Planet overheating? Not according to historical records

sunsetThe global average temperature is likely to remain unchanged by the end of the century, contrary to predictions by climate scientists that it could rise by more than 4C, according to a leading statistician.

British winters will be slightly warmer but there will be no change in summer, Terence Mills, Professor of Applied Statistics at Loughborough University, said in a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

He found that the average temperature had fluctuated over the past 160 years, with long periods of cooling after decades of warming. Dr Mills said scientists who argued that global warming was an acute risk to the planet tended to focus on the period from 1975-98, when the temperature rose by about 0.5C.

He used simple statistical methods, normally used to predict economic trends, to forecast future temperatures. He took into account all the fluctuations in the temperature since 1850 and found no evidence to support the increase predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN scientific body.

He found the average winter temperature in central England, which has the world’s longest temperature records going back to 1659, had increased by about 1C over 350 years. Based on that change, he forecast an additional increase of about 0.25C by 2100. He said the average temperature would continue to be “buffeted about by big shocks” caused by natural events, such as the El Nino weather phenomenon.

He said that his analysis, unlike computer models used by the IPCC to forecast climate change, did not include assumptions about the rate of warming caused by rising emissions.

“It’s extremely difficult to isolate a relationship between temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions,” he said.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a think tank founded by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former chancellor, to challenge mainstream climate change theory. The foundation paid Professor Mills £3,000 to write the report, which it said was its standard fee.

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (253)

  • Avatar

    jb

    |

    I’d rather accept the science of a Geologist or Botanist regarding Climate Change over a Statistician. It’s Big Tobacco all over again and this shames the scientific community. Science is for the progress of our species, not the progress of business share-holders.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I assume that jb’s comment states that denying disastrous anthropological climate change is the same as Big Tobacco’s campaign on the ill effects of smoking. Jb, please accept my apology if I interpreted your comment incorrectly.

    Comparing Big Tobacco’s campaign to anthropological climate change is a false analogy. The tobacco companies did not have the facts on their side. It is very clear that 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking. Of the remaining 10%, up to half might be second smoke. Smokers have a higher incident of most other cancers. Smoking is a big factor in cardiac health.

    With climate change, the facts are clearly not on the side of the alarmists. Of the warming blamed on man, 40% occurred between 1910 and 1941 before the significant build up of green house gasses. The IPCC climate models clearly fail even when compared to the ground based data altered by NOAA. Satellite data confirmed by high altitude weather balloon data shows an 18+ pause in warming despite a dramatic increase in the concentration of CO2. In addition, the earth is naturally correcting for being a cold phase. According to ice core samples, the hottest years in the past 100 years are cooler than 81% of the years in the past 10,000 years.

    The real shame of the scientific community is the deviation from standard scientific technique of the climate change movement. In true science, if the data doesn’t match the theory, the theory is either modified or discarded. With climate change, they have been altering the data to fit the theory.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]I’d rather accept the science of a Geologist or Botanist regarding Climate Change over a Statistician.[/quote]

    Math is hard! Specially for cLIEmate UNscientists. After all it was a Statistician who proved Mann’s Hockey Stick was a fraud. One should never listen to them…

    As for Science, the scientific method is pretty clear regarding the testing of a hypothesis. CAGW has failed this test every single time.
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    David Lewis.

    Some good facts presented in a well written and coherent way. Well done!

    In addition to the Radiosonode and Satellite records, the only pristine surface station record also very closely matches. Adding support to those records and further discrediting the very badly “Adjusted” and corrupted NASA and NOAA surface records.

    [img]http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png[/img]

    Now it is clear why NASA and NOAA will not use satellites. It refutes the narrative.

    [img]http://amindbodyproblem.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/if_it_disagrees_with_experiment_its_wrong_by_richard_feynman.jpg[/img]

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Not too sure what you are trying to depict here Amirlach.

    The first graph to me shows that even though you only use a 40 year time scale the temperature still rises at the bottom of the curve by >0.1. And that is only for the mid-troposphere. No larger time scale to properly disprove AGW? No depiction of land, sea and atmosphere temperatures to fully discredit?

    Or am I missing something.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ Phil

    How about the FACT that there is no such thing as the much imagined Greenhouse Effect.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ Phil

    How about the FACT that there is no such thing as the much imagined Greenhouse Effect.[/quote]

    Well that plummeted to unbelievable depths pretty quickly

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Or am I missing something.[/quote] Not just that the Models are all invalid. Your missing the fact that according to alarmists, history began in 1979. And a mere increase in temperature of 0.1 is not what was “predicted”. Thus it invalidates the CAGW Hypothesis.

    And why would I need a longer period to discredit the invalidated CAGW hypothesis? The failed models do it for me.

    It has not warmed for 20 years despite the greatest increase of Co2 has occurred during the “pause”.
    [quote] And that is only for the mid-troposphere.[/quote] Wrong! The graph shows the two satellite records as well as the radiosonode records. The satellites measure the entire energy of the atmosphere not just the “mid-troposphere” and are immune from the urban heat effect that has corrupted most of the surface records.

    The second graph shows how closely Russia’s pristine surface record matches the other three. So again not “just” Mid-troposphere”.

    The outliers are the very corruptly “adjusted” surface records of NOAA’s. 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[/img]

    Try reading the page linked under the graph above.

    [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.Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap. [/quote]
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

    Then read the Scientific Method and tell us what it means when your hypothesis fails testing, IE: When it is compared to observation. Or just watch this.

    The more recent Peer Reviewed Papers are showing a much lower sensitivity to Co2 than what was programed into the invalidated models. Might explain why the above models are invalid.
    [quote]Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.[/quote]

    https://us-issues.com/2015/07/26/the-climate-wars-go-to-congress/

    So you can accept the findings of the scientific method or you can keep denying it Phill.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Or am I missing something.[/quote] Not just that the Models are all invalid. Your missing the fact that according to alarmists, history began in 1979. And a mere increase in temperature of 0.1 is not what was “predicted”. Thus it invalidates the CAGW Hypothesis.

    “History began in 1979” That doesn’t make sense considering the whole premise to proving AGW centres around comparing temperatures (true global temperatures that include ocean as well as land and atmosphere) over the past 800,000 years.

    My understanding is that science deniers concentrate on set time scales to further prove their point. Which is what I was pointing out in the first instance where your graph starts at 1975. Why not show the complete picture from 1850 onwards?

    Why not show global temperatures that include oceans where the most gains have occurred due to their heat sink status.

    You accuse climate science of ‘picking’ its data but I see you doing the same.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @Phil

    When will you address the FACT that

    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT ?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@Phil

    When will you address the FACT that

    THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT ?[/quote]

    No need to address it because Greenhouse effect is a fact. The laws of thermodynamics are kinda hard to refute,

    So I was not bothering to engage.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Sorry Phil
    you’re either incredibly ignorant or you’re a liar
    I’ll let you take your pick

    Obviously just another cheap troll trying to obfuscate the reality that there is no foundation to your ridiculous posture.

    Keep blathering, it means nothing.

    What you claim is fact is without ANY
    scientific merit or proof.

    Keep lying
    I’ll keep laughing.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]Sorry Phil
    you’re either incredibly ignorant or you’re a liar
    I’ll let you take your pick

    Obviously just another cheap troll trying to obfuscate the reality that there is no foundation to your ridiculous posture.

    Keep blathering, it means nothing.

    What you claim is fact is without ANY
    scientific merit or proof.

    Keep lying
    I’ll keep laughing.[/quote]

    Ummm, I quoted the laws of thermodynamics, not that hard to understand. So I am neither ignorant or a liar.

    You did nothing but be abusive. So, shoe fits you I think.

    When you want to discuss the science I shall reply, otherwise I shall not respond to any other pointless abuse from you, goodbye

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    The laws of thermodynamics in NO WAY
    substantiate nor prove your greenhouse lie.

    YOU DON’T KNOW THAT !

    Proof positive of your lying ignorance.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I will give amirlach the first chance to respond to timing issues as he does so well.

    I do not dispute the laws of thermodynamics. However, the climate models are not tracking real world data. As far as an over statement of the impact of CO2, there are two possibilities. I read an article from one physicist stating that we are in state of green house saturation from CO2 so additional CO2 will have no effect. Another stated that the function is not linear and there is demising green house impact as the concentration goes up. I don’t have a reference to those articles and put more faith in the following.

    “Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.”
    See http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/profiteers-of-climate-doom.html

    Now consider the fact that much of the predicted temperature increase in the models is based on positive feed back assumptions, we have the potential for the climate models to significantly over estimate warming caused by CO2.

    No matter what the cause, this is exactly what has happened. The models are running hotter than actual real world data. The models should be corrected but if they were, the new models wouldn’t be predicting disastrous warming any more.

    I will make one comment about timing. Models that are correct would work when applied to any time period, such as 1850 to the present.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]

    David, got no idea about all that you provided here (thankyou very much, it is good to engage with someone willing to do so).

    I will not agree or refute what you have put. But let’s take it as true and see where it leads: the models are running hotter than real world data: but where does it lead? Ice fields and glaciers are still melting, oceans are acidifying and expanding, vegetation and wildlife is experiencing stress and we are still pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere so it will continue to get worse.

    All you are suggesting is that it is not happenning on a modelled time scale. So what? It is still happening. I hope you are correct as then we have more time to redress the damage.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Phil,

    You said that oceans are acidifying. This is one of the easiest to understand and most undeniable frauds of the climate movement.

    I’ll try to insert a graph that clearly shows this but if it doesn’t get posted it can be found at:

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/noaagate-how-ocean-acidification-could-turn-out-to-be-the-biggest-con-since-michael-manns-hockey-stick/

    What the NOAA researchers did was cherry pick the year 1988 as their base line. That year was the almost the least acid (most basic) year in 100 years. Using that as a base line guaranteed that future values would be more acid. Their article only showed data from 1988 on. Yet, looking at the entire graph it can be seen that the in 1920 the oceans were more acid than they are now.

    Like everything in our natural world, ocean pH is constantly changing. It is hovering between 7.9 and 8.2. A pH of 7.0 is neutral and lower values are more acid. However, in light of the 1920 value, it is inaccurate to say acidification is happening.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Phil,

    The earth is naturally warming. With so many variables impacting the warming, it is not at a steady rate but is occurring in bursts. One was from 1910 to 1941, another from the late 1970’s until 1998. The data from the later one is what has been used to justify the anthropological climate change movement. Others who read this site may not agree (please let’s not start a major discussion) but I am open to the idea that in addition to natural warming, man may have contributed. However, the contribution of man, if any, as well as the natural warming is not going to be enough to be a problem. As far as where are we going, if the climate models were corrected my guess is they would show a one to two degree increase by 2100.

    As far as ice, amirlach posted:

    “Both Antarctic and arctic ice are at record levels.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php”

    Like everything else in our natural world there is a lot of fluctuation.

    The stress on animals due to climate change is the bias of the researchers. No where is that clearer than the case of polar bears which are thriving. There is definitely true stress on some animals but it has other causes. I once read an article by alarmists blaming the extinction of many bird species since 1970 on climate charge. It just so happens that during that same period of time the human population doubled and is a more reasonable explanation.

    As far as plants go, the earth is greener than it use to be and higher levels of carbon dioxide is given credit for this.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/enhanced-levels-of-carbon-dioxide-are-likely-cause-of-global-dryland-greening-study-says.html

    Some nurseries even raise the carbon dioxide level to 1700 ppm to get better results.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]Phil,

    You said that oceans are acidifying. This is one of the easiest to understand and most undeniable frauds of the climate movement.

    Checked this graph out and the first thing that struck me is the over-simplification and blanket use of data. Bit of bad science going on there for a starter. Has this been peer reviewed?

    So I then did more research and found that the claim that the oceans were more acid in the 1920s than now comes from one data point showing as a huge outlier in the graph. My understanding is it was from one sample taken off a ship. And you use that as a confirmation? My initial thoughts were justified.

    You are right ocean ph is constantly changing and especially in different places at the same time. You cannot just accept blanket stats without researching the data. You do it with consistency and you provide it for peer review to prove if it is correct.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]Phil,

    And then you trot out that old chestnut about Arctic sea ice increasing! A simple search revealed this: “January Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record, attended by unusually high air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean and a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) for the first three weeks of the month. Meanwhile in the Antarctic, this year’s extent was lower than average for January, in contrast to the record high extents in January 2015.”

    Plus you conveniently make no mention of ice field thickness which has been steadily declining for decades. Plus no mention of the opening up of the North West Passage and the beginnings oil exploration in the area.

    As to greening, I have no problem agreeing with that assumption. It is well-documented and proven that increased CO2 is good for plant growth. On the other hand if you stick your head in a plastic bag, CO2 quickly becomes a bad thing.

    Do you actually look at these websites you quote and then go and check out the opposing view and try and make some rational scientific logical judgement or do you just blanket believe?

    If it is the latter, which I am beginning to see may be the case, then I have no further desire to engage with you and wish you luck.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]”History began in 1979″ That doesn’t make sense considering the whole premise to proving AGW centres around comparing temperatures (true global temperatures that include ocean as well as land and atmosphere) over the past 800,000 years.[/quote]

    As Davis Lewis pointed out… “The earth is naturally warming. And has been since the end of the “Little Ice Age”.
    [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png[/img]

    With so many variables impacting the warming, it is not at a steady rate but is occurring in bursts.

    One was from 1910 to 1941, another from the late 1970’s until 1998.

    The data from the later one(1979-1998) is what has been used to justify the anthropological climate change movement.”

    The simple reason Co2 Alarmists Cherry Picked 1979 was it was the end of the 1941 to 1979 Cooling trend.

    They also like to claim that this was the start of the satellite record for arctic ice.

    But they are hiding the Nimbus 5 microwave satellite data, which goes back to 1972 and was included in the 1990 IPCC report. The Nimbus 5 data completely wrecks their story, because it shows that ice in 1974 was no more extensive than it is today, and that NSIDC cherry-picked 1979 as their start date.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screenhunter_8822-apr-30-06-28.gif[/img]

    Below is an image from the Nimbus 5 satellite, taken in January 1976 – which shows how detailed the imagery was. NSIDC has no excuse for not using it. It was used in both the IPCC FAR and SAR reports.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_9237-may-14-03-48.gif[/img]

    Also interesting to note how much Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1976. The gain has been massive.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/nimbusjan1976anatrcticvsjan20151.gif[/img]

    There is probably more sea ice on Earth now, than there was in the mid-1970s – which was the peak of the ice age scare.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    David Lewis and now Amirlach
    This is the first time I have ever encountered this “history began in 1979” trope since I have been studying this.

    All my research has shown graphs of CO2, temperature, ice extent etc etc going back to 1880 when the effects of the modern age and the ability to measure it first began:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    Just as one example! I won’t go into Easterbrook leaving out the latest ice core temperatures as this is all a furphy

    Please note: Using sea ice area (note no mention of thickness by both of you again) is not an indicator of [u]global [/u]warming. You accuse scientists of picking the year yet you go and pick your data as well.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Now consider the fact that much of the predicted temperature increase in the models is based on positive feed back assumptions, we have the potential for the climate models to significantly over estimate warming caused by CO2.

    No matter what the cause, this is exactly what has happened. The models are running hotter than actual real world data. The models should be corrected but if they were, the new models wouldn’t be predicting disastrous warming any more.

    I will make one comment about timing. Models that are correct would work when applied to any time period, such as 1850 to the present. [/quote]
    The “rate” of warming is really unchanged since the end of the LIA. Temps vs Co2.
    [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi[/img]

    What happens when you compare temperature rise with Solar after 1850?
    [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OEdgny5flYo/UZUoP5jhMFI/AAAAAAAAFKE/hLzGOoHTMG8/s1600/ScreenShot3459.jpg[/img]

    So we see an increase from 8.8 C from 1700 to present that very closely matches TSI not Co2.

    The invalidated CAGW Models will Not be “corrected”.

    Simple reason is the one you touched on. The cause for alarm would vanish along with Trillions in grants.

    [img]http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/scepticshandbookart/web/the_real_consensus_at_the_ipcc_redv2%20med_550.jpg[/img]

    Also the time period from 1979 to 1998 was important for the simple reason that man made Co2 was not a factor before 1934, 1941 was the beginning of the Cooling period that ended in 1979.

    Alarmists like to ignore this period and point to the warming after 1979 as “proof” of CAGW. Trouble is this warming has ended while Co2 increase has not. The disconnect between models and reality is ever increasing.

    How about a “Model” that works over a vastly longer period? A model that can accurately predict solar activity going forwards and backwards for centuries?
    http://www.landscheidt.info/

    The “assumption” that there was a Co2/Water Vapor, Positive feedback has been programed into all of the models. Trouble is when this hypothesis was tested by observation the opposite was found.

    We both know what the Scientific Method has to say when your “prediction” is wrong.

    [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif[/img]

    And then there is the irrefutable, empirical evidence that proves the past Climactic Optimums were warmer.

    At a time when man made Co2 was not a factor.

    http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

    http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

    http://www.livescience.com/4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps.html

    Yes! Strangely these artifacts confirm the Green Land Ice core data.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Correcting the above. As per the graph.

    “So we see an increase from 8.8 C to 10.2 from 1700 to present that very closely matches TSI not Co2.”

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    I’ll come up with a full frontal later
    but
    Do you smell Drewski ?

    I starting to suspect it .

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    OMG still with the cherry picking, but here we go, graph by graph.

    Two points on your Central England graph: numero uno, you are trying to claim a temperature chart from Central England disproves [u]global [/u]warming (note I have underlined it again). Secondly does the half a degree jump average in just the last twenty years not put a bit of doubt in your mind? Nowhere else is there such an average increase anywhere else on the chart. Over the prior 350 years approx it goes over the 10 degree mark 13 times. From 1995 approx (CE is not El Nino affected remember) it [u]never[/u] drops below the 10 mark! At the same time as record floods and storms occur in the UK. So your chart more proves the climate is changing than disproves it.

    Second graph I note you conveniently stop at 2000, from which the solar irradiance has been dropping below the trend and yet the global temp continues.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

    Third graph, well excuse my ignorance but I don’t even know what it is this is meant to represent. So I will grant you this one.

    As to your last web links these are also all furphys. Bob Carter did this at a presentation of his and I was gobsmacked then that no-one picked up on the obvious. All these events where when there was vacant land for the greening to occur. IT is way different now that we have 7(?) billion people on the planet to feed and water.

    Then on your last point your ‘missing’ sea ice graph means nothing as it stops at 2015 and mentions nothing about the current sea ice loss nor about ice thickness and it is only discussing the north pole, nothing about [u]global [/u]warming.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ the phony fillie

    You think nobody knows
    it’s so obvious
    you’ve adopted an anglicized name BUT

    You’re still the same perennially proven LIAR

    Drewski or any other
    stupid ass
    appellation

    It’s all the same
    and you are multiply proven gutter trash scum
    trying to resurrect yourself with
    a new appellation
    as if everything must be re-proven again
    to put down your disgusting lying crap !

    Try again Andrezjewski

    I WILL CALL YOU OUT AGAIN !

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ the phony fillie

    You do yourself, your argument and your affiliates no service with continued abuse and conspiracy theory inaccuracies.

    I know not of the person of whom you speak. This is the first time I have engaged this website and it is not leaving me much informed I have to say, considering the arguments presented and the resolute abuse with which you feel obliged to submit.

    I said I would not engage with you if you did not present any proper argument so you can call me a liar on that one if you wish. But in that respect I felt I had a duty to stand up for myself and also for this Andrezjewski of which you speak. (He is rising in my estimations if this is the sort of engaged conversation he has been dealing with)

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ stupid phillie

    It is not my fault that you cannot stand hearing the truth.
    It is not my fault you cannot deal with the truth.

    It is not my fault that you are the impersonation of a perennial liar that has visited this site.

    It is not my fault that you cannot stand that the world might develop differently without your thought or input.

    Sleep happily in your ignorance.

    YOUR ARROGANCE !

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Phillip Ross”]OMG still with the cherry picking, but here we go, graph by graph. [/quote] So my showing you how the alarmists have “cherry picked the start of the Arctic Sea ice graphs is an example of ME cherry picking? Or are you referring to the PEER REVIEWED GISP 2 Ice core Graph?

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Two points on your Central England graph: numero uno, you are trying to claim a temperature chart from Central England disproves [u]global [/u]warming (note I have underlined it again). [/quote] No I am not claiming it disproves Global Warming. The complete and utter failure of the CAGW Models has.

    The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.”

    And speaking of “Cherry Picking” I seem to recall you asking for some surface records because you did not like the Satellite and Weather Balloon records? Why is it you are so quick to dismiss the oldest and what is considered to be a “decent proxy” for Northern Hemisphere Temperatures when it does not support your views? Biased maybe?

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Secondly does the half a degree jump average in just the last twenty years not put a bit of doubt in your mind? [/quote]
    Where are you pulling out this canard? The last twenty years of no statistically relevant warming? Once again you need to look at the data that has invalidated the CAGW “hypothesis”. Compare 2006 with 2016? And besides, even IF it is still warming, it is far less than what was “predicted” and the Models and Hypothesis are still invalid.
    [img]http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png[/img]
    http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png
    Here we see two main satellite records that closely match not only the 35 million or so Radiosonode data points, but also the Pristine Russian surface temperature records. Records I assume you will wave away the same way you did with the Centuries old CET Record. Cause it is not a “Global” record… One other thing it shows is Zero Correlation between Co2 and temperature.
    [quote]Nowhere else is there such an average increase anywhere else on the chart. Over the prior 350 years approx it goes over the 10 degree mark 13 times. From 1995 approx (CE is not El Nino affected remember) it [u]never[/u] drops below the 10 mark! At the same time as record floods and storms occur in the UK. So your chart more proves the climate is changing than disproves it.[/quote] Nowhere did I say that the Climate is not changing. Nowhere else is there such an average increase anywhere else on the chart? This is patently false!
    [img]http://yelnick.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c563953ef012877a7b656970c-500wi[/img]
    [quote]The first characteristic of the graph to note is the green trend line. That line indicates an overall warming of 0.26°C per century rate since 1659. So, for some 350 years central England, and the world, have been warming. No big surprise there since Earth has been continuously warming since the end of the Little Ice Age; and, at the end of that 350 year trend line of warming is the first decade of the 21st century.

    The second characteristic of the graph is that temperatures just seem to have this habit of going up and down, for extended periods. What’s really amazing is that they did this consistently before the large increase of human CO2 emissions, pre-1946. Okay, maybe that’s not so amazing since this is called temperature variability and represents the natural, dynamic nature of our climate….That variability, as displayed by the CET data in the graph, has experienced temperature changes as much as 2.5°C from one year to the next. A change of 2.5°C in a single year! Keep that figure in mind as we further analyze the dataset. Please note, the graph also reveals very similar temperature variability post-1946, after the huge atmospheric input of human CO2 emissions.[/quote]
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/

    http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)&utm_content=Google+Reader

    [quote]Analysis shows, the 18th century warming was actually more robust than the current warming. His trend analysis work did not reveal any “man-made” signal confirming that human CO2 was causing “accelerating” temperatures. [/quote]
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

    Wow! So the graph clearly disproves your claim RE: [quote]Secondly does the half a degree jump average in just the last twenty years not put a bit of doubt in your mind?[/quote]
    Not when taken in context with a step change of over 2.5C in ONE year!

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Second graph I note you conveniently stop at 2000, from which the solar irradiance has been dropping below the trend and yet the global temp continues.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ [/quote] I never “stopped the graph as I never made it DUH!…

    Yes TSI has decreased from it’s over 200 year record high, but your claim that temperatures have continued to increase is again provably false as the above graphic of the three agreeing satellite, weather ballon and surface records show.

    Third graph, well excuse my ignorance but I don’t even know what it is this is meant to represent. So I will grant you this one.

    [quote]As to your last web links these are also all furphys. Bob Carter did this at a presentation of his and I was gobsmacked then that no-one picked up on the obvious. All these events where when there was vacant land for the greening to occur. IT is way different now that we have 7(?) billion people on the planet to feed and water. [quote] So the archeological record is a Furby? Seriously? Vacant land for greening? Under Glaciers?

    If the Missing Hot Spot is just a “Furby”, why have Climate “Scientists” like Santer spent so much time and energy trying to find it? Might be because it is the single biggest failure of the entire Global Warming hypothesis.

    Links to just SOME of the Hidey Hole fun and games.
    http://joannenova.com.au/tag/missing-hot-spot/

    [quote]Then on your last point your ‘missing’ sea ice graph means nothing as it stops at 2015 and mentions nothing about the current sea ice loss nor about ice thickness and it is only discussing the north pole, nothing about [u]global [/u]warming.[/quote] Sea ice loss? “There is probably more sea ice on Earth now, than there was in the mid-1970s – which was the peak of the ice age scare.”

    Once again your ignoring data. Remember the Nimbus 5 microwave satellite data, which goes back to 1972 and was included in the 1990 IPCC report?

    The Nimbus 5 data that completely wrecks your story, because it shows that ice in 1974 was no more extensive than it is today, and that NSIDC cherry-picked 1979 as their start date?

    Nimbus 5 satellite, taken in January 1976 – which shows how detailed the imagery was.

    I posted the links to the “missing” sea ice graphs, seems you never looked at them. Not surprising as you keep ignoring data that disproves your views.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] As to your last web links these are also all furphys. Bob Carter did this at a presentation of his and I was gobsmacked then that no-one picked up on the obvious. All these events where when there was vacant land for the greening to occur. IT is way different now that we have 7(?) billion people on the planet to feed and water. [/quote] So the archeological record is a Furby? Seriously? Vacant land for greening? Under Glaciers? No possible way that the Vikings were growing barley on Greenland where today it is “permafrost”, because it was actually warmer then? Or are you claiming they grew crops in frozen ground because the land was “vacant”?

    [quote]As the archaeologists dug through the permafrost and removed the windblown glacial sand that filled the rooms, they found fragments of looms and cloth. Scattered about were other household belongings, including an iron knife, whetstones, soapstone vessels, and a double-edged comb. Whoever lived here departed so hurriedly that they left behind iron and caribou antler arrows, weapons needed for survival in this harsh country, medieval Europe’s farthest frontier. What drove the occupants away? Where did they go? [/quote]

    http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    I find it incredibly biased when you dismiss one record or another that does not “agree” with you based upon the claim it is not a “Global” record. Then completely ignore the three truly Global records that also happen to agree with the unadjusted Russian Surface records. Two Satellite records and the radiosonode/ weather balloon network compared to the IPCC’s seventy or so failed models.

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

    “Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.”

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    amirlach, that is his goal, if Phil Ross had any standing then all the predictions or if they would like to call them projections they stated are wrong, they gave out nobel prizes to those people making them, and as you have stated, ya know reality, they don’t care, they just want to continue. Nothing of what they said happened or remotely happened. And here we are yet again with them throwing predictions or projections of what will happen in the future. They always move the goal post, they always clain it will happen 10 to 30 years down the road. It’s time for them to be held accountible for the measures they proposed 10 to 30 years ago that have never happened. Bottom line!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ the phony fillie

    You think nobody knows
    it’s so obvious
    you’ve adopted an anglicized name BUT

    You’re still the same perennially proven LIAR

    Drewski or any other
    stupid ass
    appellation

    It’s all the same
    and you are multiply proven gutter trash scum
    trying to resurrect yourself with
    a new appellation
    as if everything must be re-proven again
    to put down your disgusting lying crap !

    Try again Andrezjewski

    I WILL CALL YOU OUT AGAIN ![/quote]
    Jay Pee, not everyone that shows up here on the Alarmist / Warmist side is Drewski although they mostly sound the same, but there is a difference.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    [quote name=”Phillip Ross”][quote name=”JayPee”]@ the phony fillie

    You do yourself, your argument and your affiliates no service with continued abuse and conspiracy theory inaccuracies.

    I know not of the person of whom you speak. This is the first time I have engaged this website and it is not leaving me much informed I have to say, considering the arguments presented and the resolute abuse with which you feel obliged to submit.

    I said I would not engage with you if you did not present any proper argument so you can call me a liar on that one if you wish. But in that respect I felt I had a duty to stand up for myself and also for this Andrezjewski of which you speak. (He is rising in my estimations if this is the sort of engaged conversation he has been dealing with)[/quote]
    And Phil, if you knew who or what drewski is you wouldn’t be saying that! So if he is rising in your estimations then so be it!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So Phil, name a projection or prediction of what you or your warmist kind have gotten right by their hypothesys/theory yet?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Wow, I take the weekend off and I get a Galloping Gish of comments!

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Phil,

    I have analyzed a lot of data in my time and agree that 1920 fits the pattern of an outlier. However, I question the claim that it was a data collection problem. It doesn’t matter. The rest of the graph shows no pattern of acidification. What the NOAA data does show is an oscillation.

    The PMEL’s authors of the acidification paper, Dr Richard Feely and Dr Christopher Sabine, obviously agree with me. Why else would they substitute computer simulation for real world data before 1988? Why else would they refuse to share the earlier data? Why else would they threaten Mike Wallace when he was seeking this information saying that if he continued in this manner “you will not last long in your career.”

    You have accused amirlach of cheery picking. Feely and Christopher in their acidification paper is one of the worst examples. They chose 1988, the point of the highest pH value, as their base line. This guarantees that all values compared to that baseline will be more acid, or actually, less basic.

    You mentioned peer review. I assume Feely and Christophers’ acidification paper was peer reviewed. Yet, anyone qualified to do the review should be aware of the real world data omitted from their paper. The original paper starting the alarm on polar bears was peer reviewed. The problem with peer review in the area of climate change is regardless of their credentials, the researchers are behaving more like political activists than scientists. Scientists do not omit relevant data from their papers just because it doesn’t support their conclusions. Scientists will share information when it is requested. Scientists don’t threaten someone who is seeking information. Scientists want all views to be expressed even if they disagree with them. My entomology professor, a true scientist, brought in a lecturer who presented a case as to why DDT should not be band. Yet, early in the global warming issue, activists would learn a skeptic’s schedule and get his speeches canceled. A scientist will abandon or modify a theory when it doesn’t match the data. An activist will cling to anything that supports his political agenda. A scientist will not base his paper on a theory that doesn’t match the data. Yet, activists have published countless papers on what would happen if the warming predicted by the UN climate models comes to pass. In the support of the climate change agenda, peer review is like having the fox guard the hen house.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Once again , phony fillie quotes lies as truth.
    Exactly what keeps happening, fillie ?
    The constant ” adjustment ” of data or the constant collection of corrupted data and then that is even cherry-picked until it is cosmetic enough to lend credence to the totally unproven surmise of a carbon based greenhouse effect and AGW and climate change.

    How does it feel to be a dupable fool ?

    How goes it feel to be a liar ?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Aahh hello JayPee welcome on adding something sensible to the argument again.

    Are you denying the reports in the links I made? Are you denying the scientific rigour applied to those measurements?

    If yes, only reply if you can provide the proof for me to check and verify your stance. Then I shall bother to answer your curious predilection for abuse over substance.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Don’t give me your lying crap, phillie.

    You can try to make yourself intelligent all you want.

    I think I will not be the only one laughing.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Consider a situation where a man is climbing steps up to a height of two feet. However, the stair case is very long with steps each one having a raise of only a quarter of an inch. Now there is an announcer sensationalizing each time the man makes a step saying he has reached the highest level ever. Someone just hearing the announcer might conclude the man has climbed several feet.

    This is exactly what NOAA and NASA are doing. The planet is naturally warming. Just as with the man climbing the stairs, with time temperatures are going to be greater than the past. By sensationalizing each tiny increase, someone in isolation but hearing these reports would probably conclude that the planet had warmed 5 to 6 degrees C. By sensationalizing these tiny changes NOAA and NASA are in fact telling a lie.

    If these increases in temperature were not small, then we would be approaching the prediction of the UN IPCC climate models. This is not true. Even the data that has been adjusted to support the cause shows a slow down in warming, and the gap between the raw data and the predictions grows every year. A recent post on this site wrote about how they decided to study this gap in Britain.

    If climate change were truly a problem, rather than sensationalizing small temperature increases, NOAA and NASA would telling how the world temperature was following the UN models.

    Climate change is not a problem. A very serious problem is the extreme cost and impact to our standard of living that might occur to fight the non-extant problem.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Consider a situation where a man is climbing steps up to a height of two feet. However, the stair case is very long with steps each one having a raise of only a quarter of an inch. Now there is an announcer sensationalizing each time the man makes a step saying he has reached the highest level ever. Someone just hearing the announcer might conclude the man has climbed several feet.

    This is exactly what NOAA and NASA are doing. The planet is naturally warming. Just as with the man climbing the stairs, with time temperatures are going to be greater than the past. By sensationalizing each tiny increase, someone in isolation but hearing these reports would probably conclude that the planet had warmed 5 to 6 degrees C. By sensationalizing these tiny changes NOAA and NASA are in fact telling a lie.

    If these increases in temperature were not small, then we would be approaching the prediction of the UN IPCC climate models. This is not true. Even the data that has been adjusted to support the cause shows a slow down in warming, and the gap between the raw data and the predictions grows every year. A recent post on this site wrote about how they decided to study this gap in Britain.

    If climate change were truly a problem, rather than sensationalizing small temperature increases, NOAA and NASA would telling how the world temperature was following the UN models.

    Climate change is not a problem. A very serious problem is the extreme cost and impact to our standard of living that might occur to fight the non-extant problem.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Oh please David, so you totally disregard the fact that the temperature increase over the last 150 years vastly outstrips anything that has occurred previously throughout geological history in speed and gain and is increasingly doing so.

    The analogy you make is totally incorrect for this situation. The temp increase is because it has added ON TOP of all the other unprecedented temp increases over the short space of time. If one expected reaching a peak, then the temp increases would be slowing down – they are getting larger at a faster rate – that is the danger

    Then in the last paragraph you comment with no basis in fact that decreasing CO2 emissions would cause eco collapse – Yet we have already had taxes on acid rain, CFCs and others to show that no such collapse occurs in fact it creates new opportunities and rejuvenates investment and research.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Philip Ross
    Are those NOAA adjusted temperatures you refer to . Yes it is warming ,yes humans have some effect , but making assertions that
    we know what earth’s temperature was 150 years ago is nothing but hyperbole .
    Do you also believe humans are going to control the earth’s temperature within 2 degrees by lowering the portion of
    human caused CO2 ?
    Climate changes …what a leap but humans are not going to control the earth thermostat when natural variability is not even well understood and is the tail wagging the dog .

    If it starts cooling then please stamp your feet and light your hair on fire over a real problem . Plants and animals would benefit from a warmer environment not a colder one . Or do you see it differently ? Humans will adjust either way and if you are right rest assured with the knowledge we will eventually exhaust fossil fuels.

    The planet has never stayed the same has it and tweaking CO2, a least that from humans is not going to change the direction of climate change .

    I would like to know your views on population control and increased fuel taxes ? I suspect the scary global warming scenario ties nicely with those opinions and remedies .

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Same old tropes: NOAA has done no adjusting of gealogic records they are there for all to see and irrefutable.

    I went to a Prof Carter presentation where he made the same assertion about not worrying because plants love CO2 and it will save us. Neglecting to mention (and no-one in the Kool_Aided audience picked up on) was that these days we have to feed 9 billion people.

    And yes, I do believe science and industry is more than capable of solving any crisis so long as there is the political will. They have done it before and will do it again with no discernible destruction to economies or lifestyles.

    Bit scared of your last paragraph. Are you hinting at some sort of global population control? Mate that is a downright disgusting suggestion and points my initial thoughts that most science deniers are privileged folk with large NIMBY attitudes and no real sympathy to real world.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    As amirlach has already pointed out, there have been increases in temperature in the past that outstrip the warming in the last 150 years. This was without the help of carbon dioxide released by mankind. As one of his graphs shows, we are also in a cool period in comparison to the past 10,000 years. It is only reasonable that the earth is naturally warming.

    Even NOAA’s altered data shows the warming is slowing down, not increasing.

    Unfortunately the link no longer exists but there was a good article comparing NOAA’s historic temperature data to their current data. Almost all years before 1950 were adjusted down and all values after 1950 were made warmer. Do you think that NOAA left its data before 2014 on line for all to see? That would make it too easy for anyone to see what they have done.

    If reducing carbon emissions to the extent advocated will not be economically harmful, then let some other nation, or state such as California prove it. Europe is way head of us on this. In Europe, Germany is one of the most concerned about anthropological climate change. Yet, they are replacing their nuclear power plants with coal. If renewable energy were practical, they would have gone for it.

    I have read many articles written in Europe where they talk about the “carbon leak”. This is the loss of jobs to other nations due to the impact of Europe reducing its emissions. The phenomenon is so well know they have coin the special term for it.

    If another nation can show us how to reduce carbon dioxide and maintain prosperity, that is okay. However, this isn’t going to happen because it can’t be done with our current technology or technology that will be developed in the near future.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    The ole ‘data has been manipulated’ just shows you do not understand the science behind data collection.

    One person comes up with this great notion that data is manipulated. IF it were true there would be scientists crying foul all over the place, because that is what science does. Not make up notions and then publish without due process and consilience of evidence. (and if you come up with “oh yeah but the scientists are all in it together” then our conversation is done)

    Instead there is just people outside the field repeating the trope. Where is the substantiated, peer reviewed proof that such a thing occurred? There is none because it is untrue. Just science deniers repeating one person’s claim.

    Yes earth temperatures have been going up and down over the millenia. Science has discovered the various triggers that made this so (I disagree that it has happened faster and to a larger degree than currently, but I will let that pass as your statement is irrelevant anyway). Just the same that science can show now why this current temperature climb is due to only one thing because all those other factors are not present.

    And meanwhile the temperature keeps c;limbing just like the science says it will:
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/record-temperatures-for-march-a-warning-of-whats-to-come-say-experts-20160320-gnmkc9.html

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Science has discovered the various triggers that made this so (I disagree that it has happened faster and to a larger degree than currently, but I will let that pass as your statement is irrelevant anyway). Just the same that science can show now why this current temperature climb is due to only one thing because all those other factors are not present.[/quote]

    Oh goody! Finally someone who can…

    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 [i]any[/i], 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, [i]naturally[/i]. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I am a retired aerospace instrumentation engineer and I definitely understand the science behind data collection. I have done a lot of data processing.

    However, this is done at the time of the data collection. For the data to remain unaltered for decades and then only changed when it benefits a political cause shows that there is fraud.

    Another indication of the fraud is of the many temperature data adjustments that have been made; they have all favored the cause of the climate change movement. This is highly improbable. If the data were being honestly adjusted, at least a few of the changes would be less favorable to this movement.

    We have had no warming or very little warming for 18 years. This is confirmed by environmental activists who have come up with almost 70 excused for the hiatus. If it didn’t exist why did they come up with all of these excuses? One of the excuses was that 18 years wasn’t long enough to be significant. However, you link is talking about warming that happened over just a few months, and that is supposed to be long enough to be significant?

    The thing that real matters is how does the satellite and weather balloon data compare to the UN climate models? As long as the models are running hotter than real world data, we have nothing to worry about.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    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%:

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Page 24, Middle column

    According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

    He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    We are now past 18 years and counting.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Seriously? We are doing this?

    You make wild claims that are not only debunked but totally unsubstantiated and you ask me to provide proof?

    The science is out there and peer reviewed and agreed. You and your ilk are the ones that are disclaiming it and therefore the burden of proof is on you to provide such proof for the same rigorous peer review. None such exists.

    Meanwhile the real time date keeps coming in:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/climate-report-reveals-world-temperature-increase-alarming/7264904

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You make wild claims that are not only debunked but totally unsubstantiated and you ask me to provide proof?[/quote]

    Obviously you are not addressing me here, but I am curious just who you are addressing.

    [quote]The science is out there and peer reviewed and agreed.[/quote]

    Then provide it. Just [b][u][i]one[/i][/u][/b] peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of any global climate change.

    And while you are at it, back your wild and ridiculous claim that…

    [quote]Science has discovered the various triggers that made this so…[/quote]

    The reason you refuse to honor my request, and the reason why you attempt to project the burden of proof onto skeptics (who are [u]not[/u] trying to advance a new hypothesis) is because you cannot complete the task I gave.

    But nice try at deflection. 😆

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Your great source is an ” Environment reporter Reporter? The graphs are from NASA GISS? Who are one of the worst serial data “adjusters” out there? 😀

    If the world continues to warm at the same rate as it has since the end of the LIA. It is hardly “alarming”. As for the completely arbitrary 2 degree “critical 2°C threshold”.

    One should know that it has been far warmer than that in the recorded history of mankind. Without any “critical thresholds” or alarming irreversible events happening.

    The MWP which was Global, was also at least a degree warmer that your supposed 2 degree threshold. :zzz

    A few examples.
    Last 10000 years.
    [img]http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=climate+of+the+last+10000+years&view=detailv2&&id=187AC2CE6738089737953FF1075EC20C8DF7F9AB&selectedIndex=0&ccid=%2bs6%2fq0br&simid=607994489026905646&thid=OIP.Mfacebfab46ebb22c2f08b7002418ebeeo0&ajaxhist=0[/img]

    Last 20000 years?
    [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DLJ5YVqk-6w/Uf0sZTy4lpI/AAAAAAAABUA/4l9A-a6wa-8/s640/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg[/img]

    And empirical evidence supporting the above graphs. Which clearly show it has been much warmer in the past without man made Co2, or any alarming effects.

    http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/melting-yukon-ices-reveals-5000-year-old-archaeological-treasures/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/

    http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Normally I would walk away from such a silly request (in other words do your own research):
    http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#2

    Using UN as an aggregator of all the reports from worldwide science bodies and universities that have contributed.

    Your turn

    Oh and your comment that CO2 variability is natural is a little hard to sustain when you check out this chart:
    https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/evidence-impacts-and-choices-figure-gallery/figure-14/

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Phillip, have you read the links you provided? They do not satisfy my request, so let’s start from the top…

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

    All means [i]all[/i] Phillip. And if you do not know what quantify means, google it.

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

    One = one. And refutes means to deny.

    Again your links do not satisfy these basic requests, and if you feel they do, please provide the portions of text, with references, which do so.

    You are wasting my time Phil, so no more nonsense.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ fille

    You’re going to declare things to be silly ?

    I’ll give you a free one you don’t deserve :
    The reason you can’t spot a liar is because
    You’re A LIAR !

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Well you didn’t like those sites I sent you (what’s the point of providing what you ask for when you dismiss what it presents anyway and still don’t provide any peer reviewed science of your own other than graphs which show something happening in the northern hemisphere ie not global). So I thought I would provide you with another site that may please you and your preferred form of ‘science’:
    http://boingboing.net/2016/03/21/texas-man-finds-fossils-from-n.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Well you didn’t like those sites I sent you (what’s the point of providing what you ask for when you dismiss what it presents anyway and still don’t provide any peer reviewed science of your own other than graphs which show something happening in the northern hemisphere ie not global). So I thought I would provide you with another site that may please you and your preferred form of ‘science’:'[/quote]

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz…

    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 [i]refutes[/i] 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 [i]always[/i] changed, [i]naturally[/i]. This means there has been a [i]set precedent[/i], and [i]the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.[/i]

    I’m still waiting, but my patience is at an end Phil. Put up, or shut up.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Gator – why?

    I have the UN and every major science institute and research university in agreeance. If you can’t be bothered to do the proper R&D I am not going to. I gave you the links to start your proper investigation. Did you even bother to check?

    I have the consilience of evidence on my side. Your side has nothing but a bunch of crackpots taking shotgun scatter paint balls at respected science, with no peer review whatsoever.

    YOu provide me with something and then we have a debate.

    If you can’t cope with that then I am happy to see you “shut up”

    Oh and as to your last paragraph, yes the climate has always changed but never before with 9 billion people to feed and never to this extreme. Get out of the way and let science and industry do the job.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I have the UN and every major science institute and research university in agreeance.[/quote]

    And yet you cannot do this.,..

    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 [i]refutes[/i] natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    Why is that Phil? Are you intelligent enough to wonder why?

    Get back to me when you have more than empty rhetoric Phil.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Oh for goodness sakes Gator.

    No one is refuting natural variability, it is a natural event given the various forcings on the climate. The fact that we know how climate has changed over the millenia in the past is exactly why we know now that it is human interaction that is causing it change more dramatically now.

    The same scientists who provided the information you use to claim natural variability are using the same science to show that current climate change is anthropogenic. They looked at the data and did the number crunching.

    All the natural forcings have been accounted for. Nothing: not the sun, not volcanos, not global tilt – nothing else is affecting our climate at present, except for CO2 emissions.

    The problem is you and other science deniers just do not want to accept that

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ fille

    Just because some want to entertain and play with your idiocy doesn’t mean that everyone must.

    YOU ARE DRERWSKI

    The umpteen proven LIAR and
    shameless posturing pig who has nothing to say but repetitive proven LIES.

    I denounce you for what you are
    fille

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Good on you JayPee, I love your consistency 😆

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ fille

    YOU ARE DRERWSKI

    I have no idea what that means 😀

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]All the natural forcings have been accounted for. Nothing: not the sun, not volcanos, not global tilt – nothing else is affecting our climate at present, except for CO2 emissions.[/quote] 😆 😆 😆

    OK smarty pants! Prove it!

    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 [i]refutes[/i] natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

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

    So once again Phil, if ecerything has been figured out, show me.

    Put up, or shut the hell up. Claiming victory requires [i]proof[/i]! 😆

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    It is simply incredible how the alarmists want us to buy into…

    [quote]All the natural forcings have been accounted for. Nothing: not the sun, not volcanos, not global tilt – nothing else is affecting our climate at present, except for CO2 emissions.[/quote]

    And yet they can [i]never[/i] list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    What sort of an idiot makes the claim that…

    [quote]All the natural forcings have been accounted for[/quote]

    And then consistently fails to provide the metrics on forcings, but yet continues to parrot…

    [quote]All the natural forcings have been accounted for[/quote]

    [i]Braaack! Philly want a cracker![/i]

    Phil’s stupid, it [i]burns[/i]! 😆

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    First I will address Phillips Ross’s statement that all of the institutions are with him. The federal government and environmental groups are literally allocating billions of dollars for research in climate change. However, that money is only for those who are supporting the political cause. It is well known among researchers that if they come to a politically incorrect conclusion, they will lose their funding. What is proven by what appears to be solid stand by the institutions is you get what you pay for.

    Yet, even with the extreme lopsided funding of the institutions their positions is not so solid. There have been PhD climatologists testifying against anthropological climate change in Congress. Retired NASA employees who’s pay checks are not dependant on being politically correct have come out against the climate change conclusions of that organization. Not even the UN IPCC is as solid as many believe.

    I once read an article by a scientist after he worked on the IPCC third assessment report. He said that IPCC politicians were going around to the various working group of scientists badgering them to come up with more dire conclusions. The conclusion of the group that this scientist was part of wasn’t acceptable because it wasn’t bad enough. Then the assessment reports that the public and media get are not what the scientists write. What the public sees is a summation by the politicians who interpret the reports of the various committees of scientists.

    So this “having all of the institutions with me” is nothing more than getting what the government and environmental groups are paying for, and even then it is not so solid.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Phillips Ross stated, “Nothing: not the sun, not volcanos, not global tilt – nothing else is affecting our climate at present, except for CO2 emissions.” That leaves two mysteries in recent history. The first part of this century we have had a dramatic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, but a hiatus in warming. Second, approximately 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941, but the carbon dioxide level was fairly constant during that time period.

    There is also the issue of significant changes in climate before man started burning fossil fuels. Many of the changes in temperature were greater than we are experiencing now. Obviously there were other factors causing these changes. So, if carbon dioxide is the only thing controlling the climate now, what phenomenon turned off these other factors?

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The statement has been that warming is accelerating and we may get a large gain in temperature in the near future. I have been closely following the climate change issue almost from the beginning and in past years this same statement has been made a few times. Yet, it never comes true. The only thing that does come true is the gap between the UN climate models and real world data becomes larger as time goes on.

    Just for the sake of argument let’s assume that carbon dioxide is the only thing driving warming. Even then, due the gap between the climate models and real world data, high impact actions against anthropological climate change are not justified. In order to justify such action two things need to happen.

    One, the climate models need to be modified to match real world data. This doesn’t only apply to the very recent past. If we are to base decisions on projections going a hundred years into future, then the models should work going a hundred years into the past.

    Second, once modified to be consistent with reality, the models need to predict harmful warming. This is not 2 degrees C. I watched as this number was settled on and it was purely a political process. In the past the earth has warmed more than 2 degrees without dire consequences. We can assume these higher levels are safe and even higher levels probably would not be harmful.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]First I will address Phillips Ross’s statement that all of the institutions are with him. The federal government and environmental groups are literally allocating billions of dollars for research in climate change. However, that money is only for those who are supporting the political cause. [/quote]

    Conspiracy Theory: The last bastion of the denuded.

    Seriously David, you are an engineer and you choose to believe the noble occupation of scientists are so corrupted and evil to[u] all[/u] fall in line so they can access “billions of dollars of research grants” (really? Surely you don’t believe that line!) so long as they toe the line?

    Wild, crazy and sad accusations do not become you or your argument. You should be ashamed to make such an unsubstantiated claim.

    Besides the point of thinking of how such a huge conspiracy could even be carried out. A physical and moral impossibility, besides the gross injustice you carelessly toss at such a profession. You know how hard you worked to achieve your profession. You know how dedicated you were to providing the best for your clients and employers and to simply discard that same desire to good work to an entire profession is a disgrace.

    Pick up your game.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]
    Second, once modified to be consistent with reality, the models need to predict harmful warming. This is not 2 degrees C. I watched as this number was settled on and it was purely a political process. In the past the earth has warmed more than 2 degrees without dire consequences. We can assume these higher levels are safe and even higher levels probably would not be harmful.[/quote]

    After your last outburst I did not really wish to engage with you again. But I felt I needed to clarify this point. It was one PRof. Bob Carter used to expound as well.

    Firstly I agree with you 2C is an arbitrary number purely for governments to draw a line in the sand to give them something to aim their policies at.

    But your statement that the earth has warmed 2C previously with no major harm is a furphy. At no stage in those past events have we had to contend with feeding 9 billion people. When the previous temperature rises occurred it was not while at the same time cities were expanding and farmland was being reduced and overworked.

    I am not worried about the earth, it will always continue in whatever form. I am concerned about the human capacity to survive the changes. I am – however much you like to call people such as me as doomsayers – fully positive that industry, business and governments can work together to solve the future problem. We just need to get on with it so the negative effects are reduced.

    Think of the engineering that would need to be involved David! It would be wondrous!

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Poor immature fille.
    Can’t stand hearing the truth.
    Resorts to repetitive disproven alarmism when he has no logical response.
    Accuses his opposition of the very intellectual depravity he is guilty of.
    Thinks everyone is as stupid as he is and therefor he has won the argument when has never proffered nor countered with any truthful or logical statement.
    Relies on debunked authoritative declaration as indisputable proof of his position.
    And of course we all know that government and its agencies and political puppets would never lie to us.
    Dream on fille, keep repeating.
    Maybe even you will believe it.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Meanwhile it keeps happening:

    “By analyzing the sediment laid down at the bottom of oceans when the PETM kicked off, researchers have been able to work out just how much carbon was released during the event, and how quickly. They found that it took around 4,000 years with around 0.6 to 1.1 billion tonnes (0.7 to 1.2 bllion tons) of carbon being released per year for the PETM to reach its maximum. At this point, global atmospheric carbon settled at around 1,000 parts per million, causing global temperatures to increase by 5°C (8°F).

    In contrast, humans are currently emitting close to 40 billion tonnes (44 billion tons) of CO2 per year, with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere already tipping 400 parts per million.”

    … In just 150 years …

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]In contrast, humans are currently emitting close to 40 billion tonnes (44 billion tons) of CO2 per year, with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere already tipping 400 parts per million.”[/quote]

    So what? CO2 is plant food. I thought you were concerned about feeding people.

    You still have yet to…

    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.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]

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

    BTW: after some simple playing around came up with this. I am sure you could find more if you really were interested in learning:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]

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

    BTW: after some simple playing around came up with this. I am sure you could find more if you really were interested in learning:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]

    What happens when you compare temperature rise with Solar after 1850?
    [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OEdgny5flYo/UZUoP5jhMFI/AAAAAAAAFKE/hLzGOoHTMG8/s1600/ScreenShot3459.jpg[/img].[/quote]

    Interesting you use that graph Amirlach, because I found this one. Which one is correct?
    [img]http://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png[/img]

    And here is the dataset home page so you can do your own verification (which you did not provide me):
    http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]

    What happens when you compare temperature rise with Solar after 1850?
    [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OEdgny5flYo/UZUoP5jhMFI/AAAAAAAAFKE/hLzGOoHTMG8/s1600/ScreenShot3459.jpg[/img].[/quote]

    Interesting you use that graph Amirlach, because I found this one. Which one is correct?
    [img]http://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png[/img]

    And here is the dataset home page so you can do your own verification (which you did not provide me):
    http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Tell me Phil, how did they accomplish this…

    [quote]we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia.[/quote]

    …without doing this…

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

    …or did this never enter your [i]tiny [/i]brain?

    Playing with broken models is not proof of anything, except massively misplaced funding. 😆

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Tell me Phil, how did they accomplish this…

    [quote]we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia.[/quote]

    …without doing this…

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

    …or did this never enter your [i]tiny [/i]brain?

    Playing with broken models is not proof of anything, except massively misplaced funding. 😆

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]Tell me Phil, how did they accomplish this…

    [quote]we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia.[/quote]

    [/quote]

    I don’t know, ask them. They do the science and then maybe you will be convinced when you finally get some true science

    And thanks for the abuse, really puts your tactics into perspective:
    “If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do.”
    Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” 1943

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]Tell me Phil, how did they accomplish this…

    [quote]we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia.[/quote]

    [/quote]

    I don’t know, ask them. They do the science and then maybe you will be convinced when you finally get some true science

    And thanks for the abuse, really puts your tactics into perspective:
    “If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do.”
    Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” 1943

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Gator
    He says he doesn’t know and ” ask them.”

    Proof positive of my statement of cheap appeals to so-called authority.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]And thanks for the abuse…[/quote]

    I am simply returning the favor Phil. Your ignorance, or play at being ignorant, is abusive to everyone around you. I point out basic facts, and you either do not recognize them or [i]refuse [/i]to recognize them. Then you waste everyone’s time with unsubstantaited hyperbolic claims, and point us toward nonsensical models.

    I do not need to ask the grantologists a thing. They built a BS model and took money for it.

    What part of you cannot list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them do you not get?

    Why would anyone look at failed models and claim the science is settled?

    You cannot build a model of something you cannot measure. Period.

    You don’t understand the science, so quit wasting our time.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Also notice the idiotic use of the Bertrand Russell quote wherein he accuses you Gator of precisely the intellectual dishonesty and chicanery that is his stock in trade.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]And this coming from you JayPee![/quote]

    But here JayPee is indeed correct, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    You cannot even grasp the simple concept of needing to be able to measure that which you are trying to model.

    Until they can list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them, they cannot build a working model. Of course we also know this by examining model projections with reality.

    Find another hobby phil.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Phil, why do you hate plants? I thought you were for feeding the masses. More CO2 means more biomass and more food. Looks like that claim about caring for others was just a ruse. Of course if you [i]really [/i]cared about humanity, you would demand that we stop wasting billions annually on failed models and failed leftist agendas, and that we feed the 7 million who needlessly [i]starve [/i] every year.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]I am simply returning the favor Phil. Your ignorance, or play at being ignorant, is abusive to everyone around you. I point out basic facts, and you either do not recognize them or [i]refuse [/i]to recognize them. Then you waste everyone’s time with unsubstantaited hyperbolic claims, and point us toward nonsensical models.

    I do not need to ask the grantologists a thing. They built a BS model and took money for it.

    What part of you cannot list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them do you not get? [/quote]

    First:
    Entering in debate has nothing to do with abuse. I don’t agree with your opinion, you don’t agree with mine. It has nothing to do with personal attacks.

    Civil discourse is always preferable. Except maybe for JayPee.

    Second:
    My understanding of the science and the modelling comes from extensive reading from a multitude of sources. The [u]overwhelming consensus[/u] is that AGW is happening. Real world observations back this up. For you to simply deny this comprehensive body of science and rely on unproven, unverified, non-peer reviewed publications confounds me.

    Can you not see the disparity here? Yet you accuse me of being ignorant (with a tiny brain).

    Is there any time when you think maybe your reliance on just a few sources of evidence might be misguided?

    Can you really sit there and type out that so many world authorities are involved in some massive corrupt practice? Or at the least, numerous highly trained bodies of science are misguided?

    Does that not jar with your innate common sense?

    thirdly:
    Your continuing request for those two questions to be answered is of no consequence to what we are arguing here.

    I fully agree with you that climate always changes. IT is a well-studied phenomenon across many bodies of science. It is those same bodies of science that now say what is happening is unprecedented and verifiably linked to human CO2 emissions.

    Go ahead and reply that I have “drunk the Kool-Aid” but think about what I wrote in my second point and consider seriously about your own beliefs.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]Also notice the idiotic use of the Bertrand Russell quote wherein he accuses you Gator of precisely the intellectual dishonesty and chicanery that is his stock in trade.[/quote]

    I have not once resorted to rudeness and personal abuse JayPee.

    Look to yourself before you accuse others

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]Phil, why do you hate plants? [/quote]

    Where did I say that? Stop looking at what I write with the negative filter continuously turned on.

    Consider what is written, research what I say and find proper responses. IF you always say no you will never move forward intellectually.

    The problem is one of ‘amount’. With continuing urbanisation and population growth it is inevitable that places for plants to grow will reduce. No matter how much CO2 they get to breath.

    Plus differnet plants grow in different temperature zones. So some will die off because the temp rise is so severe in such a short space of time, they don’t have the time to evolve. Yes they would thrive if they moved latitude but how do they do that? Where do they go? What do they replace?

    Plus, if CO2 is so good for humanity, try sticking your head in a plastic bag and see how long it is good for you.

    It is all a matter of degrees

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Rudeness ?! and personal abuse ?!

    fille, the fact you cannot face reality nor stand hearing the truth is your own fault.
    Try looking in your own mirror.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Entering in debate has nothing to do with abuse. I don’t agree with your opinion, you don’t agree with mine. It has nothing to do with personal attacks. Civil discourse is always preferable. Except maybe for JayPee. Second: My understanding of the science and the modelling comes from extensive reading from a multitude of sources.[/quote]

    You are not debating, you are blathering.

    As for your comprehension skills, we have already covered that.

    You [i]believe [/i]that man is causing the planet to warm, yet cannot show me any proof thereof. I get it. You found religion. Good for you Phil.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The problem is one of ‘amount’. With continuing urbanisation and population growth it is inevitable that places for plants to grow will reduce. No matter how much CO2 they get to breath. Plus differnet plants grow in different temperature zones. So some will die off because the temp rise is so severe in such a short space of time, they don’t have the time to evolve. Yes they would thrive if they moved latitude but how do they do that? Where do they go? What do they replace? Plus, if CO2 is so good for humanity, try sticking your head in a plastic bag and see how long it is good for you. It is all a matter of degrees[/quote]

    Oh God! You actually [i]believe [/i]this crap! 😆

    I thought for a minute you were just propagandizing, but you are [i]proseltyzing[/i]! 😆

    Again if you really cared about humanity, you would demand that the billions wasted annually on AGW be diverted to save 7 million people every year.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Ah well you failed.

    And yes, it keeps happening:

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]Ah well you failed.

    And yes, it keeps happening:

    😀 You [u]demand[/u] peer-reviewed papers, I give you plenty and all you can come up with is this! 😀

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]:D You demand peer-reviewed papers, I give you plenty and all you can come up with is this! :D[/quote]

    And exactly [i]when [/i]have you provided [i]any [/i]peer reviewed papers that refute NV as the cause of any global warming, ever?

    And exactly [i]when [/i]have you provided peer reviewed papers that list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them? Hmmm?

    I show you empirical evidence of increased biomass with elevated CO2 levels ( I actually performed this same experiment with soy beans in 1978), and the best you can do is…

    [quote]:D You demand peer-reviewed papers, I give you plenty and all you can come up with is this! :D[/quote]

    And the 7 million who will needlessly starve this year are still awaiting their respectful mocking, Phil. Get busy smart guy.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]( I actually performed this same experiment with soy beans in 1978),[/quote]

    Actually I must correct myself. The first time was in 1977. Regardless, each time I performed this controlled study the results were always the same, higher CO2 levels always resulted in larger and healthier plants.

    It still amazes me how liitle the younger generations know about CO2, that is actually true.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Obfuscation again Gator: no where have I stated that CO2 is bad for plants?

    Your video and research are irrelevant to AGW. The CO2 is in the upper atmosphere (you know, where the Greenhouse Effect occurs), not down here on earth, so will have no effect on the plant growth.

    I am saying the area available for biomass is shrinking along with the rapid increase in temperature (due to CO2 in the[u] upper atmosphere[/u]) making it difficult for plants to evolve quick enough to cope and feed your 7 million. It is the areas these unfortunate people live in that is most likely the ones worst affected.

    Your so-called science experiment has nothing to do with AGW. Try doing it with increased temperatures of 2-4 degrees and see how it goes.

    Secondly (and I repeat myself for the third time) your request is irrelevant to AGW so I am not bothering to answer it.

    Thirdly (and I am repeating myself for the second time) here are links to peer reviewed papers that show that the last great CO2 increase was nowhere near as large as the current anthropogenic one:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

    Plus natural variability is not able to handle the current trend in global temperatures when measured in the world’s trees:
    http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967.epdf?referrer_access_token=ScqxwvK0QkBH_ZKw6QLCq9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PkYJmQ6VQcpxIB4Tt0SaQywsN0n2B7UMpxadfI0w_ofOTC3mYRZZuqGomPd0BeQd70UStEnS8uhUMlLc14RDumMrWaNBXF1FHSmPzkJveHvzmOEIBB3DWLhnFy-QdGr8023QU1f96–VFpx_MhZ0bT-94OHdZWjSUvvv1XFU4U8w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.au

    I stress once more, I did this very quickly and easily and if you were truly interested in finding truth you would do the same and more. Sadly, however, seeing your miscomprehension of what you think is involved with CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect, I fear you are not willing to discover for yourself.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]
    It still amazes me how liitle the younger generations know about CO2, that is actually true.[/quote]

    Maybe so, but it amazes me how many people claim to know about the Greenhouse Effect but have no real concept

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Obfuscation again Gator: no where have I stated that CO2 is bad for plants?[/quote]

    And the reest is pure pablum Phil.

    All of your glorious claims rest upon nothing. Even the IPCC acknowledges that we do not come close to fully understanding what drives climate.

    Let’s start at the beginnig yet again. Squares one and two…

    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.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Maybe so, but it amazes me how many people claim to know about the Greenhouse Effect but have no real concept[/quote]

    Pure projection skippy.

    I was a climatology student right between the global cooling scare (yes, it was real) and the beginning of the great global warming swindle. This was after studying geology for 5 years. I became interested in geology when Iived in Europe and witnessed what ice ages can do.

    You have no idea what you are blathering about.

    When you can satisfy these two simple requests, let me know, as you will be the [i]first[/i].

    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

    Phillip Ross

    |

    So you are seriously telling me you did all that study and you think your experiment on Co2 increasing plant growth debunks global warming?

    Totally disregarding what the Greenhouse Effect is – one of the most basic fundamental acknowledged reasons as to why life thrived/s on earth?

    And you are worried about the youth of today?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    No sorry, I am blown away by this.

    You really do think your experiment and that Youtube video has anything to do with the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

    Are you willing to admit, even a tiny bit, that it may be an incorrect experiment to show what will happen to plants?

    Anything? Coz, for me this is a game changer. I cannot believe anyone who claims the knowledge you have would think this is good science.

    Answer any of my questions if you can please Gator because you continually refuse to do so, but just keep reiterating your pointless requests that have nothing to do with the argument

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]So you are seriously telling me you did all that study and you think your experiment on Co2 increasing plant growth debunks global warming?[/quote]

    Nope. It shows that increased CO2 is beneficial to plants, Warming is also beneficial for plants.

    [quote]Totally disregarding what the Greenhouse Effect is – one of the most basic fundamental acknowledged reasons as to why life thrived/s on earth?[/quote]

    Nope. Never said that. Are you lying or stupid?

    [quote]And you are worried about the youth of today?[/quote]

    Yep. Because they are gullible like you.

    And you are worried about the 7 million you are helping to starve each year?

    Will you finally put up or shut the hell up?

    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.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Answer any of my questions if you can please Gator because you continually refuse to do so, but just keep reiterating your pointless requests that have nothing to do with the argument[/quote]

    I asked first…

    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.

    Now get busy and stop wasting my time, killer.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    fille

    Cite so much as ONE scientific proof of your fictional GHE.

    I know you can’t but it will be laughable to watch your stupid appeals to UNSCIENTIFIC so-called authority.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Oh look – a(nother) peer reviewed paper

    Climate change and agroecosystems: the effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature on crop growth, development, and yield

    CONCLUSIONS
    While there may be differences in the projected impacts of climate change on agricultural production among regions and countries (MATTHEWS & WASSMANN, 2003), assuming no change in temperature, crop yield is expected to increase about 30% in C3 plants and 10% in C4 plants due to doubling CO2 concentration. If temperature will change, an increase in air temperature as low as 1°C may offset the benefits of increasing CO2 concentration on crop yield. Potential for adaptations of agriculture to climate change may be much more difficult in less-developed regions (FUHRER, 2003), and climate change-related problems are expected to take place sooner (a few months) after crop failure in developing countries than in developed countries (ENGVILD, 2003). Therefore, policymakers are encouraged to discuss strategies to minimize impacts of global warming on food supply whereas research should continue on the search for alternatives to deal with climate change. Mitigatory options have to be worked out involving plant breeders, agroclimatologists, extensionists, growers, and policymakers.


    Once again, it wasn’t difficult to find.
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-84782005000300041

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Idiot fille

    Let’s see so much as

    ONE

    scientific method proof that there even is such a thing as your presumed and mythical

    GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    Look, stupid
    You’re not going to get away with lying here

    Either prove the fundamentality of your position or be called a

    LIAR and a FOOL !

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    I fess up JayPee

    Now that I have figured out your intellectual capacity, I am just toying with you now.

    I can roll out this science stuff all day long

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    WELL ROLL IT OUT

    I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY DO

    LET’S SEE YOUR UNQUALIFIED SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROOF THAT THERE IS A
    GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR

    YOU NOW PROVE IT

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    WELL ROLL IT OUT

    I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY DO

    LET’S SEE YOUR UNQUALIFIED SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROOF THAT THERE IS A
    GREENHOUSE EFFECT

    I KNOW YOU ARE A LIAR

    YOU NOW PROVE IT

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    None of what have cited adheres to the scientific method and therefor is not proof.

    Is there something you don’t understand about that ?

    And a jerk like you questions my intellectuality ?

    It is obvious you have no conception of science so why are you here and commenting when you don’t know what you’re doing ?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]If temperature will change, an increase in air temperature as low as 1°C [i]may[/i] offset the benefits of increasing CO2 concentration on crop yield. Potential for adaptations of agriculture to climate change [i]may[/i] be much more difficult in less-developed regions[/quote] 😆

    Silly alarmist troll!

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]http://www.deepseanews.com/2015/09/a-story-of-climate-change-told-in-15-graphs/ http://tool.globalcalculator.org/globcalc.html?levers=22rfoe2e13be1111c2c2c1n31hfjdcef222hp233f211111fn2211111111/dashboard/en https://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/%5B/quote%5D

    Nope! Still waiting. So…

    #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! 😆

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Phillip, Jay, Gator, I congratulate you on your leisurely retirement. With about 42 posts in 24 hours if you are not independently wealthy you must be retired. I’m also retired but it isn’t leisurely.

    I do have one suggestion. Always be polite in your responses. Doing so not only projects a better image of yourself, it better represents your point of view.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I am a retired aerospace engineer with a degree in electrical engineering. With a degree in chemistry and educational background in biology I’m also a scientist.

    With this background I’m extremely distressed that so many scientific institutions have prostituted themselves to support the anthropological climate change movement. The fact that they have done so is irrefutable.

    The standard scientific process is to form a theory and collect data. The data is then compared to the theory. In the cases where the data doesn’t match the theory, the theory is either modified or discarded.

    In climate change the IPCC models are the theory, or at least one part of it. They clearly do not match the data. Yet all of these institutions are content to over look that there has been no effort to modify the theory to match the data.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    To David Lewis point ,you are right but what does this tell us about the state of science outside of the scary global warming industry ?
    If they can ignore the scientific method as you have outlined what other pure nonsense are we being fed .
    The ruling scientific bodies that sit on their hands while this massive caper unfolded are
    a spineless joke .

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Hey David! I have no patience for liars and mouthy stupid people, because I am not retired an do not have time for nonsense. If someone is too stupid to grasp simple logic, or too invested in their ideology to have a reasoned discussion, I am not going to hold their hand and pretend they have value. Those days are over. I tried that for decades, and it is a waste of my time.

    The troll in question has no clue what he is talking about, and will never bend to reason or civility.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]

    Silly alarmist troll![/quote]

    You ask for a peer reviewed paper, I send you a simple one to read and follow and you simply disregard with this rude return.

    And you accuse me of not understanding science?

    What chance do you have if you will not even follow the polite basics of reading a peer reviewed paper with an open mind?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]Phillip, Jay, Gator, I congratulate you on your leisurely retirement. …

    I do have one suggestion. Always be polite in your responses. Doing so not only projects a better image of yourself, it better represents your point of view.[/quote]

    I have been called a liear, a troll, a killer (!!!) and untold other epithets by this JayPee and not once have I abused anyone in return. I have even pleaded for niceness in this debate.

    Yet you include me in your plea to be nice!!

    FYI I am not retired, I was heavily involved in the Ozone Depletion debate of the 90s and see the same science and simple solutions to AGW occurring here.

    I abhor rudeness and an inability to test your own beliefs with an open mind. I have followed the debate for over a decade and attended seminars by pro and opponents in the debate and done my own research.

    I find the closed minds here a sad indictment of what is stopping our civilisation stepping forward into a great new era.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]and yet it is still happening:[/quote]

    Phil, do you know how they came to their conclusion?

    Hint: It has everything to do with this…

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

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You ask for a peer reviewed paper, I send you a simple one to read and follow and you simply disregard with this rude return.[/quote] 😆 😆 😆

    No Phil, I did not simply ask for “a peer reviewed paper’, I asked for even one peer reviewed paper [u][i][b]that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes[/b][/i][/u].

    @ David: [u][i][b]This[/b][/i][/u] is what I am talking about. This turd is a time waster.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I have been called a liear, a troll, a killer[/quote]

    And they all apply Phil. You cannot possibly be as stupid as you pretend, so that makes you a liar.

    You come here stirring the pot and spamming alarmist tripe, which is not what this site is for, that makes you a troll.

    You lobby for trillions to be spent on AGW, when 7 million needlessly die each year of starvation, that at least makes you an accessory to murder in my book.

    @ David: Why would you choose to be kind to the likes of Phil? He is scum.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Conspiracy Theory: The last bastion of the [i]denuded[/i].

    Seriously David, you are an engineer and you choose to believe the noble occupation of scientists are so corrupted and evil to all fall in line so they can access “billions of dollars of research grants” (really? Surely you don’t believe that line!) so long as they toe the line?

    Wild, [i]crazy and sad accusations[/i] do not become you or your argument. [i]You should be ashamed to make such an unsubstantiated claim[/i].[/quote]

    Was this really a polite reply? Not in my book, especially considering the fact that David brought up an extremely valid point.

    You get what you pay for.

    The Trillion Climate Change Industry is responsible for the massive amount of failed models that alarmists use to fool people into thinking the world is doomed by CO2.

    There is no Trillion Dollar “Denier” Industry. Infact, there is no Billion Dollar “Denier” Industry. There is no money paid out by our government (or really anyone else) for going against the “cause”.

    Let’s say I dole out a trillion dollars for white widgets, and nothing for black widgets. How many black widgets will I get Phil?

    @ David: If Phil does not get this, do you still think he is here for a “debate”?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Conspiracy Theory: The last bastion of the [i]denuded[/i].

    Seriously David, you are an engineer and you choose to believe the noble occupation of scientists are so corrupted and evil to all fall in line so they can access “billions of dollars of research grants” (really? Surely you don’t believe that line!) so long as they toe the line?

    Wild, [i]crazy and sad accusations[/i] do not become you or your argument. [i]You should be ashamed to make such an unsubstantiated claim[/i].[/quote]
    [/quote]

    That is worse than being called a turd?

    Oh BTW: here is a list of links to peer reviewed papers that prove that recent extreme weather is not in the bounds of natural variability:
    Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming:

    Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming (38,5)
    Global warming doesn’t affect tropical cyclones (45,2)
    AGW doesn’t increase hurricane intensity or frequency (0,0)
    The 2003 heat wave was not caused by global warming (3,0)
    Drought is not caused by global warming (15,0)
    Pakistan flood was nothing special (0,0)
    One-in-1,000-year events happen all the time (0,0)
    Linking extreme weather to AGW is political opportunism (2,0)
    There’s no link between global warming and extreme weather (0,0)
    2010 Russian heatwave (0,0)
    The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming (0,0)
    Climate change isn’t increasing extreme weather damage costs (0,0)

    If you want to truly study the pros as well as the cons I am more than happy to provide every single link to these papers.

    Like I said all along:
    1. it was easy to find
    2. you really should be doing your own research if you believe yourself to have properly studied the science
    3. this is just one of the topics proving AGW is real. There are over 50 of these lists of peer reviewed papers

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][
    The Trillion Climate Change Industry is responsible for the massive amount of failed models that alarmists use to fool people into thinking the world is doomed by CO2.

    [/quote]

    Show me the money!

    You constantly ask me to provide proof. But you make outrageous claims with no proof.

    Give me proof of a “trillion dollar Climate Change Industry” please

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    The seven million starving humans told me to say hi.

    Phil, your breathless rant is just that. More science, less propaganda, please.

    And you are what you are Phil. I am not holding a gun to your head telling you to advocate for the annual starvation of millions. Wear it Phil.

    Now, enough ranting, let’s try one more time.

    Focus.

    Every claim you have made about CAGW is based upon models.

    You cannot model that which you do not understand.

    So, once again, show me.

    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.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]he $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal,” he writes. “The San Diego, Calif.-based publication includes within that industry nine segments and 38 sub-segments. This encompasses sectors like renewables, green building and hybrid vehicles. And the talkers, creatives and handlers too. “That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.,” Mr. Jergler says.[/quote]

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/climate-change-industry-now-15-trillion-global-bus/

    Feel stupid yet?

    Now, your turn…

    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.

    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.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Thanks for the link I shall check it out.

    Do you want to bother looking at any of my links or are you contento to continue along your same blinkered path?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Phil, I have read the papers. I know what is in them already. Do you?

    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.

    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.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Mmmm, that was easy. Did you read the article?

    It states that all that money has gone into renewable energy investment, green buildings etc.

    Nothing to do with scientists receiving grant money. Nothing to do with proponents receiving money to spruik AGW. All money gone into manufacturing and service industries for jobs and growth.

    And yet another simple search shows how much money has been paid to deniers:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

    Show me the money

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    The dark money myth, ah yes.

    Show me that money. Oh that’s right, it’s “dark”. 😆

    Way ahead of you Phil, I purposely read the alarmist tripe first, and then fact check it. Dark money is another fail.

    [b]Claim: Dark Money Conspiracy – star “deniers” are scripted performers[/b]

    Prof. Brulle (Drexel Uni, Phil) claims IRS helped track secret donations

    Guest essay by Eric Worrall

    [i]Prof. Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist of Drexel University, Phil., has published a study allegedly accusing “deniers” of being sock puppets in the pay of “dark money” from big oil.

    http://www.hngn.com/articles/20257/20131223/study-reveals-source-of-dark-money-in-climate-change-denial-studies.htm

    According to the story, Prof. Brulle enlisted IRS help tracking a correlation between big oil bogeymen such as the Koch Brothers withdrawing funding from climate studies, and significant increases in funding from other organizations such as the Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund.

    Quite apart from the outrageous invasion of privacy, if the IRS did actually lend special assistance to the study, the mundane explanation, that lead authors of studies simply turned to other sources when some donors withdrew their support, was not good enough for Prof. Brulle.

    Instead, Brulle allegedly asserts the existence of a “dark money” conspiracy – a deliberate attempt to conceal the true sources of funding, by using a network of shadowy donor groups.

    “The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight — often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians — but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations.

    All I can say Anthony, is where is my dark money cheque? I’ve been sending you these scripts for ages, so far not a dime :-).

    ==============================================================

    Some other viewpoints on this claim.

    Dr. Lubos Motl: We received 1 billion dollars

    ‘Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just “may have received” the billion instead of the phrase “did receive” it.’ — ‘The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude…This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two…If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people’s minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude.’

    Marc Morano:

    This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true.

    Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’

    Tom Nelson:

    After UK Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly ‘fixed’ with the addition of weasel words ‘may’ and ‘up to’

    [Guardian story yesterday, from the Internet Archive] Conservative groups spend $1bn a year to fight action on climate change

    Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change

    [Guardian story today] Conservative groups spend up to$1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

    Conservative groups mayhave spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
    …This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.

    Twitter / kaleekreider: @DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob …

    @DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob Bruelle says headline misleading. $1billion istotal avail not total spent on climate. I will forward email.

    [/i]

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Mmmm, that was easy. Did you read the article? It states that all that money has gone into renewable energy investment, green buildings etc.[/quote]

    Mmmmm, yes I did. Did you read what I wrote? Apparently not. Maybe try again. I said “Trillion Dollar Climate Industry”, and that was corfrect. Sorry you did not get that, or the widget allegory. Or are you lying again? Stupid or liar?

    The seven million said “hey”.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Oh yeah, forgot to ask. Feeling stupid yet?

    How about shame? The seven million would like to know.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]The dark money myth, ah yes.

    Show me that money. Oh that’s right, it’s “dark”. 😆
    [/i][/quote]

    Hah! OK happy to concede on that one even though they don’t deny that the organisations are there purely to deny research that affects their businesses. Even though it isn’t all against AGW.

    I could do some more research on the study. But won’t.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Mmmm, that was easy. Did you read the article? It states that all that money has gone into renewable energy investment, green buildings etc.[/quote]

    Mmmmm, yes I did. Did you read what I wrote? Apparently not. Maybe try again. I said “Trillion Dollar Climate Industry”, and that was corfrect. Sorry you did not get that, or the widget allegory. Or are you lying again? Stupid or liar?

    The seven million said “hey”.[/quote]

    Still don’t understand what you have against industry working on new ways to manufacture and produce. Why are you so anti-business? I thought that is what ‘greenies’ are meant to be.

    I would have thought Dave Lewis the engineer would be ecstatic to see all this new engineering being utilised and employed

    A trillion dollar industry? Yes, proudly so. Doing something.

    Please refrain from calling me an accessory to murder. I ask politely.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Just how much does Uncle Sam spend on climate change?

    This document shows a $21,408,000,000 budget for 2014. I am sure there is more that this budget does not show, but 21.4 billion dollars is still at least 21 billion too much.

    The total is found on page 45, and page 5 explains figures are in millions of dollars.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

    And how much does Uncle Sam spend on “deniers”?

    Zero.

    How about private donations for climate change?

    $20,826,664,000 in a decade.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/top-10-jumbo-foundation-grants-fund-big-green/article/2534312

    How many black widgets is that Phil?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]

    And how much does Uncle Sam spend on “deniers”?

    Zero.
    [/quote]

    Which proves my point all along Gator!

    Your arguments are in the minority.

    The vast majority of science from all fields and all over the world are in agreeance.

    Disprove the science and have it peer reviewed rather than these tired hackneyed rants.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Still don’t understand what you have against industry working on new ways to manufacture and produce.[/quote]

    Government grants are not industry. Wasting money on expensive and unreliable energy is stupid. If it cannot stand on its own, it is not “industry”, it is charity for the rich.

    I see you continue business as usual, and you continue to ignore the seven million who needlessly starve each year. So no, I will not “politely” refrain from pointing out what a cold accomplice to murder that you are.

    You care more about models and ice than you do humans.

    Now, once again…

    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.

    Yopu are wasting our time Phil. Enough BS.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Which proves my point all along Gator! Your arguments are in the minority.[/quote]

    You cannot be this stupid Phil. Or can you?

    How many widgets?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Wait a minute. I am sure you will tear me down here, but am I not wrong that the “trillion dollar industry” you bemoan is nothing to do with the US Gov grants?

    The trillion dollar industry is just that: industry doing its job.

    So with that out of the way. The billion dollar US Gov grant money is .0025 % of that industry and of that 25 billion: $8B goes to assisting that business and $10B goes to tax incentives for those businesses.

    Shall we compare the tax incentives the CO2 emitters receive from the US gov?

    Oh and the minority jibe you so succintly retorted: it is simple democracy old chap. Show the proof, convince the authorities.

    Can’t do it? Accept the way the vote goes until you can.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Shall we compare the tax incentives the CO2 emitters receive from the US gov?[/quote]

    Please do! Because then we will discover that fossil fuel industries receive zero subsidy. They receive tax breaks, which green industries receive on top of subsidies.

    Tax breaks are not subsidies. The governemt does not subsidize my mortgage.

    [quote]Oh and the minority jibe you so succintly retorted: it is simple democracy old chap. Show the proof, convince the authorities.[/quote]

    Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

    But let’s try this. If I pay painters to paint widgets white, and refuse to pay them for black widgets, how many black widgets will I get?

    I know this is high finance and complex economics, but give it your best shot Phil.

    Then do what you have failed to do from your first response to me on thbis thread.

    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.

    @ David: Still think I am wrong to point out what Phil’s obvious defects?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Shall we compare the tax incentives the CO2 emitters receive from the US gov?[/quote]

    Please do! Because then we will discover that fossil fuel industries receive zero subsidy. They receive tax breaks, which green industries receive on top of subsidies.
    [/quote]

    Please! Stop calling [u]me [/u]a liar!
    A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

    The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

    Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
    Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
    Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

    http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
    quote: How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

    In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually

    A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
    ExxonMobil’s upgrades to its Baton Rouge refinery in Louisiana are benefitting from $119m of state subsidy, with the support starting in 2011, when the company made a $41bn profit.
    A jobs subsidy scheme worth $78m to Marathon Petroleum in Ohio began in 2011, when the company made $2.4bn in profit.

    And I haven’t even researched the tax breaks yet.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]And I haven’t even researched the tax breaks yet.[/quote]

    I have. They call “tax breaks” “subsidies”.

    I have also had this debate dozens of times. You will lose. Leftists love to change definitions to fit their narrative.

    When it comes to fossil fuels, “subsidy” is Newspeak for “tax break”.

    Enough of your BS Phil.

    You are advocating for removing assets that would save millions each year.

    You refuse to answer my questions about forcings and NV.

    You post propaganda that we continually debunk.

    You lie and misconstrue our statements, creating strawmen.

    You refuse to admit that NV has never been disproven.

    You are a waste of my time Phil.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    You chose to engage Gator

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Yes, and you chose to kill, lie, and troll.

    The seven million would like a meal, and not another failed model.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    “Renewable energy projects in many developing countries have demonstrated that renewable energy can directly contribute to poverty alleviation by providing the energy needed for creating businesses and employment. Renewable energy technologies can also make indirect contributions to alleviating poverty by providing energy for cooking, space heating, and lighting.[1]

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Renewable energy projects [i]in many developing countries[/i] have demonstrated that renewable energy [i]can[/i] directly contribute to poverty alleviation[/quote]

    Fossil Fuel based energy projects [i]in every country[/i] has demonstrated that Fossil Fuel energy [i]will[/i] directly contribute to poverty alleviation.

    The seven million would like a meal, and not another failed model, or another unreliable and expensive form of energy.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Great, then let’s work together and make a brave new world.

    So that when non-renewable fossil fuel sources run out, there will be little transition to a proper renewable energy source with nobody dying in the process

    And your cronies in the fossil fuel industry can keep making money. I’d be happy with that.

    What say you Gator?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]What say you Gator?[/quote]

    Except for the untrue dig about me having “cronies”, perfect. [i]If[/i] you [i]actually [/i]mean it.

    But I will only believe it, when I see you denounce AGW alarmism, in favor of saving the seven million.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    You just coudn’t help yourself could you.
    🙂

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You just coudn’t help yourself could you.[/quote]

    No, actually I could not. I am all about accountability, if you have not picked that up yey.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Hah, will certainly beg to differ on that statement!

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Hah, will certainly beg to differ on that statement![/quote]

    No need to beg Phil, we will gladly educate you for free, if you will only listen.

    Listen to the seven million.

    [img]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Er1kTF3smOE/hqdefault.jpg[/img]

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    IMHO every time you have asked me a question or requested proof I have provided it (maybe a little time wasting jsut to annoy you)

    Whenever I have replied with my answer and/or asked you a question or given you a link you have either dismissed it summarily or replied with abuse. Including aligning me as a child killer (shame on you).

    I found you a total lack of accountability and you would not last one second in a high school debate.

    The fact you think you are accountable is ludicruous to me.

    The fact that you rely on abuse to divert the attention away from your lack of ability to argue the point proves this.

    I feel you are just trying to appease the other readers on this page, making them feel superior by attempting to demean an opponent yet without actually engaging in sensible debate.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I feel you are just trying to appease the other readers on this page, making them feel superior by attempting to demean an opponent yet without actually engaging in sensible debate[/quote]

    I would have quoted more, but why bother with utter BS.

    You claimed you wanted to save humanity, but when pressed, you showed yourself to be the POS you are.

    The seven million prove that you do not occupy the moral high ground.

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Er1kTF3smOE/hqdefault.jpg

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    What a surprise – more abuse!

    POS ? Dunno what that means. Is that like JayPee calling me DREWSKI or something?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]What a surprise – more abuse![/quote]

    Just calling a spade a spade.

    Care to denounce AGW alarmism in favor of saving seven million innocent humans a year?

    Or are you an POS?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Oh look – [u]another [/u]peer reviewed paper from the National Acadamies of Science not less,

    Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (2016)

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852/attribution-of-extreme-weather-events-in-the-context-of-climate-change

    Look at all those references! I wonder what conclusion they came to? I wonder if it totally ruins Gator’s second question:

    The ability to understand and explain extreme events in the context of climate
    change has developed very rapidly over the past decade. In the past, a typical climate
    scientist’s response to questions about climate change’s role in any given extreme
    weather event was “we cannot attribute any single event to climate change.” The science
    has advanced to the point that this is no longer true as an unqualified blanket statement.
    In many cases, it is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human-induced climate change (or another causal factor, such as a specific mode of natural variability) has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes. The science behind such statements has advanced a great deal in recent years and is still evolving rapidly.
    Still further advances are necessary, particularly with respect to evaluating and
    communicating event attribution results and ensuring that event attribution studies meet the information needs of stakeholders. Further improvement will depend not only on addressing scientific problems specific to attribution, but also on advances in the basic underlying science, including observations, modeling, and theoretical understanding of extreme events and their relation to climate change.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Oh look – another peer reviewed paper from the National Acadamies of Science not less, Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change (2016)[/quote]

    Oh look! Another model! 😆

    [i]From Chapter 4 of the SREX:

    “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
    “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
    “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
    Let’s hope this lack of attribution of severe storms to “man made climate change” in AR5 finally nails the lid shut on the claims of Hurricane Sandy, tornado outbreaks, and other favorite “lets not let a good crisis go to waste” media bleatings about climate change.

    Now with two IPCC reports making no connection, and with Nature’s editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:

    Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

    …we can finally call it a dead issue.

    There’s simply no connection between droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, flash floods, tornadoes and “climate change”.

    ===============================================================

    Dr. Roger Pielke Jr adds in blog post today some points from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.

    “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
    “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
    “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
    “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
    “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
    “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
    “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
    And says:

    Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.[/i]

    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.

    You still don’t get it, do you killer?

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    First a side note. It wasn’t my intention to imply that Phillips was the one being rude. Everyone can read. The post started off with retirement.

    I have a little more to say about taking comfort in all of the institutions backing the climate change movement.

    If you want numbers, over 31,000 American scientists have signed the Oregon Petition disputing human caused warming. This includes over 9,000 PhD’s, and I believe 1,500 climatologists through my memory might have failed on the last number.

    However, this, as well as the positions of the institutions, doesn’t matter. As one of my chemistry professors said, “Science is not a democracy.” If it were, the sun and the rest of the universe would still be rotating around earth, the dinosaurs would still be dim witted slow moving cold blooded creatures, and the continents would have been in their current position throughout the history of earth.

    Those of us who are technical don’t pay attention to what is popular. We pay attention to data and theories. In the past ten years I have read more articles from the alarmists than the skeptics. It is obvious what I concluded makes the most sense.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The first time I saw extreme weather events being attributed to climate change it was being done by politicians, not researchers. At the time it did appear that extreme weather had become more common. However, it also appeared that devastating earthquakes and other plate tectonic events had also become more common.

    A Russian scientist had what I consider to be the best explanation. With the better communications, these events from all around the world were being better reported. This isn’t a news media conspiracy theory but rather acknowledgement that communications have gotten better.

    Many reports including the UN IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated that it was very unlikely that climate change was causing extreme events. The politicians never got the word because they continue to use this as a justification for political action.

    Apparently some researchers are trying to establish a link. They might get unintended consequences. The most devastation hurricane in the United States was some where around 1900. It has been ten years since a hurricane stronger than category 3 made US land fall. We still have tornadoes but in the past ten years we have had fewer of them. If it is demonstrated that there is a link between climate change and extreme weather events, then climate change can be credited with preventing the loss of life and property.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    What could possibly go wrong?[img]https://theconversation.com/mass-extinctions-and-climate-change-why-the-speed-of-rising-greenhouse-gases-matters-56675[/img]

    But I am sure natural variability can take care of it.

    Oh and another peer reviewed showing this CO2 release is the worst in 66 million years, way worse than PETM:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    :-*

    [img]https://theconversation.com/mass-extinctions-and-climate-change-why-the-speed-of-rising-greenhouse-gases-matters-56675[/img]

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    He’r’e your song Phillip! We’ll sing along with you!

    [i]”Well, ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
    I say, trouble right here in River City…

    …Trouble with a capital “T”
    And that rhymes with “P” and that stands for pool!..

    …Well, if so my friends,
    Ya got trouble,
    Right here in River city!
    With a capital “T”
    And that rhymes with “P”
    And that stands for Pool.
    We’ve surely got trouble!
    Right here in River City!
    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule!
    Oh, we’ve got trouble.
    We’re in terrible, terrible trouble.
    That game with the fifteen numbered balls is a devil’s tool!
    Oh yes we got trouble, trouble, trouble!
    With a “T”! Gotta rhyme it with “P”!
    And that stands for Pool!!!”[/i]

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Oh and another peer reviewed showing this CO2 release is the worst in 66 million years, way worse than PETM:[/quote]

    [quote]But I am sure natural variability can take care of it.[/quote]

    Q: What would Phil know about NV?
    A: Nothing, he is incapable of learning anything that disagrees with his agenda/belief system.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Amirlach, The point I am trying to make is that you cannot look at the CO2 graph of the last 800,000 years and think that this is not going to affect the planet and therefore life upon it.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Oh, tell us Phil
    What keeps happening ?

    It seems you want to parrot alarmist garbage,
    well go ahead but you should at least acknowledge
    it’s alarmist garbage.

    Let’s see you refer to one article that actually proves there is the greenhouse myth that you so earnestly desire to believe.

    You can’t !
    Because there isn’t any.
    Because the global warming alarmist cabal hasn’t got any.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    cheap phillie

    Have you ever heard of burden of proof ?
    ditto the scientific method ?

    I’d suggest you bone up on it before speaking so dogmatically.

    I regard you as a nothing because you are nothing.

    All you do is parrot idiocy and then exalt yourself to a position of authority because you have quoted a jerk like yourself or some unfounded so-called research.

    I stand by my words and you are a worthless nothing who cannot backup a thing you say.

    I expect you to want to keep running up the meter and especially to get the last comment as if thereby you have won.

    Go ahead, Phil.

    We’ll all be laughing .

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    What “keeps happening” is that there is a growing divergence between models and observations.
    [quote][/Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.

    Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him.
    quote]
    Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.

    Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him. https://us-issues.com/2015/07/26/the-climate-wars-go-to-congress/

    And sorry to burst your little bubble there Phillip, but 1979 was the height of the Global Cooling Scare.

    The reason alarmists cherry pick it over the actual start of the satellite record is because the whole record exposes the scam.
    [quote]Arctic ice propaganda at NSIDC depends on graphs like the one below, which cleverly start at peak ice in 1979, and create the deceptive appearance of a linear decrease in ice – intended to fool the reader into believing it is due to CO2 emissions.[/quote]
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/figure3-350×2701.png[/img]
    [quote]But they are hiding the Nimbus 5 microwave satellite data, which goes back to 1972 and was included in the 1990 IPCC report. The Nimbus 5 data completely wrecks their story, because it shows that ice in 1974 was no more extensive than it is today, andhat NSIDC cherry-picked 1979 as their start date.[/quote]
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/screenhunter_8822-apr-30-06-28.gif[/img]

    [quote]Below is an image from the Nimbus 5 satellite, taken in January 1976 – which shows how detailed the imagery was. NSIDC has no excuse for not using it. It was used in both the IPCC FAR and SAR reports.[/quote]
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_9237-may-14-03-48.gif[/img]

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Which is all just old old rehash of stuff.

    I am pointing out what is happening NOW. Which is what has been warned about for quite a while now

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    fille

    You’re saying you don’t like Amirlach’s argumentation and proof. And supposedly because it’s been said before.

    SO WHAT ?

    The real unstated reason you don’t like it is because it conclusively proves you wrong and a liar !

    Everybody knows that. It is only you who won’t admit it.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Amirlach: “The reason alarmists cherry pick it over the actual start of the satellite record is because the whole record exposes the scam.
    Quote:

    Arctic ice propaganda at NSIDC depends on graphs like the one below, which cleverly start at peak ice in 1979, and create the deceptive appearance of a linear decrease in ice – intended to fool the reader into believing it is due to CO2 emissions.

    From a simple search I found this peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows Arctic ice extant prior to satellite records. As per usual if you really want to study the science you should do the research:
    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/meetings/Ice2013/dayTwo/Walsh_Wed.pdf

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    There is of course the other point that I KEEP MAKING, i.e. you are concentrating on one area of the earth that you feel gives you the answer you want. Global warming is just that: GLOBAL warming across the atmosphere, the land, the sea globally measured and compared to historical records.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    Maybe we should follow up on fille’s admission that the data is cherry picked.

    He’s at least admitting that the objective data is unreliable.

    The maxim of “garbage in, garbage out ” clearly applies.

    Fille is therefor admitting that the entirety of his argument is trash.

    As if we didn’t know.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Interesting how Gator’s request for a ranking of natural occurring climate forcings never gets addressed . One would think that with the supposed ” consensus ” the climate science community would have established what the relative weight of each natural occurring forcing before they could even start to begin building a model that introduces CO2 representing less than 1 % of the atmosphere and call it the cause for the earth having a fever . Come on scientists ..where is the “consensus ‘ on the 99% of natural things that
    are responsible for our climate ? If something so basic can’t be demonstrated to have been agreed to with proof and applied uniformly to climate models then the models are just making things up and are unscientific .
    What are the natural forcings and respective weighting in NOAA model weather statistics
    considering more accurate satellite data has only been available since the 1990’s ?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    I did answer that question (sort of) when he first asked it Amber.

    The point is it has been done numerous times with gazillions of researched peer-reviewed science. The only thing not done has been to list it in some sort of pointless ranking system. Like that is even possible, what rank would you give volcano eruptions considering they vary in time, place, intensity, chemical makeup? What about global shift? What difference is there when the ice ages exist or when there is warming period?

    That is the whole point of climate science. Each variable affects and is affected by each other. YOu have to study it as a homogenous whole. And when you do you can then pinpoint the data that is changing markedly and correlate it to any observed outcomes.

    A ‘ranking’ is irrelevant and therefore the question seeks to detract the argument.

    Any natural climate variability has been studied within an inch of its life and found to not be as strong as AGW in causing what we are seeing occur. I have posted numerous links to such articles, over an over in this forum and not once has anyone answered what they represent, let alone try to negate.

    The science has studied all natural forcings and know what they affect and by how much. None of them have the power to change the environment as much as we are seeing occur right now.

    Given the repeated request for the irrelevant ‘ranking’ I can only conclude that the people here do not understand the true nature of climate science and therefore cannot comment on my posted links.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I did answer that question (sort of) when he first asked it Amber.[/quote]

    Liar. There is no “sort of”.

    Care to 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.

    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.

    Or would you prefer to just keep lying?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Any natural climate variability has been studied within an inch of its life and found to not be as strong as AGW in causing what we are seeing occur. I have posted numerous links to such articles, over an over in this forum and not once has anyone answered what they represent, let alone try to negate.[/quote]

    Pure BS, as your failure to fulfill my request has proven.

    But that won’t stop Phil from lying about it again, and again, and again…

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The science has studied all natural forcings and know what they affect and by how much. None of them have the power to change the environment as much as we are seeing occur right now.[/quote]

    OK the liar, prove it.

    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.

    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.

    Or is it more expedient for you to continue lying?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Given the repeated request for the irrelevant ‘ranking’ I can only conclude that the people here do not understand the true nature of climate science and therefore cannot comment on my posted links.[/quote]

    Actually, we understand them far better than you. We point out that they are based upon models, models built without the data needed to make them accurate, or even relevant.

    For modelers to be able to model our climate, they must be able to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    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.

    But you just keep lying Phil, to us, and to yourself.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Since you seem so keen Gator, why don’t you answer the question?

    Where do volcanoes rank? What about albedo effect? Higher or lower than volcanoes?

    I clearly have no understanding so please feel free to educate me. I am an open book and now willing to learn.

    Can you rise to the challenge?

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    AAAAAWWWWW

    Poor fille objects to be being called a liar, even though he is. And even I believe that he’s not that stupid that he doesn’t know.

    Let’s get out the crying towel for poor fille, his feelings have been hurt.

    Simple way to cure the whole thing :

    Fille – baby, all you have to do is stop lying and miraculously maybe no one will call you a liar.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Fille-baby wants to talk about rising to a challenge ?

    How hypocritically ridiculous when :

    When neither fille-baby or any of the jerks he cites can prove that there is a greenhouse effect !

    Go ahead fille-baby.

    Let’s see YOU rise to the challenge .

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Phillip Ross thanks for replying so civilly I know how amped up I get along with my pals who you already know . There are probably plenty of things we would agree on … Climate change is real but that is nothing new , Co2 levels originating with human activity are increasing significantly , we are in a long term warming trend exiting an ice age ,we should constantly strive to minimize energy use while improving the worlds standard of living and be protective of the environment . There are probably many others .
    Areas of difference seem to be in no particular order :

    Climate records on a global scale are very recent and are an estimate . Claims that they are anything else or are conclusive one way or the other are inaccurate .
    Climate model’s are a work in progress
    as is the whole field of climate science . As a prediction tool they have not established
    credibility to date .
    Human activity generating Co2
    can be both negative and positive . The impacts are characterized as negative
    to create fear of catastrophic consequences in order to achieve other objectives and the positives are rarely mentioned .

    Natural variability factors drive climate change . While human originating CO2
    can’t be ignored it is not going to stop the world from cooling or warming and we
    are not going to shape the earths temperature to suit some people by 1or 2 degrees based on a 30-50% reduction in human created CO2 .

    Records prove that a main objective of the scary global warming campaign is to facilitate political and business objectives thus draining $$trillions of borrowed money away to do very little for the environment but to raise taxes and to prop up businesses which for the most part would not be viable .

    The other objective is the redistribution of wealth through the UN and the wholesale destruction of whole sectors of a modern economy that contribute greatly to improved living standards .

    The issue is really not about the effect human activity has it is about the use of an inexact science to manipulate the public for the pursuit of other non climate objectives .

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    You have explained yourself quite succintly Amber. I thank you for that.

    My simple repost is this: you make all these claims declaiming years of science across all relevant disciplines that has been peer reviewed like all good science is; but provide absolutely no evidence of your own to back it up.

    It is all supposition until you can provide peer reviewed science to prove what you claim. Then I can read something concrete and make my mind up.

    Otherwise what you have written is pure suppostion. Sorry

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Your right to some extent and let’s assume you are absolutely correct. Do you not agree that climate science is been used as a means to achieve the other objectives outlined ? I acknowledge humans have to have an impact and measurements of CO2 clearly show a significant change . As far as evidence I think it is something best left with scientists not political activists and others trying to fatten their wallets .
    Scientists should be free to discover , make failed hypothesis and be free to acknowledge if they have a complete picture when and if they do . This polarization isn’t helpful and it is in large part a result of the haste to which the non-scientific interests wish to pursue their agenda .

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Hi Phillip (2 “L”s ?),
    The infamous Drewski here and a fellow “liar”.

    Years ago, I named these poor deluded souls on CCD as “sCeptics” (capital “C”) due to my perplexing discussions with them. It stands for:

    So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles

    5 years later and they are still recycling the very same nonsensical and non-cited absurdities they learn on trashy blogs sites run by unqualified non scientists. If they bother to cite anything at all, 99% of the time it comes from two sources, WUWT or Steven Goddard, both of which rate slightly above Marvel Comics.

    Just take a look at their source material here on CCD — it regularly comes from “climate experts” such as professional poker players, specialists of anxiety disorders, neck doctors and water diviners. The sCeptic logic is that these “experts” don’t get any grant money and are, therefore, infinitely more trustworthy than the people who are actually qualified in the topic under discussion.

    Meanwhile, temperatures are getting hotter practically every year, ice is melting, seas are rising faster and becoming less alkaline and there is a steady drum beat of records falling.

    All of which, according to sCeptics, is a “lie” and if you repeat it, you then become a “liar”. I consider being a “liar” as an award of the highest distinction as it puts me in the company of actual scientists. Although, according to sCeptics, people who spend years becoming qualified in a science are actually dishonest scum conspiring to make endless amounts of money from government grants. LOL

    So, as you are beginning to see, using logic, citations and reason with sCeptics is pointless and unsatisfying, however, you could try ridiculing them as I do. I find that is always good for a laugh.

    Anyway, keep up the good fight.
    Your Friend,
    Drewski
    Justice League Member and Climate Liar

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Can you rise to the challenge?[/quote]

    I am not the party making wild unsupportable claims, I have nothing to prove liar.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Ah yes! The other liar. 😆

    [i]# Drewski 2015-02-03 08:22
    Gator has been given many and over many periods. He is just too dense too understand them. I have never stated that natural variability does not exist, however, it is being overwhelmed by man-made forcings. ALL scientific organizations (as in every single one) that carries out original research understands and accepts this.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 09:31
    Just for once, please provide EVEN ONE peer reviewed paper refuting NV as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
    Go on smart guy, do it! 😀
    Remember, every scientist agrees with you and the science is settled. Right? So obviously it’s out there. Right? 😀

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 11:06
    Dementia it is. Poor fellow. They say doing simple physical tasks can sometimes delay the onset.
    What about calling your old pal, Morner, for a bit of dousing?

    # Gator 2015-02-03 11:13
    So you failed yet again. Do you ever tire of me pulling out that football Charlie Brown? 😀
    Paper please!

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 12:51
    Perhaps we can try hypnosis through the internet again?
    Ready, set, you are getting sleepy, sleepy. . .
    You are now back at your computer again in that dark and danky room . . . Drewski has made yet another witty riposte . . . . you are scrambling for a coherent thought. . . . oh no, here comes another 4 studies about the effect of CO2. . . you pretend to not see them. . . you ask Drewski for the same thing again like a brain dead zombie. . .
    Remember now?

    # Gator 2015-02-03 12:57
    Where is your ‘buddy’? 😀
    Better yet, where is that paper?

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:08
    Gator,
    If you can’t figure out show laces, then let someone who does tie them for you.
    And if you can’t fathom a scientific study, then let a scientist explain it to you.
    Remember, its not your fault you have a learning disability.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 13:12
    Unlike you Confusedski, I don’t need to have them explained to me. In case you are incapable of recalling recent years, I had to explain to you that your ‘proof’ was nothing more than models.
    I’m sure your imaginary friend is most impressed with your childish insults.
    Paper please! 😀

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 13:25
    Lying again Gator. What models?
    Being dense and a liar may make you a true blue sCeptic but, in the end, you are just another sCeptic destined to be an object of ridicule from future generations.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 13:27
    What paper? liar.
    You are a joke.

    # Drewski 2015-02-03 19:30
    As usual One Trick, you misunderstand. Gator lied when he said those dozen or so scientific papers I have given him over the years were models — they weren’t.

    # Gator 2015-02-03 19:42
    Go ahead and repost the papers [u][i][b]liar[/b][/i][/u]. [/i]

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andre…………ski and cheap fille
    two of a feather.

    They need the attention no matter how negative.

    They need the recognition of their existence for it is available no place else and no ways else.

    Immaturity and ignorance will always rise to the opportunist occasion.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”Amber”]Your right to some extent and let’s assume you are absolutely correct. Do you not agree that climate science is been used as a means to achieve the other objectives outlined ?[/quote]

    Absolutely agree with you there Amber. The misrepresentation of the science to suit political and business agendas is shameful.

    The main thing that annoys me is the call that reversing AGW will send us back to the stone age. Which is utter nonsense. Once business and politicians and scientists agree it will be a boon for industry and commerce. It has been done for other industries to prove it so.

    However, just because AGW science is being misused for political/commercial reasons does not detract from its truths.

    Sadly it is people who loudly claim that the science is incorrect that is helping business and politicians to continue their own agendas.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”196-to-Zero”]Hi Phillip (2 “L”s ?),
    The infamous Drewski here and a fellow “liar”.

    So, as you are beginning to see, using logic, citations and reason with sCeptics is pointless and unsatisfying, however, you could try ridiculing them as I do. I find that is always good for a laugh.

    Anyway, keep up the good fight.
    Your Friend,
    Drewski
    Justice League Member and Climate Liar[/quote]

    Ah hello Drewski, nice to chat. I wondered who I was being mistaken for when I kept being called ‘Drewski’! (Along with being called a turd, a killer and a POS!)

    I agree it is confusing and frustrating when you ask for simple debating principles to be adhered to and it gets steadfastly refused. I could not live with myself just taking for granted what I believe and not checking what another person provides in counter arguments.

    But I still believe it is a duty to keep trying to get science deniers to at least do some proper research. So not yet disheartened.

    Which is why I do not agree with you however on resorting to ridicule (although I am close to responding to JayPee) I do hope his/her future grandchildren are able to forgive for what they have to live with due to JayPee’s misguided beliefs.

    I note your comment was #200 in this thread. Did any of your reasoned debates last this long?

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    Thanks for the heads up Drewski! I had kinda made the same connections to each of those names so I am glad it is not just me.

    I too was impressed with Amber’s willingness to engage rationally, but she is rather outnumbered!

    I noted on another page that they were cheering the fact that climate reporting has dropped in major media (I assume talking about the US). Never occurred to them that reporting has dropped because most people had moved on to the next step of doing something.

    I do think I am done on this site however. As you point out their arguments become quite repetitive and the refusal to debate a point tends to make it pointless to continue.

    Travel light

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Wow, that was quick.
    I shall — travel light that is. I am off to another instate contract which promises to occupies me for a few weeks, at least.

    I check the site now and then, but I promised I would only return to keep the sCeptics updated on the latest climate records.

    The older me, the more tolerant one, would have also taken the high road with these sCeptics but they wore me down I am sorry to say. Perhaps it is time to pass the baton.

    Matta de

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Gator: Believes that unless you can identify every gamma ray from the delta quadrant that may have interacted with Earth’s atmosphere within the past 150 years, scientists cannot possibly know what can or cannot affect Earth’s climate. He loves to cite WUWT instead of scientific sources.[/quote]

    Awww… aint it cute when true star crossed liars meet for the first time? 😆

    Actually, Gator knows that you cannot measure that which you cannot measure. A simple truth that kills the real science deniers every time.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Travel light[/quote]

    Yes, no need to carry a brain when you are a natural variability and science denier. Just lie your a55 off.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Perhaps it is time to pass the baton.[/quote]

    Yes, from one liar to the next.

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Drewski (from Gator’s own posting above)
    “I have never stated that natural variability does not exist. . . . “

    Gator (directly above): “Yes, no need to carry a brain when you are a natural variability and science denier. Just lie your a55 off.”

    Gator, don’t you ever tire of getting it wrong (or being uninformed)?

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    Phillip,
    I hope you are paying attention.

    When I catch a sCeptic red handed (as with Gator above) in a flat out lie or pointing out some incredibly stupid comment they make, I get banned from CCD and my comments get wiped. No doubt it is because their gaffe is just TOO embarrassing for them and their sCepetic friends to have see it over and over again on the commuter screen. If the post gets wiped, they can pretend they never actually said the absurdity they said and then they can get back to the business of accusing scientists for earning grant money in order to study the environment we all share.

    So, enjoy their duplicity while you can.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ Andrzjewski

    You claim to be talking to someone else, when you are one and the same ?

    You claim to have caught a skeptic redhanded when you are a multi-proven LIAR and have never proffered any SCIENTIFIC PROOF whatsoever for ANY of your insane claims ?

    And you can’t fathom why you’re universally considered mentally defective and challenged ?

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]”I have never stated that natural variability does not exist. . . .”[/quote]

    Nice try at a strawman liar. What you deny is that natural variability can explain the climate changes we have seen. Something that cannot be done until you do this…

    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.

    And of course being the liar you are, you claim you have done so.

    The end. 😉

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Phillip, I hope you are paying attention. When I catch a sCeptic red handed (as with Gator above)…[/quote]

    Another lie.

    You deny that natural variability can explain the climate changes we have seen. Something that cannot be done until you do this…

    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.

    You see, the problem with lying Cool Whip, is that until you admit the first lie, everything else built upon it, is just another lie. So until you admit that the above challenges have not been met, you are doing nothing but confirming your status as known liar here.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Andrejewski

    Thank you for comment # 217.
    What you said proves everything I said in # 214.
    I’ll confidently leave it to the readers to make their own call.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Phillip Ross”][quote name=”amirlach”][quote]

    What happens when you compare temperature rise with Solar after 1850?
    [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OEdgny5flYo/UZUoP5jhMFI/AAAAAAAAFKE/hLzGOoHTMG8/s1600/ScreenShot3459.jpg[/img].[/quote]

    Interesting you use that graph Amirlach, because I found this one. Which one is correct?
    [img]http://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png[/img]

    And here is the dataset home page so you can do your own verification (which you did not provide me):
    http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html%5B/quote%5D

    Sceptical Science? 😀

    Which one is correct? Simple! The “graph” showing a linear increase in temperature is false. We all know temperatures stopped increasing after 1998.
    [img]http://s19.postimg.org/uuy2ft3jn/Combined_USA_temperatures.png[/img]

    It’s called the “PAUSE”. Your SkS Graph has fudged it away.

    Sorry, but SkS is a specious miss information clearing house and has zero credibility.

    A fascinating rift is growing in the climate community.

    While US scientists appear to be doing everything in their power to deny and bury the ongoing pause in global warming, with questionable adjustments to their data. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/
    UK Ocean Scientists are refusing to give up without a fight.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    “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…”

    This is the sad state of todays cLIEmate UN-science.

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Well said, Amirlach
    but don’t expect Andrzjewski and his various other pseudo-identities to accept logic and reason and scientific thought and proof.

    Laughably, they are incapable of such thought.
    That’s why we get the nonsensical idiotic blathering of no merit, because they are incapable of logical thought.

    Moreover, they understand nothing of the exact sciences in regard to the formulation of thought.

    Ignorance IS bliss, that’s why our clueless critics are so happy.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Me doesn’t think what you think Coolwhip. But Me did report your last 2 comments.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And I didn’t get the moderation window this time or the last 2 times I posted. What pissed Me off the first time I got it to who ever adio is!
    As he or she or apparently it now is can say we are running out of the so called fossel fuels, and yet again here we are with a glut of the so called fossel fuels. You know the stuff all your kind hate. And yet the priceof everything never goes down but when the so called fossel fuels goes up, then it’s a free for all to increase prices yet again.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So the bottom line really is there is no problem, it’s just you people and the govenment and religion can’t function with out more more more.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So what is your solutionto that? Drewski?

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Me guesses the truth is too hard to tell! Cause reasons!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Now Coolwhip, I had nothing to do with anything but your last 2 comments. 😆

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    That was your own doing, and if you are trying to blame that on someone other than yourself then, it’s cause reasons yet again!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Not really, the greenhouse gas theory or hypothesis only works in a greenhouse like experiment, hence what happens in a greenhouse, but reality in the real world doesn’t match up with your Models, so yeah still sucks to be you.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Now I am guessing someone esle reported you, because I tried!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Drewski, you have done nothing but lie, you have posted links that said nothing about natural cuses when asked, and all the ones you did had nothing but weasel words in them of if’s and maybe’s and could, and probably so on. And all the predictions you people were calling would happen suddenly were called projuections.Just another weasel way to get out of your BS. and yet again you still want to continue. The hole is deep I see.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And then there were others that was behind a pay wall. Don’t know what to think of that but the obvious.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And then there is everything all your kind said would happen by now didn’t because global warming!?So what happened thare?

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    So say it you were wrong, and you lied?

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Wellyou are not going to admit you lied but you did.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    because you are still doing it.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Never in my life have I had seen this happen with weasel words used in this way. In science it was determened with tested results that the interferences would react in the manner that was tested and confirmed. they would never do it the way this cli-sci is doing it and being confirmed.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    BS, and you know it, Sponge! It’s time your kind get a reality check. You and your kind know what they said would happen by now. Still waiting!

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    There maybe a lot fo poeple that don’t understand this but ther are us that do. I am not getting anything from it, All i have is to pay like everyone else does. And it appears it doesn’t matter because we keep on paying.
    Now that being said I have a chemistry and microbiology background to serve the people that are needed as myself. And now you people say what we are doing is harmful. Well then go to where ever it is you think is to your likeing.

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    And yeah, I was part time mechanical engineer, the same as that bowtie sci guy, but not the TV persona that yuck has. 😀

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    Well, coolwhip, that there is a song out thare that I didn’t for, but oops I did it again, is more to your liking. But seems fitting here at this point and time. Cause you seem to keep doing what you do.

  • Avatar

    196-to-Zero

    |

    me says:
    “BS, and you know it, Sponge!”

    On the contrary, all these observations I listed are well documented. The evidence for a man-made changing climate is so overwhelming that EVERY country on Earth (196 of them) signed on to COP21 and it is on the verge of being ratified.

    Like I said, you may close your eyes and shout “No no no no” as loud as you want but reality has a way of intruding.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]On the contrary, all these observations I listed are well documented.[/quote]

    They are not observations, they are adjusted numbers. Doomer fantasies.

    The actual data does not support alarmist claims, only models and altered data support alarmist claims. Models and adjustments made by alarmaists, and for alarmists.

    The changes we have seen are to be expected as we come out of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

    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.

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    The only real world thing the fraudulent “adjustments” made to the data match, is rising Co2.

    This has been done to create the false impression that Co2 is causing warming. It is not.
    [quote]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.[/quote]
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1603-aug-03-05-53.gif[/img]

    “This appears to be a perfect example of confirmation bias coded directly into their algorithm.

    “Our algorithm is working as designed”

    – Recent NCDC press release

    “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”

    – Albert Einstein.”

    The so called “adjustments” are a fraud.

  • Avatar

    Phillip Ross

    |

    [quote name=”196-to-Zero”]Wow, that was quick.
    [/quote]

    Just when you thought you got out … they pull you back in!

    Boy, that deteriorated quickly! Well done

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Don’t give me that cheap appeal.
    Say what you want others to think you are saying.
    Cut out the nonsense that you’ve been somehow wronged and censored.

    You’ve been proven a LIAR.
    You’ve been proven to be DREWSKI.

    You are a phony lying creep cheaply posturing the greenhouse global catastrophe crap that you have made a fraudulent industry of.

    Tell me where you are going to be buried.
    I think I will live long enough to piss on your grave,

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]”Earth’s global temperatures in March 2016 set another monthly record, continuing an almost year-long streak of records shattered, according to THREE recent independent analyes.”[/quote]

    (yawn) Get back to us when they start using actual temperature data, and prove any warming isn’t natural.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    The circle of life keeps happening? I should hope so.

    [quote]A year of intense detective work by scientists revealed a virus active in marine ecosystems for seven decades had suddenly flourished, although no one at this point understands why. Scientists think that the ocean’s warming, its increasing acidity, or some other factor has weakened sea stars and made them vulnerable to the virus. Evolutionary biologists have suggested that the virus may have evolved, becoming an extra-potent slayer of sea stars.[/quote]

    Did you get that?

    “Or some other factor…”

    In other words, they don’t know. Just like what drives climate change, they don’t know.

    But you Chicken Littles just keep screaming the sky is falling, while 21,000 more innocent humans starve to death again today.

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    That’s what you get for thinking. It is 21,000 innocent humans needlessly starved to death because the Trillion Dollar Climate Change Industry is sucking all of the aid money out of the planet. And so nice to know you care!

    And BTW, that’s not the end of the world that hit you on the head, it’s just an acorn CL. So time for a tune change One Note, let’s sing for someone else’s supper.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.