; various scientific groups have already issued alarming Statements, without even the pretense of agreement from their memberships; even the Vatican’s Pope Francis plans to get into the act.

The Paris pattern

It is not at all difficult to predict what will happen in Paris; in fact, it is a “no-brainer.” There will be an agreement of sorts, but it will be essentially meaningless. Yet it will be hailed as a “breakthrough” by the White House and thus form an important part of the “Obama Legacy.”

The basic pattern for Paris has been set already by the US-China agreement of Nov 12, 2014. China agreed to do nothing until at least 2030 — just continue to emit ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, with a peak at around 2030 (they say). By that time, it can be safely predicted that energy demand in China will have been saturated. Population may have stabilized and every household will have accumulated all of the gadgets they need to make life pleasant: Television, refrigerators, air conditioning, and the other baubles common in the wealthy countries. Has China finally decided to “fight climate change”? My personal opinion is that China is taking advantage of White House science ignorance and anxiety about future climate change, hoping thereby to gain commercial and strategic advantages against the United States. 

Other nations

Following the China example, India may decide to adopt the China pattern and let their emissions peak around 2050, let’s say; other countries will choose their dates accordingly. In other words, everybody will be doing their own thing, but there will be some kind of “agreement” that they will all be happy to sign — or be bribed into signing.

Significantly, Japan, Canada, and Australia, will no longer follow this pattern and will likely refuse to have anything to do with the Paris accord

At the same time, the US and European Union will undertake to seriously reduce CO2 emissions by another 26-28% in the next 10 years. For the US, a 40% reduction by 2030; for the EU, at great cost to their economies and to the standard of living of their populations.

President Obama has already signed an Executive Order March 19 directing the federal government to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels over the next decade, and to increase the share of renewable energy in the government’s electricity supply to 30 percent over the same period. The New York Times reports the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions are less than one percent of total US emissions, although the federal government is the single biggest user of energy in the U.S. 

Obama’s war on coal is indeed making electricity prices “skyrocket” — just as he promised in 2008, when he ran for president. Voters were beguiled by the vision of “slowing the rise of the oceans” and of “saving the climate.” Little did they realize that they were being fed nonsensical science and that high energy prices would instead lead to the growth of poverty. Had they had the good sense to look at the European experience, they might have rejected Obama’s siren song. Blame, if you will, the mainstream media, TV, Hollywood, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the rest of the green lobby. George W. Bush could have saved the situation but he didn’t.

Meanwhile, many of the States are banding together to fight EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” in the courts. In addition, Congress is reminding the White House that any US commitment in Paris can be cancelled by a future president.

The question is whether such an agreement is binding on the United States. The White House will attempt to argue that this is an international agreement and not a Treaty that has to be sent to the Senate for ratification. However, Congress will argue otherwise and will announce that any Paris agreement is an executive one, not binding on the United States, revocable by future presidents. 

The US Senate will recall that in 1997 they voted unanimously for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution against any unilateral US restriction on emissions — if it results in economic damage. Senator Byrd (D-WV) wanted to protect coal mining; Hagel (R-NE) wanted to protect the US from unfair economic competition. It is interesting that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, voted for Byrd-Hagel at that time, as well as some other senators, like firebrand Barbara Boxer. Chuck Hagel is no longer a US Senator but we hope he will step up and remind people of his 1997 Resolution. 

No significant warming for past 18 years

Meanwhile, the climate continues to plateau; no significant warming has occurred in nearly 20 years — in spite of a greater than 10% increase in CO2. 

Scientists, both alarmists and skeptics, are still trying to explain this “pause” — as it is sometimes called. The word Pause denotes an expectation that the climate will again warm — although no one has any acceptable hypothesis as to when the warming might resume, if ever. 

But since climate has historically moved in cycles, and since we expect a recovery from the Little Ice Age of 1400-1850, we expect to see some natural warming in the next hundred to two hundred years. On the other hand, since the present interglacial (“Holocene”) period has now lasted 12,000 years, longer than the average interglacial within the last million years or so, many predict the onset of another full glaciation.

It would be extremely ironic if another such a glaciation were to start shortly after a Paris agreement that is trying to prevent a global warming. 

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See NIPCCreport.org]. For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (214)

  • Avatar

    Murray Henley

    |

    [i]”Japan, Canada, and Australia, will no longer follow this pattern and will likely refuse to have anything to do with the Paris accord.”[/i]

    Although these governments would undoubtedly favor following that line, they will simply lack the courage to do so. It is likely they will play along, trying to save face while minimizing damage to their economy.

    Particularly in Canada, pressure from green lobbies and overwhelmingly left-leaning media is very strong. In addition, there is a federal election in October, and the current Conservative goverment is in real danger of losing power to the Liberals, who have already made the fight against climate change a priority.

    The AGW meme is so ingrained that we now have states, provinces and cities adopting emission reduction policies, even if national government don’t commit to anything.

    The religion of AGW has gotten out of control. There is apparently no stopping of this juggernaut, despite all the contrary scientific evidence, because it has become a matter of faith and morality.

    … and just wait until the Pope jumps-the-shark his way into the fray with a well-timed Encyclical on Climate Change.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gregson14

      |

      There is absolutely no way that the Liberals under Justin Trudeau will form a Government following the Canadian Federal Election in October.

      It is far more likely that the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper fall short of a outright majority by less than 10 seats, but form a minority Government fighting it out for Official Opposition status!…

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    Is this a “treaty”?

    And if the Senate does not ratify it, is it legal under the US Constitution?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      squidly

      |

      Yes, anything that could be considered “binding” by definition a “treaty”. Just like the Iranian “Nuke Deal”, the President is powerless to create [b]ANY[/b] “binding” agreement without 2/3 ratification by the Senate. The idea that the President can unilaterally bind our country into any agreement with any other foreign country is [b]expressly[/b] prohibited by our Constitution.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]President Obama has already signed an Executive Order March 19 directing the federal government to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels over the next decade…[/quote]

    Great! I have an idea, replace Air Force One and Marine One with this…

    [img]http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2015/04/a4s_gyrocopter041615b_15040223_8col.jpg[/img]

    It has already been thoroughly checked out by the Secret Service, and is obviously flight worthy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Sometimes I think that conservatives and other non-leftists need to invent a competitive meme to AGW. We need to invent our own crisis that can’t be proved or disproved but also requires absolute adherence to free markets and democracy.

    Then I remember that we really [i]do[/i] have a looming catastrophic debt crisis on a world scale and that it [i]can[/i] be proven [i]and solved [/i]with sound free market practices and sound leadership, saving millions from the devastating consequences of economic collapse.

    Ahhhh, but that’s so boring compared to phony baloney climate change hysteria…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    bob ashworth

    |

    Climate change from CO2 is a complete fraud. All gases and dust in our atmosphere cool our planet, they don’t warm it. Sure wish there were more real scientists in the world who would speak out on this greatest scientific fraud in my lifetime,

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [quote]… this greatest scientific fraud in my lifetime[/quote]

      Hey bob! I believe you meant to say the greatest fraud in the history of the Earth.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      Greenhouse gases HOLD onto the heat longer than other gases. They teach you this in high school and make you do a lab on it. Maybe you should listen to some of the real scientists out there rather than assume that those you disagree with you are wrong.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Let me know when you have completed 8 years of Geology, studied cClimatology at a major university and the graduated with a degree in Remote senising, like I did decades ago.

        CO2 warming is not linear, it is logarithmic, or did they [i]not[/i] teach you that in high school?

        [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png[/img]

        Atmospheric CO2 is nearing saturation, and cannot add much more if any warming.

        Can you cite any alarmist info that is not generated by a model? No, you cannot.

        This is why I am asking you to list [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

        Without that information, the modles are just broken toys.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Just Some Kid

          |

          One thing not to forget is the positive feedback loop that that small amount of heating CO2 has caused. The icecaps are melting, so this loop has started. Deep ocean is the darkest surface on earth so it absorbs the most energy. icecaps are the lightest surfaces on earth, do they reflect the most energy. when you reduce the amount of ice, it gets replaced by ocean. that ocean absorbs much more energy than the ice did, and it heats up faster, causing more ice to melt. this type of thing continues itself.

          Even if CO2 can only heat that small amount, if it started that positive feedback loop(and evidence shows that it has), there will be continual heating. gradual, but continual. what I would like to know is if we increase the temperature in addition to the CO2, what will the effect be on your graph?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Positive climate feedback loops only exist in models, and are not found in nature, and that is one reason why the alarmist models fail so misearbly.

            The Arctic currently has more ice than the average of the last 9000 years. The paid shills of the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry cherrypicked 1979 as a start date to make it appear the ice is melting.

            [i]A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. [/i]

            You have been lied to and need to stop parroting talking points drom the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry.

            Be quiet, and learn something.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            What’s with you and models? E=mc^2 and the like are models, do you disagree with them too? What is science if it cannot create a model to predict the future? Nothing! It is nothing! Now’s a good time as any to get over your phobia of models, because they DO exist in nature. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called models.

            And don’t spew crap about data being falsified. That information alone would have made it to the general press, and this “debate” would no longer exist. Science is not about convenience. Its about knowledge, no matter how sucky it turns out to be.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            That is what is known as a “Straw Man Argument”.

            [i]A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent’s argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

            The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.[/i]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

            We are discussing specific models that have falied to predict our climate.

            I’m guessing you were not a member of the Debate Club. 😆

            Be quiet child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Please tell me why you are so fixated on models. Namely, that they are all false? Logically–since you want to bring that into this–it is wrong to assume all models are false. Just because you say a model is false, does not mean that it is, nor is it an appropriate answer. Surely a member of a debate club would know that?

            But I digress…

            Your decision does not make it so, just so you know. These models HAVE predicted our climate. Whether or not they are applicable anymore is an entirely different story, but rather than attack my evidence, do try to explain why yours is still superior. If your theory holds any water, it should be able to stand up to counter-evidence, not rely on you to tear down anything unfavorable down.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            God you are ignorant.

            [img]http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png[/img]

            Which model is correct?

            Now quit bothering the adults. 😆

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Just because you can post a graph doesn’t mean you are right. Throwing random statistics in just so happens to be a logical fallacy as well.

            Anyway, can you please post a link? I can’t read any of that; it’s too small.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Answer the questions you rude little child.

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            I am [i]not[/i] your wet nurse! 😆

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Enough with that post. what has it been? 5 times now? Let me just clear this up now:

            I will not do number 1. why? because I cant. its impossible. I may be able to find you a list of known “climate forcings,” but I won’t unless I happen upon it while doing number two….

            Maybe if I get bored later i’ll look up a peer reviewed paper, but do note, that is a very specific topic to look up. it would take some time. If you expect natural variability to not be any cause, give up now. it will continue to affect it as it has always done. its the additional variability of, say, CO2 that will change.

            P.S. people can misrepresent themselves on the internet. for example, i’m no more a child than you. I’d appreciate it if you would avoid personal attacks.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Five? I think it is closer to 7, and [i]every[/i] time you evaded [i]the [b]most[/b][/i] important questions about climate change.

            Why?

            Because you have taken the word of others, [i]on faith alone[/i], but would not accept [i]peer reviewed science[/i] from me.

            You are indeed a product of the sad state of our contemporary school sytem.

            Good luck kid! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Is it one of these?

            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-7_methane.png[/img]

            And where are the answers to my questions?

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is [b]nothing[/b] unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, [i]naturally[/i]. This means there has been a set precedent, and [b]the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

            Enough parroting the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry taking points, and face[b] facts[/b].

            Isn’t past your bed time? 😆

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Once again. [b]NO ONE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.[/b] I can call you a denier as well, after all.

            There is actually one thing that IS unusual. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up VERY quickly, but more importantly, very SUDDENLY over the last 150 years or so. That is unprecedented. If not, be very specific. tell me when it has gone up so quickly before, and why, and if the same thing is happening today. (Tell me about an increase of >=90pmm in CO2 over a period of 50 years)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you are not only insolent, but ignorant of Occam’s Razor. Big surprise! 😆

            I have provided peer reviewed science, and you arguments have been straw men and ‘nuh-uh’. Brilliant!

            Let’s look at historic CO2 levels…

            [img]http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/call2.jpg[/img]

            Hmmm, not what you claim. Another big surprise! 😆

            Let’s review!

            So…

            #1- You[i] cannot[/i] list all climate forcings, [i]cannot[/i] order them from most to least effective, and [i]cannot[/i] then quantify them.

            #2- You [i]cannot[/i] provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            And lastly, you [i]cannot[/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

            Impressive! 😆

            So what can you do? Without knowing climate forcings, you certainly cannot build a model.

            Grow up, if you can.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Please get to my posts in the other threads soon. I DID address one of those.
            And please stop bringing it up. I’ll get to it when I get to it.

            Be careful about that plot. If the measurements were taken anywhere near civilization, the CO2 output would have had an effect on them. You get far more accurate measures when taking them over the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            I am still waiting kid. Lying is not going to help your argument any more than straw men.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What’s with you and models? E=mc^2 and the like are models, do you disagree with them too? What is science if it cannot create a model to predict the future? Nothing! It is nothing! Now’s a good time as any to get over your phobia of models, because they DO exist in nature. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be called models.[/quote]
            The staggering failure of the “models” has refuted the AGW “hypothesis”.
            Here is where that Graph above comes from.
            [quote]
            This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

            John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
            [/quote]
            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

            he failure of the Models has implications. In fact according to the Scientific Method for a Model to be “validated” it must have never made an incorrect prediction. All of the IPCC Models have failed 100% of the time.
            [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

            “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
            [/quote]

            CAGW fails the scientific method. Sorry.

            Now as for data “adjustments”. Those are legion. One example from NOAA.
            [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

            Here the adjustments are examined in detail.
            [quote]It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory. [/quote]
            “This is an extremely serious issue. It is completely unacceptable, and scientifically meaningless, to claim experimental confirmation of a theory when the confirmation arises from the “corrections” to the raw data rather than from the raw data itself. This is even more the case if the organisation carrying out the corrections has published material indicating that it supports the theory under discussion. In any other branch of science that would be treated with profound skepticism if not indeed rejected outright. I believe the same standards should be applied in this case.”

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            And for your information JSK.

            There are Models that have skillfully predicted recent climate. They show Co2 has little to no effect on climate.

            Simple Climate Model Continues To Embarrass “Experts” and The IPCC’s Billion-Dollar Computer Climate Simulations.
            [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0191048f4363970c-pi[/img]
            http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-embarrass-experts-ipcc-billion-dollar-computer-climate-simulation.html
            Another here.
            [img]http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg[/img]
            https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/11000-year-c14-graph-lines-up-perfectly-with-angular-momentum-graph/
            And another.
            [quote]As of August 2013, the OUT-OF-SAMPLE prediction accuracy of the most likely prediction (solid red line) of the self-organized model is 73%. The accuracy relative to the prediction range (pink area) is 98% (fig. 1).

            In comparison, the highly expensive General Circulation Models (GCMs) which the IPCC AR4 projections are based on and which simplistically rely on atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) as the major climate driver show a prediction accuracy of only 10% for the time period 2007 (the year of publication) till today. The tight connection between IPCC temperature projection (yellow) and CO2 concentration projection (gray) is clearly visible for the forecast horizon, too, as well as the growing gap between IPCC projected and observed temperatures (fig. 2).
            [/quote]
            So the General Circulation model is 98% accurate, compared to the IPCC’s 74 failed models 10%? And you ask…
            [quote]Please tell me why you are so fixated on models. Namely, that they are all false?[/quote] It’s simply following the Scientific Method. When your Model prediction is wrong, your “theory” is wrong. Period!

            http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/10/7_Still_confirming_forecast_of_Apr_2011_at_73_accuracy._IPCC_forecast_at_10._What_drives_Global_Warming_(Update_2).html

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            TL;DR, sorry.

            Did your sources account for some sort of lag between temperature and CO2. IIRC, there was supposed to be, and it might be common sense. This lag could be large, more than 10 years (most likely is). Do they address the positive feedback loop we are in? Point them out and i’ll read them.

            Also, thanks to all you folks. despite your occasional insulting attitude, I have learned some things. Of course, I don’t know if any of it is true/is looked at from the right perspective, but its still something learned.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Did your sources account for some sort of lag between temperature and CO2. IIRC, there was supposed to be, and it might be common sense. This lag could be large, more than 10 years (most likely is). Do they address the positive feedback loop we are in? Point them out and i’ll read them.[/quote]

            We have simply compared IPCC Model predictions with reality. If there was a 10 year lag “predicted” that is also a failed prediction. Historic ice core records clearly show an 800 year lag between Co2 and temperature. Co2 rise FOLLWS temperature, it has never lead it.

            What “positive feedback”? That is another failed model “prediction”. It has no basis in reality as was detailed above. See the “Missing” Hot Spot. The entire Co2/Water Vapor positive feedback hypothesis has been refuted by observations.

            [quote] Point them out and i’ll read them.[/quote] I have provided many links to Peer Reviewed Papers and several skillful models. Follow the links.

            The Cloud Mystery.

            This “Cloud Mystery” has been investigated by CERN.

            And has gotten results.

        • Avatar

          Gregson14

          |

          Planet Earth has spent about 75% of it’s 4.5 Billion year existence with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 4000 ppm or greater – an order of magnitude (10X) greater than current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere – and guess what?… the Planet survived just fine… all by itself! 
           
          In fact on an existential scale – Planet Earth is experiencing historic low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm) – the argument can therefore be made that there is a greater chance of Planet Earth becoming a frozen and lifeless planet (much like Mars); simply because we are closer to a CO2 deficiency on the planet than we are to an over-abundance of CO2 – a compound that is essential for the survival of all plant-life on Earth.

          I find it very ironic that an entire movement that calls itself “green” has positioned itself as the greatest demonizer of the very compound (CO2) that is responsible for “greening” the Planet.

          Carbon Dioxide also forms the very basis of the food chain in our Oceans!… CO2 is consumed almost exclusively by vast quantities of algae and plankton in our oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators. Without CO2, our Oceans would be lifeless – our atmosphere would be toxic and the Planet would be dead! 
           
          Mankind with all of his Industry, Agriculture, Manufacturing and Transportation needs is responsible for approximately 6-7 giga-tons of CO2 emission into our atmosphere per year worldwide – a mere 4% of the 165+ giga-tons that is emitted into our atmosphere by natural sources like our oceans, lakes, deltas and swamps, volcanoes, dying vegetation, animals and microbes.

          Why then is CO2 the source of such angst and hysteria from Academia, our bureaucracies, technocrats and Progressives?… Answer: In today’s world of misinformation, CO2 has been tagged as the prime candidate onto which our Progressive elites can attach a brand new tax to pay for the entitlements that 1st World Nations have promised to their constituencies – while at the same time the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been instrumental in limiting the growth potential of “developing” Nations who are now depending on their own carbon-based energy sources to develop their emerging economies.

          I suppose under the auspices of the United Nations IPCC, we can expect the hype and ramped-up rhetoric to increase – soon to be augmented by the Progressive Carbon Tax, the Fresh Water Tax, the Sunshine Tax and last but not least, the Oxygen Tax! 
           
          All of it coming to you via the “lock-step” agenda of a Progressive platform near you!…

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I’m just going to address your first paragraph… the rest: TL,DR. Sorry.

            Earth did spend most of it’s “life” with >4000 ppm CO2, and the earth did last just fine. Something to note, though, is that humans were not alive during ANY of it. (This undermines your second paragraph, I believe)

            Your third paragraph is just a misconception, probably with the media at fault for not airing the actual issues. It’s not that CO2 is bad, it’s that suddenly there’s a lot more of it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify [/i]them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is [i]nothing[/i] unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and [b]the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

            Why can’t you answer two [i]simple[/i] requests on ‘[i]settled science[/i]’? Are you stupid? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [img]https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/historic-co2-image277.gif?w=640&h=404[/img]

            Link messed up.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Skippy said:

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-16 17:51
            This graph is faulty, at least in the Cambrian era. The average global temperature likely exceeded 120 degrees F. If it is wrong there, it is safe to assume that it is faulty elsewhere too. Disregard it completely.[/quote]

            So we have to disregard it completely, because junior said so. 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Where exactly is there any evidence it was greater than 120 F on a global average? 😮

            [quote]Absolute temperatures for the Earth’s average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4 °C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global) scales.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            No, where did it come from. What site. I assume it’s attached to an article of some sort.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            When is Mr No Child Left Behind going to offer up any science? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Peer Reviewed Papers actually.

            Berner, R. A. “The Rise of Plants and their Effect on Weathering and Atmospheric CO2.” Science 276 (1997): 544-547.
            Suggests evolution of rooted vascular plants caused Devonian (~400 Ma) CO2 draw down by enhancing chemical weathering rates. Supports CO2-climate link through Phanerozoic. Exception is Late Ordovician glaciation, explained by “unique paleogeographic circumstances.”

            Royer, D. L., R. A. Bemer, and D. J. Beerling. “Phanerozoic Atmospheric CO2 Change: Evaluating Geocheimcal and Paleobiological Approaches.” Earth-Science Reviews 54 (2001): 349-392.
            Excellent review of paleo-CO2 proxies.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            My computer just blocked a virus from that site. You might want to run a scan.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Maybe the virus is in your head.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Maybe you are the virus. been following me around a lot for no good reason. are you my secret admirer?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I told you I’d call you out every time you lied. Maybe you are the cancer.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]My computer just blocked a virus from that site. You might want to run a scan.[/quote]

            Jusy checked again, as I did last night, and nope, no virus.

            If your computer has an issue, just Google the papers.

            [i]Berner, R. A. “The Rise of Plants and their Effect on Weathering and Atmospheric CO2.” Science 276 (1997): 544-547.
            Suggests evolution of rooted vascular plants caused Devonian (~400 Ma) CO2 draw down by enhancing chemical weathering rates. Supports CO2-climate link through Phanerozoic. Exception is Late Ordovician glaciation, explained by “unique paleogeographic circumstances.”

            Royer, D. L., R. A. Bemer, and D. J. Beerling. “Phanerozoic Atmospheric CO2 Change: Evaluating Geocheimcal and Paleobiological Approaches.” Earth-Science Reviews 54 (2001): 349-392.
            Excellent review of paleo-CO2 proxies.[/i]

          • Avatar

            Me

            |

            Same here, I got no virus warning at that site either.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Did it not occur to you that humans have only been on earth for 200,000 years? (and our ancestors up to 6 million years)

            We do not know if it would have been dangerous for us, directly or indirectly, because humans have only lived around levels of 200-300 ppm.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Great thinking! Got ant peer reviewed science to back up your fairytale? 😆

            Hey! Somebody said they saw Bigfoot! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Did it [i]not[/i] occur to you to answer my questions?

            Or that the Sun, which comprises about[b] 99%[/b] of the mass of the Solar System may have [i]some[/i] influence?

            [b]Naw![/b] You are too busy mouthing off about things of which you have [i]zero[/i] knowledge. 😆

            Care to share any science, or just tell ghost stories?

            [b]Come on junior![/b]

            1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify [/i]them.

            2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            Good thing for you, they passed that “No Child Left Behind” thingy. 😆

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Good sir, please leave out personal attacks and insults or I’ll quit replying to you as I did Jay. If you fancy yourself so superior to someone with a screen-name of kid, it would do you well to act like a civil adult, thank you very much.

            The sun did assuredly have some influence. A [i]massive[/i] influence, in fact. If not for the sun, there would be no life on earth. But I fail to see why that is relevant. Is the sun behaving differently now?

            And since when was a peer review required to say that humans have been around for 200,000 years? Last I checked, a peer review has no bearing on common knowledge, something anyone can look up and get the same answer everywhere.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]And since when was a peer review required to say that humans have been around for 200,000 years?[/quote]

            What did I say about “Straw Man Arguments”? Are you completely incapable of learning?

            We are discussing climate chamge, not human history.

            And just when will you provide any science, Mr No Child Left Behind?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote] But I fail to see why that is relevant. Is the sun behaving differently now?[/quote] It has been in a higher than usual energy state for over a century. So how much of the observed warming since the end of the LIA was due to solar?
            [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/350px-Sunspot_Numbers.png[/img]

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            One thing to consider is, if it is all the sun, then perhaps the depletion of the ozone layer is a significant contributor. Many chemicals harmful to the ozone layer are released with CO2 in burning. and…. please connect the dots for me. im too tired to spell it out.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Maybe? Maybe not. The ozone layer has recovered slightly from the alarmist 1970’s.

            The IPCC doctored the Solar Record to make the case for Co2 warming. When you look at the better data the Sun fully explains observations.
            http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/

            Read the letters of protest sent to the IPCC.
            [quote] The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.

            The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

            R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”
            [/quote]
            http://www.klimaskeptik.cz/news/judithgate-ipcc-consensus-was-only-one-physicist/

            Just one of many examples of alarmists “adjusting” data to fit failed models.

            If you are interested in what role the Sun plays JSK.

            I have seen few who can explain things so clearly and simply. Well worth watching.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]New satellite ozone data and other atmospheric studies based on actual measurements confirm that the ozone layer is not a homogeneous, flat and that atmospheric dynamics, not chemistry, is the driving factor that determines the thickness of the ozone layer. The scientific research reported here strips any shred of credibility from the claims of the ozone depletion theorists leaving the Montreal Protocol backed only by the Malthusian ideotogy of its founders.

            The dramatic new satellite ozone data, featured on the cover, are from the Crista-Spas ensemble of instruments, designed by scientists at the University of Wuppertal in Germany, which was deployed by the Space Shuttle in November 1994. The Crista team announced its first results at a press conference in Bonn on Nov. 6, 1995, but the results of the mission were barely covered in the European press, and not covered at all in the United States.

            Crista-Spas is a group of instruments (Crista), deployed on a space platform (Spas), that measures atmospheric gases in such detail that it can create three-dimensional images of the distribution of the gases in the stratosphere (see Crista-Spas Project). As the German scientists told the press, these 3-D images show that the models behind the ozone depletion scare are completely, and axiomatically, wrong. In the words of Germany’s Die Welt newspaper Nov. 7, the evidence presented at this press conference means that “all ozone computer models produced so far have, in effect, turned into waste paper. [Makulatur].”[/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]Another way of taking on the unreliability of the ozone depletion theory is to examine the fudge factor in how the scare story data are presented. Harvard Astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas put the data in perspective in a paper presented at a congressional hearing on ozone, Sept. 20, 1995. (5) Baliunas focussed on the unreliability of the estimates of ozone depletion, which have claimed as much as 0.3 percent depletion per year. The natural variability of the ozone layer, she said, is orders of magnitude greater than the alleged man-made “depletion.” “Over Washington, D.C.,” she noted, “ozone varies annually by 25 percent, some 80 times greater than the stated anthropogenic decline.”
            Furthermore, any estimate of “ozone depletion,” she said, has to factor the natural variability of the Sun’s ultraviolet output (which is what creates the ozone layer in the first place), and the shift in wind patterns and meteorological conditions, particularly in the upper atmosphere. In addition, as on the ozone layer, Baliunas also examined the statistical fudge methods used by the ozone depletion theorists to embellish their theory. The 1994 World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) report on ozone depletion, for example, estimates the depletion starting from two points, 1970 and 1978-1979. The choice for the second set of data is clear; that’s when satellites started measurements. The choice for the first starting point, supposedly arbitrary, is actually designed to skew the ozone record. As Figure 2 shows, the thickness of the ozone layer goes up and down considerably from year to year. The 1957 readings, however, show that the thickness of the ozone layer is about the same as it is today; thus, there has been no long-term depletion of the ozone layer. By ignoring ozone readings before 1970, the WMO begins its analysis with “a year of maximum ozone abundance for the entire 34-year record….” As Baliunas comments:
            [b]”Choosing 1970 or 1978-1979 as the starting point creates the maximum possible downward trends in ozone since then. The selections of the starting points, for example, 1976 or 1957, would indicate no significant downward trend since then. The fact that the inferred trend depends entirely on the selection of the endpoints means that the trend has not been reliably determined.[/b]”[/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]Scientists are commemorating the discovery 20 years ago that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used chiefly in refrigerators and air-conditioners were responsible for creating the “ozone hole” over the Antarctic. The scientists concluded that CFCs would drift into the stratosphere where they would produce chlorine compounds that react with ice particles and sunlight to efficiently destroy ozone molecules that shield the surface from ultraviolet light streaming from the sun. In 1987, the world adopted the Montreal Protocol to eventually eliminate the production of CFCs. Activists often cite the Montreal Protocol as a model for a future treaty addressing man-made global warming by banning the emission of greenhouse gases. A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 to the three scientists who identified the ozone/CFC connection.
            This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research. News@nature.com (sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.
            What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:
            “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
            The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
            Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
            is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
            “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” …
            Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”
            Of course, it may be that Rex’s research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.
            By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC issue, in chapter 8 of my 1993 book, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, I concluded:
            Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion. If CFCs were allowed to build up in the atmosphere during the next century, ozone depletion might eventually entail significant costs. More ultraviolet light reaching the surface would require adaptation—switching to new crop varieties, for example—and it might boost the incidence of nonfatal skin cancer. In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs.[/i]

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            Actually, all he’s asked you to do is supply information that apparently is “settled” – and if so it should be abundantly available.

            And if 97% of scientists agree, then it should be 97% straight forward, no?

            All Gator is asking you to do is answer a simple question. If you continue to evade it, you have behaved as a political operative, and not a scientist. A scientist will always put forward data to justify a scientific position. A political operative will duck and weave, evade and become eventually ignored.

            I also think that most people are now over the whole CAGW joke , and will start ignoring it. I know many people who dont give one about it, it has become the preserve of inner-city green voting trendies…sorry but thats how it is. Mosty people dont giva damn about the environment – most just have trouble struggling to pay bills and very little time to listen to govt mandated fairy stories.

            Anger over “climate change” in Australia is building, as people are realising its a massive scam. One council wanted an extra bin to put food waste in – people now just tip anything in any of the 3 bins bin ( normal/recycling/organis waste ) over frustration about being micro-managed. One thing you CAGW operatives should be wary of – once you tick of Australians, your goose is cooked – there is no way back. Australians, once the realise something is a complete lie, will set their jaw, and “shred” anyone dumb enough to try pushing the lie…..

            Anyone in the CAGW industry now has 2 choices… back away from the whole mess slowly and quietly, or face whats going to land on them if they dont…..dont say you werent warned.

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            My reponse above is directed to “Just Some Kid” poster.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            STOP LYING KID

            You stopped replying because you couldn’t refute the argumentation. You even said that there is no burden of proof.

            You not only fail to comprehend the scientific method, you also flunked rhetoric.

            I’ll stop calling you out when
            YOU STOP LYING !

      • Avatar

        bob ashworth

        |

        They must have taught you nothing about chemistry or common sense. I am an old chemical engineer, and we have one atmosphere. The energy from the sun hitting our atmosphere is some two times greater than what is reflected from the earth. The atmosphere reflects more energy away from the earth than it reflects back to the earth, so the overall effect is cooling. Water vapor reacts similarly to CO2 regarding radiation absorption/reflection. There is 1.5 – 2% water vapor in the atmosphere and only 400 ppmv of CO2. On a sunshiny day when a cloud goes overhead and shades you, you feel cooler don’t you, all gases and dust in the atmosphere cool us. The ones that disagree with me are wrong.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Hey bob! Schools are now centers of indoctrination, it’s not like it was when we were students.

          I have said for decades that one of the cruelest forms of child abuse is teaching kids [i]what[/i] to think, rather than [i]how[/i], as it cripples them for life.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What is the Jesuit maxim? “Give me a child for his first seven years and I’ll give you the man”.

            Schools and media are decidedly left leaning. They are getting results.

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            Lenin advocated using schools as indoctrination centres.

        • Avatar

          Just Some Kid

          |

          I’m a little confused as to you wording, but if I understood you right… then you may have not accounted for the large difference in the energy output of the sun and the earth. Even if twice as much energy is reflected, if the amount of energy is large, it can be greater than the energy that escapes (not reflected). Sorry if that’s confusing, I can’t figure out how to word it right.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        squidly

        |

        [quote]Greenhouse gases HOLD onto the heat longer than other gases.[/quote]

        Ummm, no. You obviously didn’t pay much attention in school, did you?

        CO2, a so-called “greenhouse gas” doesn’t “hold on to” heat at all. It is an extremely good emitter of IR, re-emitting any absorbed IR instantly. How can that “HOLD” onto heat?

        Go back to school kid, you have much to learn.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. The science is solid. Only existing data and the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Hey Dan! It might be more helpful for you to give a brief primer here, as the members of the church of Gaia are not likely to visit you site.

      All the best!

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Dan, nice of you to visit. But you know the mental midgets will never figure it out.

        Remember when Roger Ebert declared Al Gore’s pictorial fraud as the most important flik ever made ?

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Just Some Kid

    |

    Whatever, Gator. Lets just get back to the main point. I say climate change is happening. You say it is not?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Another “Straw Man Argument”. God you [i]really [b]are[/b][/i] stupid. 😆

      I told you that climates change, that is [i]not[/i] the question Mr No Child Left behind.

      Here [i]are[/i] the questions genius…

      1- List [i]all[/i] climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify[/i] them.

      2- Please provide [i]even one[/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes [b]natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.[/b]

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on [b]natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/b]

      Now answer the questions denier! 😆

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        wtf is wrong with you…. >.>

        cork it about those questions. im under no obligation to answer them; they’d require a significant time investment.

        that straw man argument there was just to get your to reiterate your main point.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [quote]that straw man argument there was just to get your to reiterate your main point.[/quote]

          OK, here it is Mr No Child Left Behind…

          #1- You [i]canno[/i]t list all climate forcings, [i]cannot[/i] order them from most to least effective, and [i]cannot[/i] then quantify them.

          #2- You [i]cannot[/i] provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes [i]natural variability[/i] as the cause of recent, or [i]any[/i], global climate [i]changes[/i].

          And lastly, you [i]cannot[/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year [i]precedent[/i].

          You have nothing but your brainwashed [i]fantasy[/i]. 😆

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            ok… this is the last time I respond to you.

            I’ll be clear:

            #1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_forcing_agents order them yourself. now stfu.

            #2 Searching for a peer reviewed article is time consuming. how about you go do it for me? I have not seen you post anything peer reviewed either.

            #3 It’s actually very easy to disprove something in science. regardless, I already addressed that somewhere here (control f, the word “precedent” in one of my posts.) you’ll find it. yes, it tells you to go find it yourself. how about you do your own research rather than insist I do it for you.

            Now, please, talk to your like-minded friends about how you’re so right that you’re free to belittle and insult.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Mr No Child Left Behind gives me a link to an incomplete list of climate forcings, and is too lazy to even look up [b]one[/b] peer reviewed paper that refutes the Null Hypothesis.

            Then he waves the white flag of surrender, and admits that he cannot disprove natural variability!

            I guess Junior [i]did [/i]learn something today, and his a55 will hurt for days from the spanking he received! 😆

            Good luck breathing on your own Skippy.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            After all that, I get a stfu from a child, and we are still here…

            #1- You [i]cannot[/i] list all climate forcings, [i]cannot[/i] order them from most to least effective, and [i]cannot[/i] then quantify them.

            #2- You [i]cannot[/i] provide [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] peer reviewed paper that refutes [i]natural variability[/i] as the cause of recent, or [i]any[/i], global climate [i]changes[/i].

            And lastly, you [i]cannot[/i] disprove the 4,500,000,000 year [i]precedent[/i].

            Sad. 😥

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            If number one was correct, ALL of the models would not be wrong would they?

            For example this predicted positive feedback that has been programed into all Co2 warming models. It’s wrong.
            [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif[/img]
            Remember what the Scientific Method says when your “prediction” is wrong? When your model is tested through experiment.
            [quote]In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.[/quote]


            http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/

            Number two is a trick question. No such paper has ever been produced. Alarmists have skipped step one of the scientific method. What is the Null Hypothesis of Co2 warming?

            [quote]According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:[/quote]

            This window has been exceeded already.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/01/new-paper-on-the-pause-says-it-is-19-years-at-surface-and-16-26-years-at-the-lower-troposphere/

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            The two questions are meant to clear the air for an honest debate. There is no trickery, but there is a trap, for the ‘believers’ and the ‘deceivers’.

            Every alarmist claim is based upon models, models that cannot work unless all climate forcings are identified and fully understood. And even then, they are still not capable of working correctly when false forcings are incorporated.

            That is basic logic, as well as the 4,500,000,000 year precedent of natural climate variability.

            The only people who get upset over these facts are zealots, idiots, and paid shills for the multi-trillion Dollar Climate Change Industry.

            Once those facts have been established, and agreed upon, and only then, can you have a reasoned debate.

            The models don’t work, so it is important to remove them from the discussion early on. Then we can debate greenhouse effects and man’s contrbution vs natural variability. Or the cost effectiveness of mitigation or adaptation.

            JSK claimed to want to debate, but refused to acknowledge the ground rules of any debate, logic and reason. Instead I got obfuscations, evasions and emotions.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Agreed and additionally :

            At that point the fundamental question would become : Is there a greenhouse effect such as that certain gasses within the atmosphere would alter the temperature of the atmosphere and surface of the planet ?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Been playing around with my shiny new FLIR infrared camera. Looking at the clear blue cloudless sky I get a reading beyond -40 deg. The instrument’s lower limit is -40C which is -40F.

            Looking at the same clear sky at night gets the same reading. Looking at the clouds I got a reading of about -6C same night.

            There is a calibration for Emissivity.
            To read correct temperatures, one important thing needs to be
            taken into account, and that is a factor known as emissivity.
            Emissivity is the efficiency with which an object emits infrared
            radiation. This is highly dependent on material properties.

            As these are unknown to me at this time these temperature readings are not exact. There is however at “least” 54 degrees C difference between the readings. Space is likely a lot colder than -40C.

            I would not expect the calibration to close the gap a whole bunch.

            I want to post some of the pictures this camera can take. Like the warm footprints I left on the sidewalk from standing there for a short couple min.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Can it help CWC find his missing papers, or Trenberth’s missing heat? 😉

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Not sure about that, but I think I spotted the cat from next door up a tree. 8)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Anything you can share yet?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Working on it! I’ll email you as soon as I get them into my computer.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Kay! Sent a few. My favorite is the foot print on the wooden step. Nice thing is the FLIR takes two pictures at once. The Thermal Image and the Digital. The comparison is interesting.

            The shots of the sky are also interesting. The somewhat clear area shows -30.7C and the next image of the same patch of sky, just slightly to the right of the clearish patch shows a reading of -11.2C .

            Any image of a clear sky, day or night reads beyond -40C, the lower limit of the imager. So the -30.7 reading is partially cloud covered.

            It had just rained so there was not much clear sky to choose from…

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Got them, and I agree. Nice shots, and the coud/sky shot is [i]most[/i] interesting. I will have to find the FLIR sky shot essays I previously read, read them again, and share them with you.

            As a Remote Sensing student, we spent alot of time on IR images. But almost all of it was looking [i]back[/i] at the Earth, and not out from it.

            Neat toy!

  • Avatar

    anne

    |

    One day everyone will realise that the arctic ice is being melted on purpose in order that the rich natural resources can be consumed, this is no conspiracy theory, do a little research!!!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Just Some Kid

    |

    know what folks, im tired and there’s too many posts to sift through now. I’ll meet you again on one of tomorrow’s articles.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      You’re a lying know-nothing coward who can’t take it after proven wrong.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        Or maybe you missed that timestamp that says my post was at three in the morning.

        I know it’s tough to think logically, rationally, or even calmly, but you might try it for once. If It’d make you feel better I can hold your hand through this [i]trying ordeal[/i].

        Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Side Issue

    How come no one comments about the HAARP. The High Altitude Atmospheric Research Project which is located in Southern Alaska right next to the Alyeska pipeline? It is a vast antenna array that pumps megavolts into the ionosphere from power provided by a vast diesel array which runs on straight crude.

    If we could set up something similar in the south-central USA, O’bama would probably approve the Keystone Pipeline.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      I meant megawatts.pakxs

      Reply

  • Avatar

    InstallTech

    |

    I read the most enlightening report detailing the deplorable condition of surface stations monitoring temperature in CONUS.

    It would appear that the Warmist Cult is taking inherently flawed data massaging it and funneling it through an ideological filter and presenting it as secular religious dogma which by its nature must be taken on faith.

    I know this seems obvious but I almost never see it spelled out that [b][u][i]the base data is FLAWED.
    [/i][/u][/b]

    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D14120,
    doi:10.1029/2010JD015146
    , 2011

    Link to report.
    https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

    The current rating of surface stations (82.5% surveyed) as of 07/30/2012
    CRN Rating:
    CRN1-2, 7.9%
    CRN3-5, 92.1%

    Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

    Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

    Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

    Mr. Watts is founder of SurfaceStations.org; WattsUpWithThat.com and is a meteorologist.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    InstallTech

    |

    Part of my post got cut off.

    Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:

    Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

    Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

    Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    InstallTech

    |

    For some reason the Class 5 merged with the Class 4.

    Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      From the abstract…

      [i]According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend. [/i]

      This is what I also observed when I looked into surface stations about five years ago.

      I [i]had[/i] a NASA link that provided aerial and ground shots of the individual stations, and when selecting sites without urban or marine influences, I actually found a slight decrease in temp trend from @ 1895 to 2000.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    InstallTech

    |

    The instrument errors were caused by lack of oversight of the low bid contractors that installed the equipment years ago. Typical government neglect and incompetence.

    I know the models average the temperatures from groups of stations. Was this ignorance of the real world or a deliberate attempt to hide the fact that the base data is invalid.

    A good tech. uses the raw data anomalies to determine faults and schedules service inspections based on the out of norm readings then documents (and corrects the problem when possible).

    Is the systemic rot at the top or does it go all the way to the bottom.
    How many are fellow travellers versus useful idiots.

    A useful idiot may yet see reason a fellow traveller is less likely if a true believer in the cause.

    Earth Day = V.I.Lenin’s Birth Day

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [i]While environmental propagandists celebrate peace, love, and Earth Day today, here’s a reminder — from my 2001 column on Earth Day co-founder and emcee Ira Einhorn — that not all eco-pacifists practice what they preach.

      A BEAUTIFUL young woman vanishes. For months, her family searches in vain. They suspect her boyfriend, a secretive and arrogant older man who is active in public life. But his friends, including many famous members of the political and cultural elite, refuse to believe that their charismatic chum could be a suspect in any criminal wrongdoing. Frustrated with the police’s lack of progress, the missing woman’s family hires its own private investigators.
      And waits and waits and waits for the nightmare to end.

      Chandra Levy and Gary Condit? No, this is the tragic story of Holly Maddux and Ira Einhorn. New developments in the two-decade-old case barely registered a blip on the national media radar screen last week. That’s a crying shame. Holly Maddux deserves to be more than an afterthought.

      What makes this matter especially outrageous – and deadly instructive — is how Ira Einhorn remained a darling of the Left and a fugitive from justice for so long after Maddux was found.

      The facts are sickeningly familiar to Philly residents, but not to the rest of the nation. In the ’70s, Einhorn made a name for himself as a radical environmentalist and “counter-cultural” peacenik. He grew a ratty beard, stopped bathing, dubbed himself a “planetary enzyme,” spouted Marxism, and hogged the spotlight during the nation’s first Earth Day. Poets, scientists, hippies, New Agers, billionaire benefactors, and young women caught up in the haze of free love and free-flowing drugs all flocked to Einhorn.

      One of those women, former Texas cheerleader and artist Holly Maddux, lived with Einhorn in the City of Brotherly Love. In the fall of 1978, she disappeared. Einhorn said she walked out and never came back. Few dared challenge the Flower Power guru who hobnobbed with the rich and powerful, lectured at Harvard, and traveled the world.

      It took a year before cops opened a missing persons file on Maddux. Her family pressured law enforcement to investigate Einhorn. His neighbors complained of a foul stench and brown ooze seeping from his residence. Eighteen months after she went missing, detectives discovered her body stuffed and mummified inside a black steamer trunk hidden in Einhorn’s closet.

      [b]Maddux’s skull had multiple fractures and she had shrunk to less than 40 pounds. Experts say she was alive when she was forced into the trunk.[/b] Author Steven Levy wrote that when horrified cops informed Einhorn, who was waiting in his kitchen during the search, that the corpse looked like Maddux’s body, Einhorn coolly replied:

      “You found what you found.”[/i]

      http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/22/a-grisly-earth-day-reminder-eco-pacifist-fraud-ira-einhorn-a-killer-in-p-c-clothing/

      These people are dangerous, and murderers. Whether it is by their own hands, or their green advocacy that starves millions each year.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Just Some Kid

        |

        Nice to see you’re still as crazy as when I left you.

        Go collect 50 dolphins for me.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Sad to see you are still a self inflicted moron.

          What part of the factual story is beyond your grasp, Mr No Child Left Behind? 😆

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          So when you learn this…

          [i][b]Maddux’s skull had multiple fractures and she had shrunk to less than 40 pounds. Experts say [u]she was alive when she was forced into the trunk[/u].[/b] Author Steven Levy wrote that when [b]horrified cops[/b] informed Einhorn, who was waiting in his kitchen during the search, that [b]the corpse[/b] looked like Maddux’s body, Einhorn coolly replied:

          [b]“You found what you found.”[/b][/i]

          … your sick, twisted, brainless head thought a snide remark was not only appropriate, but cute.

          Thanks for proving my above statement correct.

          [quote]These people are dangerous, and murderers. Whether it is by their own hands, or their green advocacy that starves millions each year.[/quote]

          There are not words that I can type on this site, for someone as sick, as you.

          I will not report this disgusting comment of yours, so that it can be left here for all to see what a POS you really are.

          God help you.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I think you may have caught some of that paranoia from Amber the other day. No one is out to get you, much less an entire group of people. If you want to help people, try taking down an organization that is truly dangerous like a gang or cartel. If you still think environmentalists want to kill people, I suggest you see a professional. All it takes to see this is just a little faith in humanity and a good dose of common sense.

            Try not to lose any sleep over this matter.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            What part of “you are sick” do you not get?

            What if that poor woman had been your mother? Or your sister?

            You claimed to come here to learn things, and/or debate. But now everyone can clearly see that you are a sick, lying POS, just like all the others who advocate for the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry instead of the starving poor.

            Did you even bother to watch this video?

            Bjorn Lomborg, like me, is an environmentalist, And he is not an eco-terrorist sociopath like yourself, or those you appear to support. In fact, Dr Lomborg is a man made climate change believer.

            If you did watch the video, and you still support spending our world’s wealth on climate change, you are an idiot or part of the climate change cabal.

            I am not paranoid, and have no concerns about idiots/frauds like you. I can handle any threat to my person with more than capable precision and deadly force.

            My concern is for the innocent who are being left to die by sociopaths such as yourself.

            You mock a sick murder, and mock an innocent victim’s horrible death, which makes you a peer of that killer.

            [quote]“You found what you found.”[/quote]

            Prove me wrong, Mr No Child Left Behind. Prove you care about those who are dying now, and have been killed by your go-to guys.

            You disgust me beyond description.

            Any caring human being would admit they should not have made light of a horrible crime, and certainly would not have returned to their indefensible shame, shameless.

            Please do not ever address me again.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            By now I’m convinced that much of our conversation resides solely in your imagination. I’ve not talked about the crime at all.

            Just because something is not our biggest problem does not mean we should give it no attention at all, just as we should not devote 100% of our attention to the problem we determine to be the most severe. If we did, we’d overcome that problem, but the next worse thing will be our downfall in our complacency. If three guys are running at me with knifes and I decide to focus only on the one with the biggest knife… well, I’m in trouble.
            I encourage you to calmly read my reply without editing it. You’ll avoid any misconceptions if you first try to clarify my intentions rather than jumping to sick conclusions.

            Yes, that murder was terrible. I shudder to think of it. Just remember that it is a mistake to think that any more than a select few are capable of such a thing. Whoever they are, they constitute a small minority of whatever group they are in. This one just happened to be an environmentalist.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are sick.

            One sign of mental illness is ‘projection’.

            [i]Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.[/i]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

            And you are projecting ‘my’ imagination, while concerning yourself over ‘imaginary’ people who are not at risk, you ‘imagine’ they are, or will be.

            I am focused on those who need our help right now, those who are dying right now, real people.

            In your world, you would leave the ambulance parked while someone slowly bleeds to death, because you ‘imagine’ there will be some greater need later.

            But of course you are so much smarter than Dr Lomborg, a nobel Laureate, who also believes in man made global warming.

            Millions of innocent people die every year, because you and your CO2-phobic buddies divert money, attention, and resources to a fantasy of ‘may, ‘might’ or ‘possibly’.

            Ity has been a quarter century of this sick behavoiur, meaning that over 100 million people needlessly suffered and died for your ’cause’, that likely will not be a problem.

            The Holocaust ‘only’ killed 5 million innocents, so your crew is 20 times more deadly than what sane people consider to be a world class shame.

            You are sick.

            Back to your ‘projection’ again.

            You projected your ‘paranoia’ on me earlier. But it is you who is the paranoid party, worrying about 0.6C warming over a century, and believing it is something worthy of 100 million innocent deaths.

            Not once have you given any scientific proof of your assertions, yet we have consistently put scientific papers and methodologies before you. And you simply deny their exsitence, and glibly call for the deaths of millions each year, over a paranoid delusion.

            I deal with your kind all the time. In fact I was dealing with one of you in Scotland last night, who admits that government mandates for wind turbines in the UK is responsible killing people, but does not care.

            You only feigned remorse for that poor woman, when I beat you over the head over your lack of feeling for another human being.

            I requested that you not address me again, but you do not have the good sense to shut up, and only further drove home the fact that, you are sick.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Gator

            Standing ovation, ruffles and flourishes, parade around the breakfast table and a twenty-one ton galoot !

            But, the capacity isn’t there. He’ll never comprehend.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Oh, you know what? My bad. I didn’t quite peg you as an internet troll. To be honest, I should have guessed at it sooner. Well played, good sir. Well played. Don’t worry, I’ll still “feed” you, but I’ll be sure to note my audience next time.

            I think it will suffice to say that your post(s) has(have) committed these fallacies:
            Sweeping generalization
            Hasty generalization
            Talking in vague generalities
            Oversimplifying the issue
            Reductio ad Absurdum
            ad Hominem
            Appeal to popular passions
            Spin, and most prominently:
            Appeal to fear.

            (I could mention a few more, but I’ve done a few of them as well–for example, red herring. Such is the nature of an internet chat room.)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            More projection. Zero science.

            You need help child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Ad Hominem once again.

            And I forget to mention the most glaring fallacy of all: Call to perfection.

            I don’t think it takes a scientist to say that your perspective and interpretation of things lean a little towards “Help! Environmentalist are trying to take over the world!”

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Let’s start again.

            Here are the questions genius…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Much better; no ad Hominem, and I thank you for that.

            I think, however, that you are insisting loudly on a minor point–another fallacy.

            I gave #1 my best shot and linked a Wikipedia page. You said that was not good enough somewhere. Please, show me how to do it better. (As in, just do it independently. This really is a minor point of the main issue.)

            As for #2, I’ll give it a shot when I see a peer reviewed paper doing the opposite. I have seen numerous things posted here but none of them I could verify as peer reviewed. If you claim something is peer reviewed, please provide a link to where that is explicitly spelled out from a trustworthy source (say, a database). Likewise, I will do the same with any article I claim is peer reviewed.

            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Keep up the hysteria schwantz. I’m enjoying it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No, you do not listen to reason, youi ignore the dying while fascinagted by a fantasy.

            There is a reason you avoid and cannot answer two simple questions.

            And I understand that it drives the believers, deceivers, and receivers nuts. Because every one of their catastrophic claims are based upon models, models that cannot possibly work without proper input.

            If you cannot answer question one (and you cannot), then there is no answer to question two (which there is not). Natural variability must be disproven, or at least quantified, before we can accept CAGW as anything other than science fiction.

            That is reason. So stop this ridiculous obsession over nothing.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Come on Gator,let him continue.
            He reveals himself with every word.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            The Cool Whip Cowboy always lies, and claims he has papers, which he then never produces, thus confirming his prevaricator supreme status.

            Remember how disappointed his buddy was the last time I proved CWC lied? He never came back.

            So far, the kid has not made that ridiculous claim. Maybe he is smarter than the little D?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Yes Gator

            But I laugh at his oral defecation.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Oral defecation lol. that’s a good one. made me laugh. Try not to let it simmer in your brain for too long though, jaypee. it starts to rot.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Surely you didn’t just admit to the fallacy of asking the impossible? regardless, it seems you cannot even procure this information yourself. (just to be clear: “List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them” and a peer reviewed article with a way to verify that claim.)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I asked of you only for what you called.

            Reason.

            If you cannot answer the questions, reason dictates that there is no call for alarm.

            Climates change.

            Have you learned anything at all?

            Will you stamp you feet over a fantasy as millions starve again this year?

            Would you like to explain to the sick and dying, that you cannot explain why you are denying them assistance?

            Where is your “reason” for this?

            Show me a “reason”, and prove that you are not a sick and uncaring person.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            That pretty righteous from someone who owns a computer. Why doesn’t all your money go towards helping the poor etc.? I don’t want to hear any of it from you who can’t even take his own advice. Fix the plank in your eye before helping me remove the splinter from mine.

            “If you cannot answer the questions, reason dictates that there is no call for alarm.” Actually, I think what would be most alarming would be not being able to answer the questions. Would you ignore someone pointing a gun at you merely because you couldn’t fathom his motives? I hope not.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            That has to be the most ridiculous response to anyone I’ve seen in a long time.

            What does his having a computer have to do with anything? My cousin has a computer, she also works as a missionary in Africa helping the poor. Apparently by your reasoning, or lack thereof, she shouldn’t have her computer?

            Now, who is pointing a gun at whom? Where in this thread of nonsense coming from you did that enter the conversation and why?

            I, along with others, can easily see that you engage in ad-hom yet complain when you perceive it being directed at you, that you don’t answer questions put to you but try and redirect them, and in general provide nothing but attitude to support yourself.

            All while engaged in your own little fits of name calling.

            Talk about having a plank in your eye, you’ve got enough wood in your to build a ranch house and the stables.

            [quote]I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote]

            Very good, so what would prevent your suspecting that you are being lied to or otherwise misled? Your own confirmation bias? That is readily apparent.

            It is also apparent you don’t listen to reason, just the media.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote]

            Ask your self honestly, why do you “listen” to a “science” that has failed the Scientific Method every time it has been tested against reality? As time goes on, the Models drift further and further from reality, while the confidence of the Branch Carbonian’s increases?

            [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

            Would you invest your savings with a broker who’s investment “model” has zero predictive skill?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote] I notice a pattern in your posting JSK. Every time you are presented with links to Peer Reviewed science that challenges your beliefs, you stop responding and instead jump over to another thread and engage in trolling and insults.

            What “evidence” have the Warmists ever provided? Fiddled Data and failed model predictions are not evidence.

            You have not read any of the Peer Reviewed Papers, or watched any of the Youtubes have you?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]I notice a pattern in your posting JSK. Every time you are presented with links to Peer Reviewed science that challenges your beliefs, you stop responding and instead jump over to another thread and engage in trolling and insults.[/quote]

            And here I thought I was the [i]only[/i] one who had noticed. 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            A good example…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-22 00:17
            The trouble is the links lead to a dead end when trying to find the source of the source, and if it is peer reviewed or not. You’d know if you had tried. In fact, I think you’d be more than happy to show that something is peer reviewed if you could, cause that would shut me up right quick.

            # Gator 2015-04-22 00:24
            Please show me that all links we provided are dead ends.

            Science please.[/quote]

            Crickets.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I did watch one of the videos. did you post more than one?

            I need verification that a source is peer reviewed to read it. (try to make that verification not be on a site with a virus)

            I’m taking your word for it when you say data was fiddled with. Let’s assume it was selectively chosen for them models for a good reason (I think it goes too far to assume all these scientists are crooks). One thing I noticed from all these “sources” is a consensus that this data is hard to collect (well, its easy to get the readings, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything). Weather has a big impact on the day to day. Not every location on earth can be monitored simultaneously, so one area may have to account for a rather large region. Perhaps, adjusting for the errors caused by that, they left out certain data points that would skew the data; points that were perfectly fine for that small area, but unrealistic for the much larger area they were surveying.

            Searching for the good in people, I’d expect a reasonable, well-thought-out explanation for this. What if it is a legitimate reason, when taking the whole earth in mind?

            This “pattern” is mostly you posting after I leave, and by the time I come back I can’t find it because it’s no longer on the recent comments thing. This is a BIG thread to sift through.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Kid, you are dawdling, and hemming and hawing.

            Opinions do not matter when it comes to science.

            Enough of this. Either bring something to the table, or leave.

            You are wasting evetone’s time, including your own.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Thanks for confirming that you are a troll, and once again, a liar.

            [i]In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[/i]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.

            Never a liar.

            “Kid, you are dawdling, and hemming and hawing.

            Opinions do not matter when it comes to science.

            Enough of this. Either bring something to the table, or leave.

            You are wasting evetone’s time, including your own.”

            Tell me, what of the above is substantial, and contributes to the debate? If nothing, then I think that puts you in the troll category as well.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            You are truly useless.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Lost the will to fight, have you? only four words and they all make up one ad hom. no more kicking and screaming… just that?

            Well, it was fun while it lasted. Perhaps i’ll see you on the next battlefield.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Fight what, a child troll? 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            This marks 7. someone go reset him before we make it to the double digits.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06

            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/i]

            Liar! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            9. Look at you, quoting me like I’m some great, famous person. would you like me to sign your shirt?

            I’ve pegged you as a dishonest person, so don’t expect to convince me of anything.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Ten!!!! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.
            [/quote]

            Liar! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child, nobody is going to take you seriously here.

            Cry baby!

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            11, actually.
            “Grow up child, nobody is going to take you seriously here.

            Cry baby!” these will make a great summary of your life in your autobiography.

            Nothing to see here folks. This guy has gone off the deep end.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            More projection from the lying crybaby self admitted troll.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.
            [/quote]

            Liar! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |


            Correction. I enjoy wasting YOUR time. Never before has a grown man given me this pathetic reaction. Its gratifying, really.

            But when we get right down to it, aren’t YOU wasting more of your time than I am? Reposting this?

            Also, being called a liar by you affects me no longer, just as I am not insulted when a kindergartener hits me. I think you can make the appropriate parallel here.

            This is the last time i’ll acknowledge a post of this nature. Though it may hurt your pride, you can talk to me if you need anything. I really will help you if I can. Please enjoy the rest of your day. and remember, the internet doesn’t follow you into real life. Defeat a troll by ignoring him, or have fun talking with one by having a thick skin. Trolls usually are quite witty and fun to have a go at. They will never be upset by you, so you shouldn’t either. Just a few tips of the internet from your friendly neighborhood troll!” copy/pasted in case you missed it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Liars never mind being called what they are, once they are caught.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote]

            Liar child.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]I did watch one of the videos. did you post more than one? [/quote] Yeah about six.
            [quote]I need verification that a source is peer reviewed to read it. (try to make that verification not be on a site with a virus)[/quote] Your the only one who “seen” a virus. How about a link to over 1350 Peer Reviewed Papers?
            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

            [quote]I’m taking your word for it when you say data was fiddled with.[/quote]
            You don’t have to take my word. NOAA has a graph showing the “adjustments” they have made to the raw data.
            [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
            See for yourself.
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

            They “adjusted” the past downwards and the present upwards to match a rising Co2 trend. This rise does not exist in nature, only in the “adjusted” data and the failed models.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Those peer reviewed papers have rebuttals as well as criticisms. I skimmed through a few and they appear perfectly legitimate to me. As far as I’m concerned, this doesn’t help your case. If there’s one in particular you’d like me to look at, tell me.

            I went to noaa and couldn’t find that graph, but I did read some things that makes me suspect that the graph is taken out of context. Also, is that graph measuring the difference in Fahrenheit? Celsius is generally used with these data, so the numbers would be a little less (almost half at 25 C). I’m not sure how you got the link to only lead to the graph, but can you link me to the page it was on? The context is important here. Also, I think you are taking that adjustment out of context as well, but I can’t know unless I see the page this is from.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Child, can you not read?

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

            That graph is from NOAA, and if your lying eyes look just to the left of that graph, it clearly shoes “F”, something with which you should be familiar.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            Grow up.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Third time you quoted that. Wow, I didn’t think you’d get that butthurt from it 😆

            F…. I can only guess Fahrenheit? mind clarifying?(because there is not context to take that from) If you can’t, shush.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Sucks being you?

            You just aint that bright! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:23
            [b]F…. I can only guess Fahrenheit?[/b] mind clarifying?(because there is not context to take that from) [/quote]

            Real scienti[b]F[/b]ic genius! 😀

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Not helpful.

            Input requested, Amirlach, so I can avoid misrepresenting the data.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Why would amirlach respond, when you admitted you are just here to waste time?

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote]

            Liar child.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So now “reason” is thrown to the side, and you claim that I am being “righteous”, and that I am the sinner for owning a computer while advocating for the needy.

            Kid, you either need a psychiatrist, or maybe a good spanking, or both

            FYI – I give a monthly donation to feed and clothe the poor, as I have for years. And then, like Lomborg, I use my free time to explain that this science fiction of CAGW is killing millions of innocent human beings every year.

            You, on the other hand, mock my efforts, mock a poor woman who was beaten nearly to death and then left to die in a locked trunk, mock reason, and mock real science.

            Why are you here?

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            He’s here trying to ” tickle ” away his psychological inadequacy.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            “…[b]mock[/b] a poor woman who was beaten nearly to death…” Lies like this, naturally, compel me to suspect you of dishonesty on a regular basis.

            I mentioned the computer to say you are not doing everything you possibly can to help the poor etc. It was certainly a fallacy in itself, but, to be honest, so is bringing up the poor in this discussion. One fallacious argument invites another. This is not a moral discussion. It is supposed to be a scientific* one. Feel free to bring it up as a side note, but when it becomes the entirety of your position, then we reach a roadblock that just results in baseless accusation. Kindly steer us clear from that.

            Looking back, I did add a little ad hoc in there. Please pardon me, but since bringing it up, there has been a lot less name-calling–something constructive for both sides.

            *used loosely

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Where is the science to defend your position?

            We are still waiting.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I am waiting as well. looks like we’re going to be sitting here for a while.

            Go fish?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i] “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” [/i]
            -Carl sagan

            Please provide your evidence.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Gator, he’s just going to bang on about “peer review” as a requirement for anything presented him though if it supports his claims/argument he’ll be more than happy to use things that aren’t peer reviewed.

            As we’ve seen so often it is fairly obvious he hasn’t a clue what peer review actually is and that it is not a validation of a paper.

            But that is always their refuge when they can’t argue against any conflicting science that is presented to them because they don’t understand it. They’ll hide behind “peer review” as though that validates the work so they can then hold it up as an example to support whatever they are banging on about without ever having to understand it.

            It’s pretty damn funny really.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Gator is the one who insisted everything be peer reviewed. If anything, I’m mirroring him.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yes, I do. And [i]we[/i] have provided peer reviewed work, and you always have some excuse as to why you don’t like it, or the link is ‘broken’, or whatever pops into your head.

            You have offered no science, zip, [i]zero[/i].

            We explain how to logically approach a question, and you say ‘[i]nuh-uh[/i]’.

            I tried to help you understand that climate models are garbage, and then you say I have a problem with garbage.

            You disrespect your elders, who do not have to earn your respect. Only [i]peers[/i] have to earn your respect and you are [i]not[/i] a peer of mine, you are “Just Some Kid”.

            If you want to have a juvenile conversation, go to your Facebook page, or text one of your buddies.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            You may have forgotten, but when people say “we,” They are usually included in it. As far as I’m concerned, you are misrepresenting yourself as someone who has presented a peer reviewed paper. Amirlach may also have, but more word on that after I check on his links.

            On the internet we are all peers. Why? because that should be the default. I can’t help it if you have a superiority complex.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Grow up child troll.

            You have decades of life, and lifetimes of learning, before you are a peer of mine, or amirlach’s.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            “Science Please Child Troll”

            Shall a fetch a commoner to feed you peeled grapes?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I have tried for over a week to get you to debate, and instead this is what I get…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Wow, fifth time quoting me. sorry man, didn’t mean to make you cry.

            once again, no need to repost. i’ll find it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Yep, this is [i]all [/i]you!

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            This marks the sixth. Thanks for posting it again right here, so people don’t have to move their eyes upwards 6 inches.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Cry for me child troll. These are your words, do they hurt you?

            Yes they do! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            8th time. Am I you? no, I own those words. I said them. and they were directed at you. you’re making it hard to regret it you know.

            do try to calm down sir.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child, I am only quoting you.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            This marks 10. doesn’t going back and forth between two threads posting the same thing bore you?

            Can I expect you to keep singing my praise? Perhaps I can make a model out of this!

            This reply thing is getting really small.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You arte a self admitted troll who enjoys wasting time.

            How noble! 😀

            Eleven!!!! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.
            [/quote]

            Liar! 😀

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child, nobody is going to take you seriously here.

            Cry baby.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            12.

            Correction. I enjoy wasting YOUR time. Never before has a grown man given me this pathetic reaction. Its gratifying, really.

            But when we get right down to it, aren’t YOU wasting more of your time than I am? Reposting this?

            Also, being called a liar by you affects me no longer, just as I am not insulted when a kindergartener hits me. I think you can make the appropriate parallel here.

            This is the last time i’ll acknowledge a post of this nature. Though it may hurt your pride, you can talk to me if you need anything. I really will help you if I can. Please enjoy the rest of your day. and remember, the internet doesn’t follow you into real life. Defeat a troll by ignoring him, or have fun talking with one by having a thick skin. Trolls usually are quite witty and fun to have a go at. They will never be upset by you, so you shouldn’t either. Just a few tips of the internet from your friendly neighborhood troll!

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-20 19:06
            I listen to reason, but little else. Provide me sufficient evidence and I’ll flip to your side, but it has to be legitimate. I can’t be convinced if I suspect I’m being lied to, or otherwise misled.[/quote]

            Liar child.

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]”Help! Environmentalist are trying to take over the world!”[/quote]

            IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”.
            [quote]Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer[/quote]
            [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gdp_nominal_per_capita_world_map_imf_2007.png[/img]

            Strangely the nations that value personal property rights have the most wealth to “redistribute”.

            To do so you need ALOT of power. People will not give up what they worked so hard for without resistance.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I’ll believe that redistributing nonsense when China, India and Indonesia put up cash for their carbon consumption.

            Not that it’s necessary. But every time you hear this carbon tax crap, it’s always the west and most particularly the USA that must come up with money even though the three aforementioned nations consume far more carbon.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Careful not to fall under a double standard. I’d wager that the US has produce far more carbon than some of those countries over the years. It may very well be fair that the US “puts forth a payment” first or whatever. Not to say its right, but that’s how it may be. To be sure, when it comes to money, countries don’t seem to be very willing to give but are more than happy to take.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Just some kid, you can’t even grasp that it isn’t carbon which is an element but carbon dioxide which is a compound that is being discussed but that referring to “carbon” the element rather than CO2 the compound sounds so much dirtier, then one has to question whether you have any reasoning (or reading) skills at all.

            jaypee you need to be more aware of terminology as well. We are not talking about carbon we are talking about CO2, just as the entire “science” of global warming/climate change/ whatever they call it this week is not based on theory but hypotheses and models.

            Don’t give it the credibility of a theory by calling it as such when it is not, likewise don’t fall into saying carbon when what is really being discussed is CO2.

            We are carbon based and we exhale CO2. How long before we, the general population, are considered a “pollutant” if we allow this nonsense “science” to continue?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Hey Robert! Good to see you again.

            [quote]That has to be the most ridiculous response to anyone I’ve seen in a long time.[/quote]

            Have you read his [i]other[/i] posts? 😆

            The nuts are out in force this week! I had a run in with a Truther, who also claims the Moon landings were fake, and that there is no such thing as manned space flight. He claims that to this day, astronauts are sequestered here on Earth while they fake the shots from the International Space Station.

            I could go on, but I have work to do.

            All the best!

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I think you’re overreacting just a whee bit. When someone says carbon in topics like this, its generally understood that they are talking about CO2. Someone who has a beef with carbon in general would be have a pretty tough time coming to terms with how abundant it is, and how much it is needed.

            As for “credibility of a theory”, that’s not something that any old person off the street can give or not give.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]As for “credibility of a theory”, that’s not something that any old person off the street can give or not give.[/quote]

            But Just Some Kid [i]can[/i]? 😆

            You have never given us any science. Care to try again child?

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Back to the ad hoc… and I thought we were getting somewhere too….

            It goes both ways, sir. I have not seen any science on this site. Just some evidence with no way to verify it. I welcome a change in that, though it would be unfortunate if its first incidence appeared in the comments section…

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are making false claims, we have presented peer reviewed papers and logic.

            Your move child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Verify for me (no, give me a way to verify) that it is peer reviewed and I will acknowledge your source and give it all due attention. If it convinces me, ill come crawling back, begging for your forgiveness, but until then, your claims are as false as mine.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You have been given the links, I am not your wet nusre, follow them as they are already on this thread child.

            If you can disprove nature, then provide the papers.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            The trouble is the links lead to a dead end when trying to find the source of the source, and if it is peer reviewed or not. You’d know if you had tried. In fact, I think you’d be more than happy to show that something is peer reviewed if you could, cause that would shut me up right quick.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Please show me that all links we provided are dead ends.

            Science please.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I do not need to prove nature, it is the set precedent, and the burden of proof lies with you.

            Science please troll.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Science Please Troll.

            Appeal to ignorance (jaypee fell for it, good job.) and shift of burden of proof.

            No need to copy yourself from another thread, I already read it.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Fill the air with words and say nothing.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You still have not justified the sacrifice of 21,000 human beings per day.

            Science please, troll.

            [i]In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[/i]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            SCIENCE PLEASE !!!!!!

            When you have no comprehension
            of science
            of logic
            of rhetoric

            You’re living in the land of
            make pretend

            I don’t expect you to understand

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            He apparently doesn’t understand the scientific method and the process by which a hypothesis becomes theory. Since the hypotheses in question have not passed that process then yes, “any old person off the street” who does understand the scientific method can make the valid assessment that something claimed as theory is not a theory but is merely a hypothesis still awaiting validation.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Eh, not really. If it’s a theory, credibility is only something the experts can or cannot give.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            It is not a theory, but an irresponsible conjecture that no amount of lying by you can advance.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]If it’s a theory, credibility is only something the experts can or cannot give.[/quote]

            False. Anyone capable of reading a scientific paper can judge for themselves. I happen to have been trained as a scientist in 3 different (but related) fields, but anyone can learn how to tell if a hypothesis has moved on to theory.

            CAGW is a failed hypothesis, as their predictions and models have all failed. If their predictions and models had worked out, it could possibly move on to theory. But only after disproving natural variability, which they never have.

            You have to want to learn, otherwise you won’t.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Quit saying fact and false. They lose their intended meaning when you misrepresent them all the time.

            Try not to forget that anyone trying to disprove natural variability will very likely fail. Nature is doing a big whopping part of it, as it has for, well, ever, I suppose. No one (there are exceptions to everything) is even trying to disprove it; they are trying to show that humans have had an effect on it. Very technically, we have, though the only amount proved ( I think this works here, but maybe not) is a very miniscule amount. Probably like the amount you move the earth when you jump. It is, for all intents and purposes, negligible. But it is there. That is what we can say for an almost certainty is there. The aim now is to see if the actual effect is larger than what is garenteed. There is a good chance it is, but they still may not be in detectable levels. This science is still developing, and our measurement devices and methodologies are still far from perfect. It will truly be tough to get more than a few decimal places deep, and this is compounded by how we cannot even measure it directly. Not to mention, the earth is dynamic. The equation sought is not linear. It is no where near easy to predict. It is a function damped in so many places…

            (lost my train of thought. If I find it again i’ll come back here.)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Try not to forget that anyone trying to disprove natural variability will very likely fail.[/quote]

            So you admit failure.

            That’s a start! 😀

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            And you pretend you aren’t a troll as well. Part of being a troll is being able to spot another. The gig’s up.

            Congratulations! You have defeated me in a debate! You knocked me down with the utmost ease! …Wait, why are all these black birds coming over here?

            Anyway, good job, Mr. Scarecrow Killer

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I have tried for over a week to get you to debate, and instead this is what I get…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            From my perspective (which is just as valid as yours), you’ve only been an obstruction to this debate.

            Fourth time quoting it. reallllly butthurt.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-23 23:17
            I enjoy wasting your time. but that isn’t much of a loss, really. you’re on here more than I am.[/quote]

            And…

            [quote]# Just Some Kid 2015-04-24 00:07
            I never denied being a troll, in fact I claimed that title before you brought it up.[/quote]

            Grow up child.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The US has produced a lot of Co2 over the years, they also produce more food than anyone else. Can’t have one without the other.

            The Co2 output of China has now surpassed the US, India is also set to surpass the US in Co2 emissions. The world still fails to warm as predicted.

            Remember the Scientific Method? If your “prediction” is wrong your “theory” is wrong. Period!

            Nothing -we- do in the west to reduce Co2 will have any effect on rising Co2. All we have done is offshore our manufacturing to nations with far less stringent environmental regulations.

            [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RLAiIu23kKE/TSLEcPflksI/AAAAAAAAE9w/HYTOBCkJiZk/s1600/china_air_pollution_4.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            “[b]The US has produced a lot of Co2 over the years, they also produce more food than anyone else[/b]. Can’t have one without the other.”

            Fair point, but we can still improve efficiency and when we obtain energy from.

            In the West, we can do our part. Not every country has act as a child saying: I’m not doing it unless Johnny does it first!

            Keep in mind the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word theory. If the Theory of Relativity made an incorrect prediction, then it wouldn’t be correct as a theory.

            As far as I know, no one has made anything called the Theory of Climate Change. If there is, and it made an incorrect prediction, then it isn’t THE theory on the matter.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            Keep talking schwantz. You reveal your identity and doth tell your soo-doe nym.
            The pimp Droooski has descended upon us again, much to the glee of those stupid enough to agree. And hilarious to the rest who see through.

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Only 50?

          If not for those Capitalists of the 19th Century. There wouldn’t be any dolphins or whales left.
          [quote]Standard Oil began in 1870, when kerosene cost 30 cents a gallon. By 1897, Rockefeller’s scientists and managers had driven the price to under 6 cents per gallon, and many of his less-efficient competitors were out of business–including companies whose inferior grades of kerosene were prone to explosion and whose dangerous wares had depressed the demand for the product. Standard Oil did the same for petroleum: In a single decade, from 1880 to 1890, Rockefeller’s consolidations helped drive petroleum prices down 61 percent while increasing output 393 percent. [/quote]

          By the way, JSK should have a picture of John D. Rockefeller on the wall of his bedroom. Rockefeller, by driving down the cost of Kerosene as an illuminant, did more than any other person in the history to save the whales. By making Kerosene cheap, people were willing to give up whale oil, dealing a mortal blow to the whaling industry (perhaps just in time for the Sperm Whale).

          Just another example of how the so called evil Capitalists who hate the environment saved it.

          Observe that despite the fact that socialism and communism have been given a pretty good drubbing over the last 20 years, these statists still seem to be writing history. How else to explain the fact that men who made fortunes through free, voluntary exchange of products can be called “robber barons”; while politicians who expropriate billions by force without permission from the most productive in society are called “progressive”.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            That is completely irrelevant, as much so as my comment about the dolphins. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who is not a capitalist. Capitalism, with some regulation, I think is the way to go. (*I have not studied economic theory.)

            And those who take tax money for personal gain are not progressive, they are merely corrupt.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            What we actually have is called a Market Economy, it is very regulated.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

            The fastest growing economy in the world is a completely free and unregulated one. It has surpassed all others and is over 10 Trillion a year in GDP.

            [quote]Forget China: the $10 trillion global black market is the world’s fastest growing economy–and its future.

            The rise in this system will worry bureaucrats because there is no regulation, no taxes!! According to this article System D is also creating jobs!! One think tank came to the conclusion that half the workers of the world are working in System D!

            This is what happens when welfare state governments strangle economies.
            [/quote]

            How goes the reading of the Peer Reviewed Papers we linked to JSK?

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            I can’t verify that any of them are peer reviewed, and I was swept up in gators trolling and forgot about them. sorry about that. Can you link me to the database in which you found your sources? Or relink, if I missed it.

            I didn’t say we are in a free market, and I do believe the one we have is the best. Regulation exists for a reason: one is to prevent exploitative monopolies.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Science please child troll.

            Remember? You wanted to debate? Right?

          • Avatar

            Just Some Kid

            |

            Evidently you don’t.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I have presented science and logic, and you have petulantly denied them.

            Act like an adult, and I will treat you as one.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Hey, how is it our fault that just some kid is

    JUST SOME DOPE

    Like all the other phony facades before him, he orally defecates idiocy while appealing to equally idiot authority.

    And we must accept that as factual immemorial without any presentation of proof. And ,of course, no challenge of being unscientific is to be acknowledged regardless of so soundly founded.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Just Some Kid

      |

      The first time was novel; the second time lacked originality. Think of something new.

      Oh, and if you read your last sentence over again, you’d catch that you said, in other words: “No matter how logically a claim is made to the inauthenticity of the science, we must ignore it.” Or in words more attune to your working vocabulary: “I’m so right that I’m right no matter how wrong I am.”

      Maybe you could pretend to be part of the debate rather than just noise.

      I enjoy poking holes in your vacuous thought processes. Please, speak more. Don’t strain yourself though.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        No strain whatsoever.
        It’s there for everyone to see.
        Let the chips fall where they may.

        Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.