Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

wrong thread...

del

I have a question. I do not doubt that man has had an effect (negative as we view it) on climate. I do question the assertion that man is having a catastrophic effect on climate. Specially when it appears that some AGW proponents ignore that we are in an interglacial period and global warming is what typically happens during these periods.

What is the quantitative effect we have had?

I do not believe that there is an answer (at least, not an honest and factual answer) to that question. One can break it down by co2 increases based on estimated production levels of co2 by man. That is insufficient as an answer when one considers the dynamics involved in the living system known as earth. Not to mention that co2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is logarithmic which, considered with the living system (so to speak) would tend to discount some of man's contribution.Then you have multi-decadal oceanic cycles, Malenkovitch cycles, cow farts (lol couldnt resist), solar activity, volcanic activity etc etc all of which play a part in the complexity we do not understand but call climate.

Of course, co2 would only tell a part of the story. I mean... how much are we contributing by surfacing a portion of the earth with asphalt? Concrete? Billions of people.....

It's clear that the climate models are nothing more than failed hopotheses that are continually being adjusted, but the fact is they are way too simplistic to trust and we are probably decades away from something we CAN trust. Even the IPCC admits their models "run hot".

What we are left with is 3 groups of people: Those who deny climate change in entirety. Those who undestand man has contributed to change but do not believe it is catastrophic or make no claims to the degree. Then there are those who seem to insist on attributing all climate change to man and seem to believe that if we make changes in lifestyles we can "reverse" climate change and bring back "better" climates. lol No.

Seems to me that its the billions of people that are the problem. If we really want to address man's contribution, does it not make more sense to take steps to stop and even reverse our ballooning population?

a reply to: bbracken677

Take the time to read this thread and you might find some of the answers to the questions.

Phage and a few others have taken the time to show the rising how we have concluded the rising CO2 is a direct result of man's addiction to burning fossil fuels.

Not ever one who understands man's role in climate change is an alarmist or doom pornographer and is intellectually dishonest to suggest this is true.

Your 3 types of people in the climate change discussion fall under the fallacy of hasty generalization.

a reply to: bbracken677

This thread was all about steering the conversation back to the known (but largely ignored by skeptics) elements of man-made climate change, so let’s review a bit:

- It’s proven physics that increasing greenhouse gases will enhance heat-trapping/radiative forcing in the atmosphere.
- Not only has this been proven in the lab, it’s also been physically observed by satellite and ground based measurements happening as expected in the real world.
- The radiative forcing component of CO2 is very well understood. It amounts to an extra 3.7 Watts per meter squared of excess energy across the planet under a CO2 doubling. This value already accounts for the logarithmic effect on increasing CO2.
- This extra 3.7 W/m^2 alone equals a global average temperature increase of about 1.2 °C / 2.2 F, so that much is already well quantified.

What’s less understood is how much this radiative forcing will affect other cycles and feedback patterns, and ultimately how those elements will factor into a final temperature tally. Nobody has ever claimed to know this number for certain, so before we build more strawman arguments about alarmists or catastrophic climate change, let’s look at what the IPCC have actually said in their own words:

Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. These assessments are consistent with the overall assessment in Chapter 12, where the inclusion of additional lines of evidence increases confidence in the assessed likely range for ECS.

Source – AR5 Chapter 10

Or better yet, let’s look at a graph of these probabilities:



Note the wide, shaded “likely” range of 1.5-4.5°C.

A couple of things:
- Anything above 2 °C is considered dangerous. The majority of probabilities are centered above that number.
- Look at the error bars, and how short they are on the lower end of the scale, yet how far they extend into the upper reaches.

Anything above 4°C is where you get into what most people would deem “catastrophic”, and although it’s not the most likely scenario, it’s still very much there and can’t be ruled out. And this is all under the assumption we actually reduce our emissions enough to stop at a CO2 doubling in the first place.

This is what gets me about the whole uncertainty argument posed by skeptics as another excuse to do nothing. The uncertainty leans much more heavily towards “catastrophic” than it does towards “meh, that wasn’t so bad after all!”. It's just more talking point nonsense stirred up by shills in the fake climate debate.

So what you missed is a 4th camp of people: those who just look at the actual data fairly and objectively, instead of through constant assumptions, rhetoric and hyperbole.

What that data shows is a solid physical (and easily quantifiable) basis for why man made climate change is happening and will continue to happen right now. The final result, depending on our actions, is more uncertain - but the simple range of probabilities (and modern day physics is all about probabilities) suggests we should err far more on the side of caution than reckless apathy and do-nothingness.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bbracken677- It’s proven physics that increasing greenhouse gases will enhance heat-trapping/radiative forcing in the atmosphere.
- Not only has this been proven in the lab, it’s also been physically observed by satellite and ground based measurements happening as expected in the real world.

I agree with the greenhouse principle, but I disagree with the numbers that you are implicitly applying to it. The observations that you cited at the start of the topic that apparently contain evidence of measured downward radiation from CO2 exist behind pay-walls. Have you read them?

The first paper here at the start of the topic from the AIRS graph you posted (proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org...) exists behind a pay-wall and the other paper (www.nature.com...) also exists behind a pay-wall and gives a figure of 0.2W/sq.m radiative forcing from a 22ppmv increase in CO2 between 2000-2010 corresponding to warming at the top-of-the-atmosphere of about 0.05K. However according to a 2010 NASA article ‘Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade’. So, assuming the measurements in the paper you cited are correct then the increase in CO2 from 2000-2010 can only explain about 25% of decadal warming (i.e. 0.05C/0.2C). The warming of 0.05C from a 0.2W/sq.m is probably overestimation however since that temperature increase applies at the top-of-the-atmosphere at a temperature of 255K and not at the surface where the temperature is 288K. We should expect more warming in the atmosphere than at the surface because of 4th-root relationship between temperature and radiation-intensity. Applying the supposedly measured 0.2W/sq.m from CO2 back-radiation with the SB-law we get a warming of 0.037C, which accounts for about 18% of the decadal warming at the surface according to NASA’s data. What then is causing the other 82% of warming? Either the positive feedbacks are much larger than estimated, or natural factors are larger than estimated, or the NASA temperature-record data is wrong and is overestimating warming.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677Phage and a few others have taken the time to show the rising how we have concluded the rising CO2 is a direct result of man's addiction to burning fossil fuels.

They might have ‘concluded’ that Jord but a lot of people in this thread (myself included) have not been persuaded by their arguments and the so-called overwhelming evidence. Phage and other warmists here I think have demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt and made abundantly clear now that the essential defect in their arguments is that they do not appear to know what they pretend to know. They pretend to know how much radiative forcing anthropogenic CO2 is producing, but apart from citing papers that exist behind pay-alls and referring to the IPCC and Skeptical Science, they cannot demonstrate that they know it. They pretend to know that the initial amount of RF from anthropogenic CO2 will be significantly ‘enhanced’ by feedback processes inherent in the natural climate system, but they cannot demonstrate that they know it. In short they (and you included) cannot demonstrate that you know any of the things that you pretend to know.

a reply to: Nathan-D

There you go again, casting doubt without bringing in any actual substance or data to back up why you have doubts, and why you seem to believe the AGW scientists' make assumptions based on scanty evidence.

Here is the thing, I was skeptical about climate change for years. My freshman year of college I had a professor mention how AGW was not completely accepted as true. This was back in 2001, before Al Gore's movie. Over the next 10 years, I was skeptical and took the time to actually research the claims made by both sides.(and have pwned AGW supporters without a science background in debates about this)

What I concluded is those who are concerned about human induced climate change for the most part look at the data objectively, do their best to protect the integrity of the data and when necessary throw bad data points out, and come up with logical conclusions based on the information available. Sure there might be an 'alarmist' that comes up with insane predictions and sometimes that can grab the media's attention, but those types are few and far between.

I have learned the data that supports the skeptical/denier side of the discussion is scanty at best, the evidence and data just is not there to conclude that what we are observing is 'natural' in terms of the history of the Earth. Furthermore I found most skeptics base their arguments on political rhetoric, arguments that cast doubt without addressing the problem while ignoring crucial data, and all too often straight up fallacies.

I just can not be skeptical of climate change anymore. When one looks at the science and data the answer to the question Are we changing the climate is clear. It is a global issue that our species will have to deal with.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D Over the next 10 years, I was skeptical and took the time to actually research the claims made by both sides.(and have pwned AGW supporters without a science background in debates about this)

Ok, I'll get the ball rolling, shall I? Given you've spent 10 years researching this topic, I imagine you would be able to pwn and school me very easily, right? Ok then. What evidence do you consider to be the strongest evidence supporting the idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are mainly the cause for the assumed ~1C temperature increase since 1850?

a reply to: Nathan-D

No, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I spent 10 years as a skeptic and researching the topic here and there over the years in my freetime. Had I devoted more time to this, or ended up finishing college for meteorology(i dropped out and joined the Navy) I would have been a skeptic for a much shorter time frame.

I am not a scholar nor an expert in this subject, and it has been about 10 years since the last real class I took regarding atmospheric science/chemistry.

Are you not aware of the 40% increase of CO2 that we have observed? Where do you think the excess CO2 is coming from?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nathan-D

No, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I spent 10 years as a skeptic and researching the topic here and there over the years in my freetime. Had I devoted more time to this, or ended up finishing college for meteorology(i dropped out and joined the Navy) I would have been a skeptic for a much shorter time frame.

You said that over 10 years you took the time to research the claims behind AGW, so yeah, you have been researching it for 10 years, so there is misrepresentation there on my part.

Are you not aware of the 40% increase of CO2 that we have observed? Where do you think the excess CO2 is coming from?

What a masterful art in prevarication! The simple question I asked had nothing to do with if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is man-made or not. But if that's something you want to discuss I suppose we could.

I think the increase in atmospheric CO2 is likely natural and probably coming from the oceans.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Quit the strawman arguments!!!

I meant over 10 years I read various articles, looked at data and so forth as an amateur, I do not mean research like a PHD will research a thesis. 10 years is long time for good evidence to come out, especially on the skeptical side of things, correct? Over those 10 years the evidence that man is the cause of the CO2 and the apparent temperature increase kept stacking up, while no tangible evidence of the contrary, that is the CO2 and temp rises are natural ever materialized in that time frame.

What you are asking has been discussed ad nauseam on here. The rising CO2 levels are a direct result of our addiction to burning fossil fuels. To deny that humans are the driving cause is denying science and willfully choosing ignorance.

a reply to: Nathan-D

However according to a 2010 NASA article ‘Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade’. So, assuming the measurements in the paper you cited are correct then the increase in CO2 from 2000-2010 can only explain about 25% of decadal warming (i.e. 0.05C/0.2C).

It’s funny, because the period 2000-2010 is usually the decade used by deniers to exclaim “there’s been no warming!”, since the trend during that time was *only* 0.12 °C:



It’s of course been repeatedly pointed out that this limited timeframe is conveniently cherry-picked to deflect from the more statistically significant long term trend, but now - when we have a study that specifically looks at the period 2000-2010 - you suddenly find it more convenient to compare those results to a longer 30 year trend of 0.2°C/decade, because it diminishes the numbers in the study…interesting how that works.

I also don't know where you got 0.05K, or a surface warming of 0.037K, since calculating a temperature increase from 0.2 W/m^2 using the greenhouse model linked above = a surface warming of 0.09K. So 0.09K/0.12K = 75%, not 18%.

But regardless, what’s also funny is on the last page you were refuting the idea that you don’t seem to understand the difference between radiative forcing and climate sensitivity - and yet here you are right back at it, conflating the two as if radiative forcing alone should be able to explain 100% of the observed temperature increase, while ignoring climate sensitivity altogether.


This thread was set up to inform people about the well-established physics underlying man made climate change. Some of the papers here may be pay-walled, but all their important figures and even source data are readily available:

www.nature.com...

The authors of the Feldman study even posted a handy Youtube video showing changes in CO2 forcing tracking with concentration in high definition, which was already linked in the OP.

But you choose to “disagree” with this empirical evidence.

Disagreeing with empirical observation is what some of us more blunt individuals prefer to call denial.

The rest of your empty rationalizations carry all the hallmarks of that too: cherry-picking temperature trends instead of comparing 2000-2010 apples to apples, intellectual dishonesty about 3500% increase in CO2 emissions versus what actually matters (concentration), and impossible expectations over radiative forcing and overall warming.

So you can call others phonies, and stroke your ego all you want about mainstream science being wrong because the numbers don't add up to you - you've demonstrated time and time again it's your own intellectual dishonesty, and your very poor understanding of the physics and the math that's the actual problem here.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Nathan-D

I also don't know where you got 0.05K, or a surface warming of 0.037

Straightforward application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

since calculating a temperature increase from 0.2 W/m^2 using the greenhouse model linked above = a surface warming of 0.09K. So 0.09K/0.12K = 75%, not 18%.

I think that is your essential problem. You are applying the IPCC’s ‘greenhouse model’. As I don’t doubt you understand, the ΔT = λRF equation is the one to which the IPCC uses to factor in its claimed feedbacks to RF from CO2. But as others have demonstrated (such as on WattsUpWithThat) this formula is incorrect in fact because in each cycle (except the first) they are only applying feedbacks to feedbacks and not to the total amount of RF as nature would do. It implies that the climate system is somehow discriminating between RF produced from CO2 and RF produced from the feedbacks to CO2 and is applying further feedbacks just to the latest feedback from the previous cycle. The correct equations must be exponential ones that follow a law of geometric progression rather than the arithmetic progression that the IPCC propose. Geometric progression means that the increments of RF to be added to the initial value at the end of each cycle also increase geometrically thereby producing a divergent number-series instead of the convergent one that you proposed. The divergent series produces the continuous amplification of RF with each cycle building on the one preceeding it exponentially. Even without considering Stefan-Boltzmann, which the formula blithely ignores, it appears to be nonsense to me since it ignores the long-term trend showing no tropospheric hotspot.

This thread was set up to inform people about the well-established physics underlying man made climate change

Sorry mc_squared, but what you are advocating here is not ‘well-established’ physics, but only politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models that have been invented from scratch on glitzy state-of-art computers without reference to the actual behaviour of the real climate system. Furthermore the studies you have cited in support of this ‘well-established’ physics exist behind pay-walls, and so no-one on this forum (unless they pay $20) can independently verify the veracity of their claims for themselves. If you think watching a YouTube video constitutes ‘empirical’ validation of their claims then you are mistaken.

intellectual dishonesty about 3500% increase in CO2 emissions versus what actually matters (concentration), and impossible expectations over radiative forcing and overall warming.

It is not intellectual dishonesty, just a simple observation. The bottom line is that a 3500% increase in emissions should have led to more warming (given a residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere of about 5-10 years). The concentration will still have increased significantly and in fact did so. And so too should have the temperature. But it did not. You can check for yourself the temperature increase that the IPCC's formulae say should be produced from an increase in CO2. The formulae tell us that from 1860 to 1880 we should have expected a feedback-inclusive temperature increase of 0.046C which is far less than the assumed trend of 0.163C/decade for that period. You can use the IPCC's equations to predict the temperature increase between 1910-1940 and similarly the assumed increase in atmospheric CO2 cannot account for the assumed warming during that period thereby implying that the warming must have been largely natural. I was not saying that the warming periods from 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 precludes man-made global warming today. I was saying that it is a clear demonstration of global warming on the same scale as that claimed by the IPCC for today being caused by natural factors alone. This implies that the natural factors which caused the warming to occur from 1860 to 1880 and from 1910 to 1940 could also be operative today and must be eliminated from the present situation before it can be claimed that modern global warming is man-made.

It’s funny, because the period 2000-2010 is usually the decade used by deniers to exclaim “there’s been no warming!”, since the trend during that time was *only* 0.12 °C:

My apologies. That should be 30% rather than 18%.

So you can call others phonies, and stroke your ego all you want about mainstream science being wrong because the numbers don't add up to you - you've demonstrated time and time again it's your own intellectual dishonesty, and your very poor understanding of the physics and the math that's the actual problem here.

On the contrary, it is you who doesn’t understand physics or what real science is mc_squared. If you understood the first thing about physics you would not have needed to ask me how I calculated 0.037C from 0.2W/sq.m of radiative forcing, which would be easy to calculate for any student with a GCSE-level physics textbook. You’ve evidently got the idea fixed in your mind that the climate cult’s “climate scientists” are doing real science, but that is not true. They are actually doing fake science but unless you know what real science is you won’t realise that. You evidently don’t know what real climate science is. Real science works to disprove articles of faith and replace them with hard facts that are observable, testable, provable and reproducible I’m afraid you are labouring under an illusion if you believe that the so-called “expert climate scientists” who make up the alleged “97% consensus” on climate change are working in that way, because they are not. I wish that they were! Instead they are just building elaborate speculative computer-models without subjecting them to any critical real-world observational testing and then forecasting a human-caused global climate catastrophe from their model-runs. That is not the rational behaviour of sober scientists! It is the irrational behaviour of hysterical alarmist doomsday cultists.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
www.onenewsnow.com...

Climatologist: Obama peddling a non-issue in Alaska


Dr. Pat Michaels, director of the Center for The Study of Science at the Cato Institute, tells OneNewsNow the Alaskan temperature record is very instructive. Michaels: "If you'll look at the data at the University of Alaska climate center, you will see there was a sharp rise in temperature that occurred in ... one year [1976-77]," he states. "It's called the Great Pacific Climate Shift and [it shows] that there's no real change averaged over the state of Alaska since then."

"And the subtext is there is a lot of controversy and acrimony over NOAA changing the global temperature record in June," he explains. "They threw out 30 years of satellite data and substituted in data that was guaranteed to put warming in the recent decades that is not in any other temperature records."


Read more: www.climatedepot.com...

www.onenewsnow.com...

"So, when you get down to it, it has a very magical quality that way, and things with magical qualities tend to run with how you think science should be. If you can explain everything with one theory, it's probably not likely what's going on."

Even so, atmospheric scientists point to man's burning of fossil fuels as the principle driver of global warming or climate change.

"Putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through human activity does have an effect on the overall atmosphere and weather systems,” Knappenberger acknowledges. “But whether you can identify that effect and whether that effect rises above the natural noise to become significant in a way that we should worry about it is where the argument lies.

"I'm here to say that natural variability still plays a large role especially on local and regional spatial scales, more so than [does] global warming."

www.climatedepot.com...< br /> www.google.com... .blogspot.com%2F2010%2F08%2F97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html&usg=AFQjCNGwS3TxyiSGDhY-nPAuZEOkrE2jmg&sig2=uQUwIxIqxymtSbRiFu5sNg

The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.


However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.

a reply to: 727Sky

Check your sources. Your are spreading lies. Especially about the 97% figure.

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result.

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Sorry mc_squared, but what you are advocating here is not ‘well-established’ physics, but only politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models that have been invented from scratch on glitzy state-of-art computers without reference to the actual behaviour of the real climate system.

Yes, “politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models” that was first confirmed by an Irish physicist in 1859 before there was such thing as a computer model, and is so simple today that ten year olds can do it themselves in science fair experiments (but is sooo complicated for people like yourself that you have to invent a deranged, non-sensical 150 year long conspiracy theory to explain it away).

On the contrary, it is you who doesn’t understand physics or what real science is mc_squared.

I have a degree in this stuff from an actual accredited university, not wattsupwiththat.com.

If you understood the first thing about physics you would not have needed to ask me how I calculated 0.037C from 0.2W/sq.m of radiative forcing, which would be easy to calculate for any student with a GCSE-level physics textbook.

…Or maybe I had to ask because you have no idea what you’re doing. I did calculate it using a formula that IS in textbooks and got 0.09K.

But if you seriously want to play this card, then let’s:

According to you, people like Phage, jrod and myself are the phonies pretending to know what we’re talking about, while you’re just dropping real science all over ATS huh? You know how I know (and can prove) how utterly full of it your posts are?

THIS

Remember that? I do, because it was probably the most all-time facepalm moment I’ve ever experienced on ATS.

That graph is axiomatic to understanding radiative forcing. Anyone with an actual technical background in this field would recognize it immediately as a Planck distribution. You of course didn’t, and never bothered to even read the x-axis as you prattled on about how CO2’s effect is "infinitesimal after 1400ppm”. It was mind-melting to watch you talk completely out of your bum-hole as you attempted to lecture everyone on the subject. What was even better is how you garnished your Dunnning-Kruger diatribe with statements like “You don't understand the logarithmic effect. An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is not the same as an increase from 300ppm to 560ppm.”

An increase from 3000ppm to 5600ppm is the same as an increase from 300-560 exactly BECAUSE of the logarithmic effect.

I knew then and there you don’t even understand what a logarithm is. You just come on here mindlessly regurgitating talking points you gobble up willfully on denier blogs, and your whole charade falls apart the moment you step away from the pre-programmed fallacies.

Your posts are some of the best examples I’ve ever seen of the brainwashing power these shills have in transforming naïve skeptics into full-fledged deniers. You think 150 years of core physics, taught in textbooks all over the world is “pseudoscience”, while readily accepting anything on a blog sponsored by the fossil fuel industry.

It’s really sad the effect these charlatans can have on people who desperately want to put their egos in front of their critical thinking skills.

This is the conspiracy I’m interested in, so please - continue to post intellectually dishonest and nonsensical talking points in support of their schemes, while you demand the rest of us “phonies” bow down to your emperor’s new clothes. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough times following this strategy, and at least I can point others to the very transparent dangers of such willful idiocy.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: 727Sky

Check your sources. Your are spreading lies.

His sources -

Dr. Patrick Michaels:

Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

climatedepot.com:

ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation

Source Watch

Yup.

a reply to: mc_squared

I have been banned from posting on Climatedepot because I once pointed out in the comment section that a graph they presented wasn't actually showing record low temps for the day. They were showing record low temps for a time of day. The days were actually reaching record highs.


They do not like it when their trickery gets called out and depend on people not understanding what they are presenting.

I was very nice about it and simply said people should look up the definition of the acronym for their presented graph. My post was immediately removed and I was post banned.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nice lol.

Here's my favorite pic of Marc Morano, the man who runs climatedepot.com:



Marc is not a climate scientist, but a political correspondent who first shot to fame as producer and reporter known as "Rush Limbaugh's Man in Washington".

If you can't trust THIS guy to give you the real science on climate change - who can you trust!

a reply to: mc_squared

Whenever I am banned from a site because I explain or clarify for people what has been presented it tells me a lot.

I have to say I was really impressed at the speed in which my post was removed and I was banned. Their reaction time is no joke. It took less than a minute.