Paris Climate Agreement May Unravel Next Year, India Fears

cartoonThe fact that the US had kept out of the Kyoto Protocol after negotiating till the last moment, as well as the current election rhetoric by the Republican candidate Donald Trump, who has threatened to pull out of the Paris agreement, have impacted the negotiations between key developing countries and the US. “President Obama is pushing hard to get the Paris agreement going as his legacy. But he can only join the agreement. He can’t ratify it. What if developing countries ratify it, helping the Paris agreement come into force by 2016-end, but the next US President walks out of it with a simple executive order? We have to be mindful of the possibilities,” said one of the [Indian]negotiators. –Nitin Sethi, Business Standard, 10 June 2016

China said the U.S. should do more to help developing nations to cope with climate change and bring the Paris deal on greenhouse gases into force, raising an issue that has divided the main presidential contenders. “I believe the U.S. government can do better,” in particular by transferring advanced technologies to help developing countries and providing funds to improve their capabilities in tackling climate change and extreme weathers, Xie Zhenhua, China’s special representative on climate change, said in a briefing on Monday. —Bloomberg, 6 June 2016

Donald Trump is sowing doubt over the Paris climate change pact as his hostility towards the deal and the growing swagger of his campaign focus attention on how he could undermine it as president. The Republican candidate last week vowed to “cancel” the painstakingly negotiated agreement, a threat experts said was unrealistic. But his comments put a spotlight on its slow ratification and weak spots in President Barack Obama’s climate legacy. If Mr Trump used the presidency to cast doubt on the need for climate action, he could weaken the resolve of other leaders sceptical about the deal. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, the agreement may not start until 2018. –Barney Jopson and Pilita Clark, Financial Times, 29 May 2016

The Brussels bureaucracy made its first step towards ratifying the Paris climate agreement on Friday. In a nudge to national governments, the European Commission published a draft motion for the Council of leaders to consider. No timeline has been agreed, however. Lawyers are still debating whether the EU can ratify before each member state has its laws in place. Bulgaria, Czechia and Croatia are among those unwilling to formally endorse the deal before the bloc’s 2030 carbon target has been divided up. That process kicks off next month and is due to be finalised in late 2017. –Megan Darby, Climate Home, 10 June 2016

There are many who will not like this recent paper published in Nature Communications on principle as it talks of the hiatus in global temperatures for the past 20 years or so, that the Little Ice Age was global in extent, and that climate models cannot account for the observations we already have let alone make adequate predictions about what will happen in the future. It also makes what has happened in the past 50 years seem a little less unusual. The team found that northern hemisphere warming and droughts between the years 950 and 1250 corresponded to an El Niño-like state in the Pacific, which switched to a La Niña-like pattern during a cold period between 1350 and 1900. They found periods of predominantly El Niño-like patterns for several hundred years that alternate with La Niña patterns, impacting on global climate over the last 2000 years. Climate models cannot reproduce this. –David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 10 June 2016

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (134)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Trump and the American people are not going to be duped by ecovangilists con men .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    DMA

    |

    If there is a Trump presidency, a reasonable and productive approach to the Paris deal would be to declare it a treaty in need of senate approval and allow the Senate to hold hearings on the costs and benefits for the American people.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Unfortunately the Republicans have nominated the [i]only[/i] candidate who cannot defeat Hillary. Get ready to bend over and grab your ankles as Hillary gives away our freedom, sovereignty, and wealth…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The unholy alliance between ecovangilists and trade unions is ending and with it trade unions support ,other than government ones that see no problem in selling out their members to people that are openly attacking other trade unions .
    Trade unions have a fiduciary duty to protect their members interests so cozying up to and supporting people who openly claim they are going to wipe out your members jobs is incredibly foolish and a clear breach of the duty to the membership . Members dues being spent on a party that openly claims to target
    membership jobs is the equivalent of support given to scabs .
    The unions are wide open to getting their ass sued and rightfully so . Beyond that what the F are they thinking . Kiss up with a hedge fund billionaire that wants to pull the strings ??
    Last months scathing letter from Terry O’Sullivan Laborers International Union to
    Richard Trumka President of AFL-CIO is a damming confirmation of the current status where some union executive have clearly forgotten who’s interests they are supposed to be looking after .

    The Democrats have been hijacked by
    ecovangilist hypocrites determined to undermine the economic foundation of the USA . Hillary’s pledge to “stop fossil fuels ” fire coal workers and shut down an industry which employees 100’s of thousands of people with direct and indirect jobs .

    And the AFL-CIO response .. donate to a Super Pac with a hedge fund ecovangilists
    convert running the show ?

    The thing is why did it take this long before other unions put on the hurt feelings show ? Members starting to say what the F are you doing ? This is no new development for the unions who’s members are about to get trashed . So why now ? CYA or do something about it ?
    Which one ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Santhosh

    |

    Threatened to drag out of the Paris agreement, have impacted the negotiations between key developing nations and america. President Obama is pushing difficult to get the Paris settlement going as his legacy. but he can handiest be part of the settlement. He can’t ratify it. What if growing nations ratify it, helping the Paris settlement come into force. My name is Santhosh I’m working in [url=http://www.platooh.com/out-of-home-advertising-in-delhi.php]Out of home advertising in Delhi[/url] My opinion is Trump is sowing doubt over the Paris climate change p.c. as his hostility toward the deal and the growing swagger of his marketing campaign consciousness interest on how he ought to undermine it as president. .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Trade unions had visions of where the $$Billions of tax payer charity to “renewable companies was going to land. Now these massive flame outs are winding down at an alarming rate the penny has finally dropped .
    Not only is that promise of what are green temporary jobs disappearing fast with each bankruptcy there is now an announced targeted attack by the Democrats on 100’s of thousands of union jobs .
    So as Mr.O’ Sullivan of the LIUNA states in his letter to AFL-CIO President Trumka
    “we’re not about to hold hands , sing Kumbaya ,and support positions that threaten the jobs , livelihoods, and economic health of our dues paying members , or of our brothers and sisters in the AFL-CIO “.

    Why so long to wake up ? The unions were duped and their members have every right to question why their Executive and dues are supporting a party that campaigns to eliminate union member jobs .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”Amber”]The unholy alliance between ecovangilists and trade unions is ending and with it trade unions support ,other than government ones that see no problem in selling out their members to people that are openly attacking other trade unions .
    [/quote]

    Amber, I wish you were right but even given a good reason to shift alliances, there is the issue of culture and momentum. Both change slowly.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Agreed David . A country as significant in world affairs as the USA that has essentially a credit card with no limit is creating false market and social messages that will eventually be game changers even before a financial collapse . The USA is becoming more divided in part because there is to date almost no consequence for unlimited accumulation of non repayable debt .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Now that climate modellers have forecast climate Armageddon consistently wrong perhaps they could take their talents and model what the USA economy would look like if governments could not run deficits .
    Saving hedge funds ,banks ,car companies and grant sponge renewable companies would be off the table . It will be no fun being a politician .

    So what will be the break point ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level. This rules out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.

    Emergent structures analysis http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com demonstrates that climate change since before 1900 can be explained (97% match with measurements) by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.

    If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 2020 an as yet unidentified factor is preventing it.

    At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
    40,000 Exhaled breath
    20,000 OK in submarines
    8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
    5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
    5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
    1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
    1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
    1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
    404 Current atmospheric level
    275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
    190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
    150 All plants and animals die below this level.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dan, Thank you for this summary list . It puts things in perspective .
    If more people were aware of it they would realize what a complete fraud the carbon dioxide scam really is . No wonder they had to rebrand to climate change .
    We are being told to believe warming is
    bad when it is obvious it is beneficial .
    If everyone agrees climate changes (as it always has ) then we are far better off in the long term warming trend .
    So what exactly are we supposed to be all scared about ? A healthier planet ?
    How did the oh so scary global warming
    lie ever get this far ?

    Green ecovangilists closet dream is the extermination of people and capitalism .
    They want to cut back CO2 to achieve their goal . Get it down to under 150PPm and they get their wish … of course they will have bitten the dust by then too . No one said they were pulling their wagon straight .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Completely wrong Dan. This is one of those climate myths which unfortunately is still making the rounds. Thankfully, there are people out there reporting the scientific evidence published in reputable scientific journals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco.
    Amber, try reading a few peer-reviewed scientific paper published in reputable journals on climate change once in a while. You might then not use the dumb argument “they changed it from global warming to climate change” when both terms have been used in the scientific literature for decades.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Rich – If you weren’t completely blinded by ideology you might have checked any and all of the numbers. If you had you would have found that they are correct.

    As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

    Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each other’s papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ Richard

    I’d suggest taking a course in logic and fundamental reasoning if I thought it would do any good. Btw, have you ever heard of the scientific method ? And the verbal morphology boogey-man ” climate change ” is for real. It’s just your incapability of recognizing it.

    Since you like shooting off your ignorant big mouth so much, how about coming up with scientific proof of the mythical ” greenhouse effect ” that the entirety of your arrogant ravings rests on ?

    And don’t give us your cheap appeals to authority,
    YOU SHOW THE PROOF !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Right Richard…. and that is why the words global warming (as a scary concept ) have been dropped in favor of the more benign and irrefutable jello jargon of climate change .
    The world was warming long before the Model T and will likely continue to do so with or without some contribution from humans .
    The earth doesn’t have a fever although it is a lot better off for all living things than the next ice age will be .

    Calling it climate change is a cowards way out for preachy global warming promoters who have been caught lying to
    the public and needed safe words they could never be held accountable for.

    Do people like you seriously think humans are going to adjust the worlds temperature to some prescribed way by adjusting the fraction of 1 % of atmosphere consisting of CO2 ?

    Climate changes , yes we have something do with it and it is warming thankfully .

    The scary global warming industry is about money Richard . Take that out and watch how fast this scam disappears just like the “scientifically “based global cooling scare of the 1970’s or was that called climate change too ?

    or to use the weasel words climate change to

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Amber: No. The two terms mean different things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q1lOr7dbJA. “by adjusting the fraction of 1 % of atmosphere consisting of CO2 ?” Yes and so does every scientific institution in the world. Are you suggesting that the amount of a substance is directly related to the effect it has? Please don’t say yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ. “Global cooling scare of the 70s”, no the majority of scientific papers concluded global warming was the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    JayPee: The scientific method made easy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14. There is no such thing as “proof” in science as proof is a mathematical term. There is however plenty of evidence. it was Joseph Fourier who back in 1824 realised that when you take into account the size of the earth, the sun and the distance between them. if the planet was only kept warm by the sun, it would be far colder than at present (that figure is now known to be -33C colder than present) and that there must be some sort of mechanism going on which is keeping some of the suns heat in the earths atmosphere. Scientists such as John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius studied the warming effect of CO2 but it was really confirmed by the US Airforce and their development of heat seeking missiles.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: During the Ordovician, a slight decrease in solar irradiance and a huge decrease in CO2 concentrations are the accepted reasons among paleoclimatlogists that that era experienced an ice age. That it what the scientific literature states. I can offer you a lecture from a paleoclimate expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg. And yet Richard Horton does seem to accept global warming as a problem and the need to reduce CO2 emissions: http://www.voanews.com/content/globalwarming-publichealth03dec2009-78411457/416154.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    If an illustration of the creation vs. evolution question is your definition of the scientific method, you’ve got a lot to learn.

    More farcically, Richard, is the claim that CO2 GHE accounts for 33° C. of earth’s mean temperature !

    Have you ever heard of geothermal energy that is not present on the moon ?

    Have you ever heard of tidal tectonic plate movement, also not on the moon ?

    Have you ever heard that the earth is a dynamo ( a spinning magnet ) that produces an enormous amount of electricity ( not on the moon either ) ?

    Have you ever heard of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy ?

    And in the face of that, you and the idiots you listen to and read say that 33° C. comes from the mere presence of 0.04 % CO2 ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Rich – You must have missed the part that it WARMED UP AGAIN. There is no rational way by which the global CO2 level could quickly drop to less than 10% of its extant value and then zoom back up again.

    Papers that assert such are evidence of science incompetence or possibly malpractice. Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each other’s papers to elicit government grants.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    “Global cooling scare of the 70s”, no the majority of scientific papers concluded global warming was the problem?”

    Before or after the data was fiddled with?

    “This abuse of science is atrocious, but it gets worse. The NASA data had already been highly corrupted in 1999. In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) showed 0.4C cooling from 1940 to 1970, and no net warming from 1870 to 1970.”
    https://www.newspapers.com/image/43605894/?terms=global%2Bcooling%2Bburning%2Bfossil%2Bfuels
    [img]http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-06-10070042-1.png[/img]

    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/06/the-100-fraudulent-hockey-stick/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] “by adjusting the fraction of 1 % of atmosphere consisting of CO2 ?” Yes and so does every scientific institution in the world.[/quote] Nice appeal to authority there. Why is it that none of these “Scientific Institutions” has never actually published a poll of it’s membership?

    While we are on the subject of appeals to authority. The UN Took a Poll.
    Concern for Global warming came in dead last.
    http://data.myworld2015.org/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Global warming is being sold as something to fear and that humans must repent for we are causing the earth to have a fever . Complete overblown nonsense . The world has cooled and warmed on it’s own and will continue to do so despite the inflated fear claims of those that want to sell something or delude themselves that if we all drive electric cars and charge a carbon tax we are going to set the worlds temperature at a level that some committee might like . Who would be on the committee ?

    Climate changes …who wouldn’t agree with that …the world is coming out of the current ice age not much argument there either . Can humans ,plants trees and all other animals (except the scary global warming mascot Polar Bears ) adapt ?
    Maybe/ maybe not just like every other change the earth has been through .

    It is either warming or cooling with or without us . Those that think they get do dictate the rate of cooling or warming are
    reality deniers .

    The warming trend is overall beneficial so why not solve some real environmental and social issues ? The truth is scary global warming pays well and just like Halloween people like to scare themselves even when they know it is fake .

    The politicians..well they just can’t pass up the pot of gold . Who cares if it’s true or not .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    JayPee: “CO2 GHE accounts for 33° C. of earth’s mean temperature” No, the whole greenhouse effect including water vapour, methane and a few other other gases. Although, water vapour acts as an amplifier rather than a prime driver of climate. Without CO2, nearly all of the water vapour would condense and leave the atmosphere as rain or snow. As I said to Amber, substances don’t have to be in huge amounts to have huge effects.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: “There is no rational way by which the global CO2 level could quickly drop to less than 10% of its extant value and then zoom back up again” Are you not aware of midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs? How to you think the earth warmed up from its snowball/slushball conditions and why do you think the planet was far warmer during the time of the dinosaurs say, when solar irradiance was far lower than today?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    JayPee: “If an illustration of the creation vs. evolution question” That’s not a question that needs answering. We evolved from apes or more precisely, we are evolved apes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Amber: “the world is coming out of the current ice age” Wrong again, For that to be correct, the causes of an ice age would have had to go into reverse so to speak. Once in an ice age, a change in Milankovitch factors alters not only the amount of solar irradiance but always what area of the planet it warms. This causes an increase in CO2 and methane concentrations which causes warming. This warming then causes the oceans to release more CO2 which cause more warming etc. Its explained far better here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL18_kiDUck. So is this what is causing the current warming? Answer is no. According to Milanvovitch theory, our planet should be getting colder very slowly. Is CO2 coming from the oceans? No again. Currently our oceans are absorbing around a third of our CO2 emissions.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    A new appellation, the same old arrogant lying, the same cheap appeals to irrelevant non-authority.

    If his given name is actually Richard, he must be
    Ryszasz Andrzejewski

    In my case, he brazenly refers to the creation / evolution matter as ” proof ” of a GHE. And the response to his foolish non-proof is then characterized as stupidly bringing up that matter !

    Typically, he blames his opposition for his own lack of intelligence, ethics, and credibility.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Ryszasz, you apparently can’t even fathom that you reference so-called ” authority ” who don’t even address the question at hand.

    You’re a perfect example of the counterproductive result of attempting civil discourse with an arrogant demented know-nothing.

    Mr. Pangburn has been incredibly civil and patient. What good did it do him, only to receive idiotic lying insults from a no-brain.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Rich – Apparently your lack of engineering science skill has made you gullible to mob-think.

    Skeptical Science is so lacking in engineering science skill that they don’t even understand the difference between power and energy. Their blog is rife with nonsense.

    Compelling evidence that the ‘consensus’ has it wrong is demonstrated by the “epic fail” of their predictions as shown at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means

    Over geologic time, there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 level and average global temperature as shown at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    As to ghg, the ‘consensus’ have it completely wrong. Noncondensing ghg have no significant influence on climate. I discovered this more than 8 years ago and it was made public at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html .

    The more recent discovery of what does explain average global temperature change is at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: I’ve seen that graph used by Roy Spencer and John Christy before. Its flaws are explained here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-models-satellites.html.
    “no correlation between CO2 level and average global temperature” Right, you’re talking about the graph which compares temperature and CO2 and shows no correlation. Its a graph used by people who don’t know as much as they think they do. Its explained in this video so try watching it until the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    “The temperature1 has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exhibits a smooth progressive rise: Would you expect temperature to rise in a smooth line when CO2 isn’t the only factor which affects climate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUk0tm47yr8

    “Global average temperature change must be driven by factors other than carbon dioxide level.” No shit, Sherlock!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    JayPee: “Ryszasz Andrzejewski”
    Who?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: Your article mentions the Andean-Saharan ice age. The cause of this, a huge reduction in CO2 concentrations, is explained in the scientific literature and the video I posted. Not removing your claim from the article or explaining that you got it wrong and your guilty of misinforming your audience.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Keep up the cacophony, Ryszasz.
    Nothing that you cite is pertinent nor relevant to the your declarations. You cite incongruity as proof. Your faults at reasoning are quite evident. I don’t expect you’ll understand, but your basic dishonesty is obvious. All anyone has to do is read what you cite.

    BTW

    How’s that repeatable scientific method experiment that demonstrates the mythical greenhouse effect coming along ?

    You keep filling the air with words as if that somehow absolves the fact that you and all the clowns you believe, read and quote can’t come up with even the most basic proof that there even is a
    Greenhouse Effect !!!!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Keep up the cacophony, Ryszasz.
    Nothing that you cite is pertinent nor relevant to the your declarations. You cite incongruity as proof. Your faults at reasoning are quite evident. I don’t expect you’ll understand, but your basic dishonesty is obvious. All anyone has to do is read what you cite.

    BTW

    How’s that repeatable scientific method experiment that demonstrates the mythical greenhouse effect coming along ?

    You keep filling the air with words as if that somehow absolves the fact that you and all the clowns you believe, read and quote can’t come up with even the most basic proof that there even is a
    Greenhouse Effect !!!!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    As in many deceptions, part of it is true. However, it is not hard to imagine how a person lacking engineering science skill could be misled. First, the misleading assertion that CO2 blocks terrestrial radiation. CO2 molecules do not BLOCK radiation. They do significantly absorb radiation but only at one terrestrial wavelength, 15 microns (pressure, etc. broadens this to about 14 to 16 microns at sea level). The absorbed radiation is nearly instantly (about 0.0001 microsecond) conducted to adjacent mostly non-ghg molecules or emitted. The conduction to other molecules is called thermalization. There are about 50 water vapor molecules for each CO2 molecule and each water vapor molecule absorbs terrestrial radiation at hundreds of wavelengths.

    They show a graph at 13:02 with TSI co-plotted with average global temperature anomaly. This is engineering science incompetence. SS makes the same mistake. They apparently don’t know the difference between power (TSI) and energy (temperature of a body with effective thermal capacitance). Their mistake is analogous to plotting your odometer reading on the same graph as your speedometer reading and wondering why they don’t correlate.

    The EPA calculation of global warming potential (GWP) is faulty. The EPA erroneously asserts GWP is a measure of “effects on the Earth’s warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their “radiative efficiency”), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their “lifetime”).” https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html

    The EPA calculation of the global warming potential (GWP) of a ghg erroneously overlooks the fact that any effect the ghg might have on temperature is also integrated over the “lifetime” of the gas in the atmosphere so the duration in the atmosphere cancels out. Therefore GWP, as calculated by the EPA, is not a measure of the relative influence on average global temperature of a ghg on a molecule basis.

    I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature will need to get before you realize that you have been deceived.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Thank you, Mr. Pangburn

    Ryszasz baby

    Are you capable of understanding what has just been said ?

    I want to hear more of your insulting, arrogant,
    stupid-a** commentary.

    I think most of us are laughingly entertained no matter how pathetically.

    Keep going, Ryszasz

    Keep proving your points

    Keep insulting those who you are not even qualified to lick their shoes.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Here is what actual experts in the field of Infra Red or Radiant Heating have to say.
    [quote]Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, (the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible) and gets absorbed or reflected by objects it strikes. Any object with a surface temperature above absolute zero, – 460 ° F ( -273 °C) will emit infrared radiation. The temperature of the object as well as its physical properties will dictate the radiant efficiency and wavelengths emitted. Infrared radiation can be compared to radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet, microwaves, and x-rays. They are all electromagnetic waves that travel through space at the speed of light. The difference between them is the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. Infrared radiation is measured in microns (mm) and starts at .70 mm and extends to 1000 mm. Although the useful range of wavelengths for infrared heating applications occurs between .70 mm to 10 mm. For more information see our Technical Manual page about the Infrared Part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.[/quote]

    https://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html

    Maybe Richard can link to a SkS miss information page, or a Nitpicker54 youtube where they list all climate forcing’s in order from most to least effective and quantify them?

    Then explain why, anyone should believe in CAGW, after every single model based prediction they have made has utterly failed. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Richard”]Amirlach: Do you not understand the reasons for temperature adjustments? http://www.skepticalscience.com/truth-about-temperature-data.html. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_7q-w06B4%5B/quote%5D Sorry buddy, but sCeptical UNscience is not a credible source. It is operated by an admitted identity thief and internet fraudster.
    [quote]If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.[/quote]

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

    Yes I do “understand”, the “adjustments” only correlate to one real world thing. Rising Co2. Basically they have been caught red handed fudging the data to show a correlation between temperatures and Co2 that does not actually exist.

    This graph, showing almost perfect correlation between USHCN adjustments and NOAA atmospheric CO2 numbers.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1618-aug-03-09-45.gif[/img]
    Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
    Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

    “Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.”
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1603-aug-03-05-53.gif[/img]

    “Adjusting” Data to fit a failed hypothesis is a fraud.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Amirlach: Would you not agree that altering the data to account for the effect of orbital decay on satellites for example is valid or do you have no idea what I’m talking about?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: “wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature will need to get” Considering the 70s were warmer than the 60s, 80s warmer than 70s, 90’s warmer than 80’s, 00’s warmer than 90’s and the last decade warmer than that I have no idea why you think average global temperatures are not rising. Also: http://mashable.com/2016/06/13/may-warmest-month-global-warming/#yNCnU6_5q8qB

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Rich – It is because I discovered why the trend was rising 1909-1941, falling 1941-1973 and rising again 1973-2005 (this is all fairly obvious in http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com). I expect the trend to be down 2005-2037. How much down depends on future sunspot numbers which no one appears to be confident of.

    If you understood transient heat transfer analysis and the meaning of effective thermal capacitance you might understand why the content at your link is nothing but hype in the context of true average global temperature.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Ryszasz baby

    Do you read the stuff you cite ?
    It says the opposite of what you contend !

    I invite all readers to look up Ricky’s cites and come to your own conclusions.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Considering the 70s were warmer than the 60s, 80s warmer than 70s, 90’s warmer than 80’s, 00’s warmer than 90’s and the last decade warmer than that I have no idea why you think average global temperatures are not rising.[/quote]

    What we are currently in is called “The Adjustocene”
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/adjustocene_scr.jpg?w=720[/img]

    “Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.”
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_627-jun-22-21-18.gif[/img]
    “NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

    Whither U.S. Climate?
    By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

    Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

    In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    “NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

    February 04, 1989

    Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/04/us/global-warmth-in-88-is-found-to-set-a-record.html

    “Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.”

    https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

    “But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.”
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/high-low-temps-figure1-2014.png[/img]
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Richard”]Amirlach: Would you not agree that altering the data to account for the effect of orbital decay on satellites for example is valid or do you have no idea what I’m talking about?[/quote] No idea? what your talking about? I have yet to see any evidence you know what your talking about Dick.

    http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/hottest-year-ever-2/

    The “adjustments” might be “valid” in the example of orbital decay, but only if the “adjustments” are well documented and presented in an open way so they can be checked by others.

    Simply fudging the data to fit failed rising Co2 based model predictions, is not.

    [quote]Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one this summer trying to adjust the past down, so the present would be warmer. The sleight of hand on this was so obvious that even warm-oriented scientists such as Michael Mann and Ben Santer co-authored a rebuttal paper that said Karl was dead wrong and the pause was real. There is now a congressional investigation into Mr. Karl’s apparently political actions disguised as science.

    Now we have a new player in the “Karlization” process – Carl Mears, who is the chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) in Santa Rosa, CA. This is a private business that just happens to make a satellite based climate data set that is similar to the UAH satellite data set produced by Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, the RSS data set showed very little warming, and on the RSS web page they were so bold to say:[/quote]

    The Troposphere has not warmed as fast as most Models Predicted?
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/rss-model-gap.png[/img]

    If the “Pause” is real, then claims of Warmest Year Evah! Might be wrong eh? 😀

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

    [quote]We have a new hockey stick of data tampering!

    Apparently Carl Mears didn’t like the fact that evil deniers like Ted Cruz were using his data to debunk the climate scam, so he changed the data to make the hiatus disappear. All adjustments require that the past get cooler and the present gets warmer. Because, SCIENCE.
    [/quote]

    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/erasing-the-satellite-hiatus/

    Ahh… Gotta Love the “Adjustocene”… 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    It is an interesting idea, that is showing more promise than the dozens of failed, billion dollar super computer models.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard Lock

    |

    Amirlach: Unlike John Christy and Roy Spencer who started off with a cooling trend, then no trend and now a warming trend. Seven adjustments have been made to their dataset so far for different reasons. As many different teams from all over the world handle the data in different ways and use different models, you would not expect them to match. The important thing is to look at all the data, satellite, land based weather stations, sea temperatures, arctic ice, data on water vapour etc.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard Lock

    |

    Dan: A couple of questions you have yet to answer: How to you think the earth warmed up from its snowball/slushball conditions and why do you think the planet was far warmer during the time of the dinosaurs say, when solar irradiance was far lower than today?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Richard Lock”]Dan: A couple of questions you have yet to answer: How to you think the earth warmed up from its snowball/slushball conditions and why do you think the planet was far warmer during the time of the dinosaurs say, when solar irradiance was far lower than today?[/quote]
    —————————

    I see you are grasping at straws now, but the shortest straw has been pulled for you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”Richard Lock”]Dan: A couple of questions you have yet to answer: How to you think the earth warmed up from its snowball/slushball conditions and why do you think the planet was far warmer during the time of the dinosaurs say, when solar irradiance was far lower than today?[/quote]

    NO, no, no, Ricki baby

    You want to talk about the slushball and dinosaurs ?

    Then you explain the warming when your presumed low solar energy pattern was happening.

    YOU should make the ridiculous claim that CO2 caused it by itself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Richard Lock”]Amirlach: Unlike John Christy and Roy Spencer who started off with a cooling trend, then no trend and now a warming trend. Seven adjustments have been made to their dataset so far for different reasons. As many different teams from all over the world handle the data in different ways and use different models, you would not expect them to match. The important thing is to look at all the data, satellite, land based weather stations, sea temperatures, arctic ice, data on water vapour etc.[/quote]
    I have looked at a lot of the data and the way it has been “handled”. :zzz Comparing John and Christy to the CAGW fraudsters in some kind of Moral Equivalence argument is about as credible as any failed appeal to authority or Straw Man argument.

    Models? 😀 None of the IPCC Models work.

    Water Vapor? See the Missing Hot Spot? Another failed model prediction.

    The sad fact is, alarmists have been caught fudging the data to fit invalid and failed model predictions, too many times to count.

    The failed predictions of Doom, Doom, DHOOM. Are why the general public is tuning it out. Nobody cares anymore.

    Poll after poll shows concern for man made global warming is waning…

    Time for silly alarmists to get a real job.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    This is another assumed ID of the same old multiply proven liar and phony.

    He now IDs as Richard Lock.

    I would suggest his next ID to be ARSE LOCK.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Dan: You’re article “Cause of Global Climate Change” states “findings have been further corroborated by the cloud nucleation experiments [16] at CERN.” Except the people at CERN have stated that it it important not to use their work to make any link between cosmic rays, clouds and global warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4 & http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001/fulltext/ & http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=277.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Check every cite. He cannot back up what he says. Keeps asking idiotic questions trying to shift the burden of proof.

    Ryszasz will never understand why he’s a phony.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So [b]we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest[/b].”[/i]
    – Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Read your own comments and cites if are capable of cognition

    Ryszasz

    You are a LIAR and a PHONY

    I, once again ask all to review this idiots comment and cite and come to your own conclusion.

    I say he is a LIAR and a PHONY.

    Anyone else who disagrees with my evaluation, please say so.

    I will take your disagreement w/o comment.

    I will not allow Ryszasz Andrejeweski to lie w/o penalty.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Yea… “cherry picked”.

    [i]”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”[/i]

    Please explain how being dishonest and offering up scary scenarios without admitting doubts is somehow scientific.

    I am waiting with bated breath.

    PS – I don’t read sci-fi.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Gator: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change” This quote is from 1989, before most governments were taking the problem of a warming planet seriously. He realised that making dramatic statements and talking about the worst possible effects of climate change (one small island being submerged by rising sea levels or one farm losing its crops due to a drought is scary if you happen to own the farm) might be necessary in order to get people to take the problem seriously. Have you read any peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change at all?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Richard, I was a climatology student shortly after the ice age scare ended, in the 1980’s. I have follwed the science ever since and know CAGW is a pile of garbage, computer generated BS. I also know that promoters of CAGW lie, exaggerate, and alter data to fit their agenda.

    Back to Schneider’s admission that it is ok to lie, exaggerate, and not admit any doubts about the “science”. Just exactly how do his tactics fit the Scientific Method?

    All you guys have are failed models, picked cherries, and fake numbers.

    You trolls come to skeptic sites waving your hands and trying your Jedi Mind Tricks, and it isn’t working. Find a new hobby.

    Nothing we are seeing is unprecedented. All of it can be explained by natural variability. Period.

    Oh, and let’s not forget to talk moral high ground. The money your “cause” is sucking out of society is more than enough to save 21,000 people each and [i]every[/i] day.

    Why worry about the [i]possibility[/i] of a farmer having to [i]move[/i], rather than [i]save[/i] those 21,000 we [i]know[/i] are going to perish [i]today[/i]?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    JayPee: “presumed low solar energy pattern was happening.” Over the long term all stars get brighter over time, including our sun, so obviously in the distant past, solar output was weaker than today. If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be getting involved in discussions about climate change.

    “The mechanism that has been slowly making it brighter for the past eleven billion years” http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~infocom/The%20Website/evolution.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Richard

    |

    Gator “I was a climatology student shortly after the ice age scare ended, in the 1980’s”

    Except the ice age scare only existed in the media. A review of peer-reviewed papers found none predicting an ice-age, some cooling and most of them warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms.

    All you guys have are failed models, picked cherries, and fake numbers”. No, all “my guys” have evidence wrote up in scientific papers published in reputable scientific journals. Here’s some: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco

    As you follow the science, how many scientific papers on the subject have you read recently? I have no idea what CAGW actually is, although I hear it used a lot.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    The ice age scare was as real as CAGW. I lived through it and remember it well. I was in Stuttgart Germany at the height of the frenzy, and no it wasn’t Time Magazine that started it, it was “scientists” like the CAGW grantologists we see today.

    Once again you wave your hands in an attempt to deny history and facts, and once again you fail, because I remember.

    All of your papers are based upon models and fake numbers. Period.

    Reality trumps fantasy, and reality shows that climates change naturally, just as they are doing right now.

    So, how does lying fit the Scientific Methiod?

    And how can you deny life to 21,000 people every day just because of your doomer belief system?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]But what causes the climate to change?[/quote]

    The same thing that has always changed global climates, nature.

    Natural variability has never been disproven, and is therefore the default position.

    Why do you hate [i]people[/i] so much? (Well, excepting liars I guess)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Richard”]Dan: You’re article “Cause of Global Climate Change” states “findings have been further corroborated by the cloud nucleation experiments [16] at CERN.” Except the people at CERN have stated that it it important not to use their work to make any link between cosmic rays, clouds and global warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAx6j625iy4 & http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001/fulltext/ & http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=277.%5B/quote%5D
    Of course they say it important not to use their work to make any link between cosmic rays, clouds and global warming:. They want further funding. If the said otherwise it would get cut.

    And stop posting links to sCeptical UN-science! It is a zero credibility propaganda site run by a proven liar and identity thief.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    amirlach, the alarmists have outed themselves as liars many times over the years. Cook is just part of the gang that can’t talk straight, as Schneider admitted when he said he “hoped” they would not need to lie for the Cosa Nostra. And notice how none of his “peers” chastised him for his admission that he would lie if needed, instead they all came to his defense, just like Little Richard.

    Meanwhile, another 21,000 needlessly die again today.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Richard”]Amirlach: Just what is CAGW? It’s easy to discuss the consequences without the use of such misleading terminology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw%5B/quote%5D
    Alarmists coined it. Now that their hypothesis has been invalidated by observations they deny it.

    Your potholer is about as not credible as your wanna be Nazi identity thief.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/

    [quote]All you guys have are failed models, picked cherries, and fake numbers”. No, all “my guys” have evidence wrote up in scientific papers published in reputable scientific journals. [/quote]
    Failed Models? Check!
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    Faked “Data”? Check!
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/just-how-bad-is-the-ushcn-data-tampering/

    Please define a “reputable” scientific Journal? Just one that supports your invalidated CAGW Hypothesis?

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    If all of your “guys”evidence written up in scientific papers published in reputable scientific journals. Fails this simple test. What value does it really have?

    “The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds (Richard Feynman) “

    Every single IPCC Model has failed this test… 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Meanwhile, another 21,000 needlessly die again today.[/quote]

    At least a few climate alarmists have had their conscience kick in.
    “Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change.”

    And regarding the “evidence” for CAGW? We are still waiting to see some. “Studies” based that call failed Models data aint.
    And that Ice Age scare some are now in denial of?

    Climatologist Dr Richard Alan Keen reveals the data and explains how the ‘mainstream climate “MODELER’S” have got it wrong.
    Later, Dr Keen is seen in Rome (April, 2015) straightening out the mislead Pope.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    This past Thursday I was speaking with a client of mine who is a business owner and private pilot, he had just returned from Nashville, and we were discussing his flight and the weather. I mentioned that I had been a climatolgy student years ago, and subsequently discovered he teaches climatology classes at our local University. He went on to tell me that he teaches his classes by challenging the textbook, and showing them that in the ind CAGW is a dead hypothesis. So much for consensus.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”Richard”]”reality shows that climates change naturally” But what causes the climate to change? /quote]

    This statement is conclusive proof aeterna of its speaker’s mental dystrophy.

    I rest my case.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Truth&Justice

    |

    Hey Gator,
    Just out of curiosity, was that pilot friend of yours from Trump U and was his name John Barron?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Instead of saying ” truth and justice ” , why aren’t you saying

    Idiocy and Ignorance ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Truth&Justice

    |

    Ignorance is for people who willfully ignore the mountains of evidence in support of greenhouse gases Idiocy is for people who have no evidence of their own.

    So, as you can see, those names just don’t work for me. You, on the other hand. . . . .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Just out of curiosity, was that pilot friend of yours from Trump U and was his name John Barron?[/quote]

    No, unlike CAGW, my client is for real. Your “mountains of evidence” is nothing more than failed computer models, cherry picked ranges, and fake numbers.

    Please do me two favors.

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

    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 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 natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      Hmmmmm…. so Drewski still cannot produce any peer reviewed papers refuting natural variabilty, and continues asking for a private client’s info. Sadz.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Truth&Justice

    |

    Hmmm. So you have no real name and no real University.

    Why am I not surprised?

    And, BTW, the mountain does exist and you can find it at your fingertips via Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopes, etc.
    The only trick is being able to COMPREHEND the information. For that, I suggest someone with credentials in that field — stay away from neck doctors and professional poker players.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      What’s hard to comprehend about failed science? Not a single skillful prediction is to be found in your “Mountain” of “evidence”.

      If it’s not predictive, it’s not scientific. Period.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    So, with all your “mountains of evidence”…

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

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

    And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

    Impressive!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Truth&Justice

    |

    Gator,
    #1 You have been provided multiple studies repeatedly
    #2 You are UNQUALIFIED to interpret their significance so it would be pointless to keep playing your game
    #3 You still have provided no evidence that this University “teacher” actually exists.
    #4 I win again 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    #1- You are a liar.

    #2- Pure projection.

    #3- As if I would violate client privacy for a troll.

    #4- You lose, again.

    In stead of lying to support those who greedily waste resources that would save 21,000 lives each day, you [i]could[/i] take the high road, but that is just not in you.

    So “Truth&Justice” lies and is an accomplice to genocide. So much for truth and justice.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    scepticsrcowards

    |

    As my last comment was scrubbed (fancy that), I will have to resubmit (and apparently all in caps for some unknown reason?).
    #1 Gator has again FALSELY ACCUSED me of not submitting evidence regarding co2 properties and effects as well as other evidence of climate change in general. Never mind the fact that i did this repeatedly and in batches and even after i told him that i would not do it again, i did it again (but no more). Plus, anyone can find it for themselves in a 10-second google search.
    # 2 the sad fact is that gator is unqualified to decide what is relevant and what is not. he places himself above the combined intelligence and experience of every earth, space and atmospheric scientific organization on this planet. to gator, they are al wrong and he is right even though they are qualified in dozens of different fields directly linked or TANGENTIAL to climate and he is not. but to hear gator talk, these THOUSANDS academics and researchers of are all part of a grand scheme to delude the public through a convoluted CONSPIRACY in order to get the riches of grant money (LOL) even though these ordinary hard-working people get their funding from different sources, must interrelate their work, live under DIFFERENT forms of government and speak different languages making such a conspiracy a ludicrous fantasy.
    #3 gator tells us a story about a mysterious pilot/teacher who works at a university and educates students about the hoax of cagw but because of “client PRIVILEGES” he is bound to respect his “privacy” and can not tell us the name of this phantom and where he works. That is the very definition of absurd – why would a teacher want to cloak himself if he speaks truth in a public forum PARTICULARLY as we do not know who gator actually is THEREFORE removing any link to himself?
    # 4 I have to change my identity regularly in order to get through the ccd firewall as i am REGULARLY banned even though i suffer more insults than i inflict and that other realists suffer from the hands of the vulgar sceptics. it is clear that sceptics are cowards who would rather ban an OPPONENT who stands their ground than to listen to the truth of their referenced arguments.
    # 4 speaking of references, I wonder when jaypee will provide any for his no greenhouse gas theory (giggle, giggle)?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      As usual, Drewski refuses to discuss the science, and lies. Drewski hAS NEVER DIPSPROVEN NATURAL VARIABILTY, BECause he cannot. Period

      Who I am does not matter, only the science matters, and he haSve no idea what my qualifications are. I think we can all by now be sure that climate science is over HIS head, and that is why HE believeS I AM ALONE IN MY OPINIONS, AND THAT OTHER REAL SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE WITH ME. How odd and UTTERLY ridiculous. BUT THEN THIS IS dREWSKI’S CIRCLE OF bs TO OBFUSCATE THE FACT THAT HE AND HIS HANDFUL OF CRAPPY SCIENTISTS CANNOT DISPROVE nv AND IT MAKES HIS BUTT HURT.

      Once AGAIN, I would never give the name of one of my clients to a lowlife like dREWSKI. mY CLIENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT dREWSKI CANNOT DISPROVE nv. THIS IS JUST dREWSKI’S WAY OF AVOIDING THE FACT THAT HE AND HIS cagw PRIESTS CANNOT DISPROVE nv, HIS BUTT REALLY HURTS.

      Now let’s discuss how Drewski completely blew off 21,000 people who died yesterday, will die today and again tomorrow, because his priests have declared that all monies should flow to them because their story of doom is more important than millions of innocent human lives.

      One thing all alarmists have in common is their utter disregard for the lives they help to snuff out.

      Disgusting and foul to the core.

      Now that we have resolved personality and ethical interests, let’s start again at the top.

      Climate Science 101:

      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.

      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 natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        scepticsrcowards

        |

        “Who I am does not matter, only the science matters” says the guy who actually doesn’t matter yet thinks he knows more than every relevant science organization on the planet. LOL

        Btw, anyone else notice that we have now set 13 straight months of all-time monthly records (holy statistical improbability Batman!) as well as day after day of low arctic ice?

        I wonder what the scientists say are causing that?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          scepticsrcowards

          |

          “Once AGAIN, I would never give the name of one of my clients to a lowlife” is code for i made him up to sound more important and knowledgeable than I really am. The fact is We don’t know who you are and what you do and therefore could not know what relationship this “person” has with you or how could you be BETRAYING any confidence?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            gator

            |

            Once again, butt-hurt Drewski cannot disprove NV, and goes off on unrelated tangents.

            Also note once again that Butt-hurt drewski cares not one whiff for the 21,000 innocent humans snuffed out by his priests, with his help.

          • Avatar

            gator

            |

            And just for fun. Exactly how would mentioning my client make me seem more knowledgeable and/or important? This is the kind of delusional dribble we get from Drewski, and partly why he keeps getting banned. Drewski lies and insults, gets spanked and banned, and then comes back for more under another name. He is a homophobic serial lying troll, and I have copies of our past exchanges to prove it.

            “# Drewski 2015-03-01 09:35
            Well Gay Gay Gator,
            # Drewski 2015-03-01 15:33
            Well Gay Gay Gay Gay Gator,
            # Gator 2015-03-01 15:50
            And how egalitarian of you to use homosexuality as an insult. Big man! 😀

            # amirlach 2015-03-01 17:08
            Yeah, for such a committed leftard-ski he sure uses some Politically Incorrect and derogatory terms. Downright OFFENSIVE really.

            Imagine if a Conservative talked like that?”

            And of course the classic…

            “# Me 2015-06-13 08:39
            The Douche gave you a link way back, I tried to get you to look at it, it was a BS link that you had to pay to see. Suddenly you have tp pay to see the science your taxes paid for. That was what I was trying to tell you what these pricks are doing, and Douche whip was being the the whipping boy he is. They better hope the system doesn’t collapse, it’s on their heads. It’s been going down this road for way more than 25 years.
            # Gator 2015-06-13 09:15
            He has tried that before, and the papers never disprove NV, noone ever has. This is what makes him such a liar.

            I actually preferred it when he used to provide papers, because then I could point out exactly why they do not disprove NV, and why he is such an idiot.

            Of course it all boils down to this. Everything we are seeing is well within natural boundaries, and noone can list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.
            # Drewskii 2015-06-14 14:02
            Gay Gay Gator: “I actually preferred it when he used to provide papers, because then I could point out exactly why they do not disprove NV, and why he is such an idiot.”

            So NOW you say I did provide papers. Hmm. Does that make you a liar now or were you lying before?

            It is so hard to tell on this website what is an “honest” lie or simply an incompetent lie when your daily sustenance are articles written by such incompetent hacks.

            In any case, it is a certainty that Gator wouldn’t recognize what evidence is even when he is gagging on it.

            # Gator 2015-06-14 14:09
            Just like the idiot you are, you said you “provided papers” and that could make me a liar, as if that were my only request. Here is the entire request…

            Quote:
            Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
            So once again Cool Whip, all you have done here is prove that you are lying little worm.

            And BTW, keep up the gay slurs, it makes you so much more scientific.

            Congratulations! :lol:”

            And again, zero remorse for the 21,000 innocent humans denied a chance at life by Drewski and his priests.

            Sick bastard.

          • Avatar

            gator

            |

            And I should mention again, that is 21,000 innocent humans per day, every day. Even warmist Bjorn Lomborg agrees with me, this genocide must end.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

            Butt-hurt Drewski dismisses these people, leaving them to die, and for a fake crisis. Melting ice and rising temperatutres are as natural as a sunrise, and nothing to be alarmed about during an interglacial. Everything we are seeing can be explained by natural variability, and Drewski cannot prove otherwise, so ecpect more obfuscation in 3,2,1…

  • Avatar

    GatoR

    |

    I will see your 3.7 million, and show you millions who are saved by coal, unlike the wasteful cagw teligion that only kills, at twice that rate.

    So again, Drewski advocates for snuffing out 21,000 people a day for his religion.

    Still no refutation of NV.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    As predicted, DRewski waved his hands, stating he provided “papers”. And once sgain this was not what i asked for, I asked for papers refuting NV, which he as never done. Only an idiot would think that simply supplying any old paper woulld satisfy a very specific request. So is Drewski an idiot or a liar? You decide.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      Actually killer, it comes down to your inability to…

      #1- list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, or quantify them.

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

      And lastly (pay close attention here killer) you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

      Nothing nutty about that. What’s nutty is believing otherwise.

      What is stupid is having to rely on others for your opinions. So sad that Drewski cannot think for himself, and does not know how to read scientific papers, as he has demonstrated for years now.

      Sheep follow herds.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Hey Drewski! Why dont you give me your mother’s name and address? Or any family member will do, if mom is unreachable. Even betTer, give their employer’s information. Unlike the situation with me and my client, there are no FEDERAL laws PROHIBITING the sharing of that info.

    Then please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of any global climate changes.

    And lastly, admit that you are willing to sacrifice nearly one thousand humans per hour for your doomer religion.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      Drewski, how is my client pertinent to your inability to…

      #1- list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, or quantify them.

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

      And lastly (pay close attention here killer) you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        gator

        |

        Idiot, I cannot divulge that this man is a client of mine, that would be violating at least one federal crime directly realted to my job.

        Do I need to explain it better? Are you that stupid? My credibility is not at stake here, as I am not staking it upon the name of a client. I have no issue with you disbelieving me regarding this client, it does not even begin to enter into a scientific discussion (but then niether do you).

        OTOH, you have claimed for years now that you can…

        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.

        And yet you never have. This is our discussion, the science, not the personalities,

        Capiche dumbo?

        Reply

      • Avatar

        s

        |

        Gator continues to say that he can’t release the name of a person who works in a public UNIVERSITY because it would be a crime because he is a client of Gator. Except we don’t know who you are and what you do.

        Duh.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        gator

        |

        And hopefully you lunatics never find out who I am, but I know for a fact that I have been cyber stalked in the past by doomers. I also know that I can be identified by someone with hacking abilities. So dumbass, why would I risk my job, along with a federal charge for a lying genocidal troll?

        How stupid are you?

        (Nice try drewski)

        Reply

      • Avatar

        gator

        |

        Oh, one other thing S-Head.

        of all the things you could criticize, like Drewski never producing papers he claims he has (he and noone elese,) or how Drewski continues to push this nonsense even when he knows it diverts money away from 21,000 people who needlessly die each and every day, or even his homophobic abuses, you choose a federal client privacy issue that I have???

        Nice try drewski! LOL

        Reply

      • Avatar

        gator

        |

        Stupid and deceptive, the real Drewski.

        You couldn’t come up with a better name than “S” (short for stupid)? LOL

        Reply

  • Avatar

    gator

    |

    drewski, you are the biased killer. You base your opinions on people, and not science. Plus you lie constantly.

    let’s try again.

    Climate Science 101:

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

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)

    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 natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    gator

    |

    Until you disprove NV, you cannot legitimately that claim man is a driver, and you certainly cannot claim man is a “major” driver of climate. But then facts have never blocked Drewski from following and swallowing the tripe his priests feed him.

    Paper I requested please!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    gator

    |

    The known properties of CO2 say the atmosphere has reached near saturation of the warming ability, and that everything is just fine.

    Every Baptist church says Jesus is Lord. Who are you to argue.

    You are part of a cult, a cult that is losing membership with each passing year. Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

    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.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      Great!

      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.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    And yet ANOTHER “new” login name from Duhh-Rooski the Banned Troll-ski?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      I’m waiting for S and Drewski to have a deep soul kiss right about now.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      scepticsrcowards

      |

      I am waiting for sCeptics to man up and stopping banning their more-enlightened and more-cited commenters.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        gator

        |

        Why don’t you man up and produce that paper I have repeatedly requested from you for years now? You know, thye one you claim to possess.

        Man up.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          You provide models. Models that are not able to predict and hindcast, meaning they are crap. Anyone is qualified to recognize crap, excepting maybe you.

          So once again…

          Climate Science 101:
          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)
          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 natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          (yawn)

          Here we go again, speaking of circles.

          Climate Science 101:

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

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)

          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 natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          For any God’s sake, the paper I requested.

          Man up.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          I actually do not mind being wrong, as it is the truth I am after, and correcting to the truth is my goal.

          I do tire of you avoiding my request, and your lies.

          Let’s try again.
          Climate Science 101:
          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)
          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 natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          The paper I requested, liar. No more BS.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          Man up.

          Your childish obfuscations have been duly noted.

          Let’s try again.:

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

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. (Which you have never done, but that does not stop you from continuously lying by saying that you have)

          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 natural climate change genocidal deniers like yourself.

          Reply

  • Avatar

    gator

    |

    And we are still waiting for more-enlightened troll to come along, as well as that paper I have repeatedly requested from you for many years now.

    Let us know if you run across either.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      gator

      |

      The paper? Which one? Which model do you suggest? Or did you simply not read your own BS link? you have failed miserably to comprehend what I have been saying, again and again and again. That kind of ignorance takes real effort.Self imposed ignorance.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    gator

    |

    From Richard’s BS link…

    “A number of studies using a variety of different statistical and physical approaches have, like Meehl 2004, estimated the human and natural contributions to global warming.:

    Now, plase explain how they can estimate that which they cannot measure. Or did you not realize that noone can…

    #1 -List all climate forcings, and…

    #2- order them from most to least effective, and…

    #3 -quantify them

    This is how skeptics know alarmists are liars. Alarmists claim to be able to model the Earth’s climate, when clearly they cannot. Their models prove this by failing miserably at recreating the Earth’s climate.

    It never ceases to amaze me how little these trolls know about climate. But then true ignorance comes from refusing to consider both sides of an issue, self imposed intellectual burkas.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    scepticsrcowards

    |

    Gator,
    “Now, plase explain how they can estimate that which they cannot measure. Or did you not realize that noone can…”

    there ia actually an entire science based on uncertainty — it is called probability.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Probability is not certainty. Playing with failed models again killer?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        scepticsrcowards

        |

        Name one thing in this universe that is certain.
        Science has never claimed to be. That is why is to operates on evidence rather than proof.
        Science 101

        Reply

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          I’m certain that you cannot…

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

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

          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 natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            gator

            |

            Ooops! Sorry, that was waaaaay more than one, my bad killer.

        • Avatar

          gator

          |

          It’s a new site, let’s see how this works…

          Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Face it,
    Eternal self-righteous pig ANDREJEWESKI will keep appearing here under multiple identities and do nothing but repeat his multiply refuted
    HORSE  SHIT
    As if, every time he orally defecates another  proven lie,
    You must labor intensively to point out his error and idiocy.
    He has already stupidly stated that proof is not necessary to come to a scientific conclusion,
    Which is saying that the
    SCIENTIFIC METHOD
    Has no standing when discussing the amorphous quasi-religious concept of
    Climate change
    Anthropogenic global warming or
    The mythical Greenhouse effect
    Stupidity is as
    Stupidity is stated.
    Everyone come to their own conclusions.
    I’d suggest that objective scientific reasoning take preference over
    Alarmist religious fervor.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

    Thomas Paine

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.