Black Monday For The Climatistas

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: D8Tee

No it doesn't...it concludes the model simulations have inaccuracy in overestimating external forcing. External forcing are climate forcing agents outside of Earth. Source

Your definition of external forcings is wrong...
From the IPCC:

Some external influences, such as changes in solar radiation and volcanism, occur naturally and contribute to the total natural variability of the climate system. Other external changes, such as the change in composition of the atmosphere that began with the industrial revolution, are the result of human activity.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: D8Tee

The proof is there. A plethora of evidence supports the reality of our burning fossil fuels is causing a sharp rise in CO2 levels.

There is no evidence I have seen that supports your alternative theory. All I see is you using mental gymnastics to support your agenda of denying valid science.

Yes, burning fossil fuels increases the amount of Co2 in the environment. But the question is if this is causing the average temp to rise by 2 degrees. Even the wildest studies are only showing a 2 degree raise in temp. These proposed studies claimed we should be experiencing like a 12 degree increase. Watch Al Gore's movie again. None of that # is happening. That is why this climate study is not accurate.

This article is not from the opposing side. It is from MIT and points out very clearly where the math was fudged.

This info isn't even new. It's just that MIT has released their work. If you watch the news, the man made climate change position is only pushed by the left. It has always been another dishonest trick they use to take power from the repubs and gain support for themselves. What is their answer for the problem? Tax other energy source producers out of business.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm not a big believer in the CO2 being such a big factor. I think that chemistry and over harvesting of forests that damages our ecosystems ability to repair itself is just as important. They have made this into a money laundering scam where money flows to scientists that back the scam. Yes, we need to cut emmissions. But we should not be giving rich people money to tell us this, there are a lot of people getting rich off of this climate change BS.

We are messing things up, climate change is real, the organizations are mostly scams though, they are more interested in helping their economies than our environment.

First off. Co2 does have a great effect on greenhouse processes, however, the original studies (the same info referenced in Al gore's movie 1000 years ago) failed to add the additional variables that the earth has to deal with high Co2. Remember the dinosaurs? They lived in a very high Co2 environment for 100's of millions of years. Spokler!! The earth never died that whole time.

C02 forcing is logarithmic. Most of the heating in the IPCC models comes from a feedback that increases the water vapor concentration. Those are the models that are failing.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Watch Al Gore's movie again. None of that # is happening.

Waiting for An Inconvenient Sequel to be released. I heard they had to redo the ending after Trump got rid of the Paris Agreement. I am not making that up. Release date is Aug 4th.

a reply to: D8Tee

I've always thought it should be named, An Inconveinent Tax. It is more accurate than the content of the film.

Just googles Portland cement, 2220 LBs of that stuff produces 2044 LBs of CO2 when being manufactured, It seems to me that all that CO2 would cancel out any savings of CO2 to have wind power...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: D8Tee

It seems you are the one who is constantly trying to cast doubt on the valid science on human induced climate change.

The reality is we are flooding the atmosphere with CO2 as a direct result of our fossil fuel addiction. This will have consequences.

Here is a good read on the stages of denial in terms of climate change:
www.theguardian.com...

Also worth mentioning is a book called Merchants of Doubt

Damn that CO2 . If we do away with it , we dont have to mow the yard ever again...

a reply to: D8Tee

An article regarding a piece behind paywalls is as good as my opinion about your mothers underwear. Didn't see anything but I know it's awesome. Get it?
Plus it's a piece from Nature, which usually boils down to... crap. I don't see why anything of this should be worth having a debate? Also, your source is a site named POWERLINE. Go and figure?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm not a big believer in the CO2 being such a big factor. I think that chemistry and over harvesting of forests that damages our ecosystems ability to repair itself is just as important. They have made this into a money laundering scam where money flows to scientists that back the scam. Yes, we need to cut emmissions. But we should not be giving rich people money to tell us this, there are a lot of people getting rich off of this climate change BS.

We are messing things up, climate change is real, the organizations are mostly scams though, they are more interested in helping their economies than our environment.

First off. Co2 does have a great effect on greenhouse processes, however, the original studies (the same info referenced in Al gore's movie 1000 years ago) failed to add the additional variables that the earth has to deal with high Co2. Remember the dinosaurs? They lived in a very high Co2 environment for 100's of millions of years. Spokler!! The earth never died that whole time.

Giving a pile of money to scientists to keep testing to try to prove it is real is not fixing anything. Giving a pile of money to government and international agencies to monitor it does nothing. It would be easier to fix the problem by eliminating wasteful buying and practices than giving money to an organization in France or taxing farting cows.

If they start building things to last longer, especially appliances, and people quit their flying all over the earth and were satisfied just staying at home and looking at pictures others post on the net, then maybe the CO2 gasses would go down. Building new more efficient appliances does no good if they only last seven years. Building and installing solar panels that cause great destruction of the environment to make doesn't do any good if they die in ten years or are replaced everytime there is a "new, more efficient technology" out there. I see people here hop into their car and drive two miles to the closest grocery store when they live in town. We used to walk five blocks to go to the store. I see people hop in their car and travel ten miles to the next town to go to the hardware store, when the big chain stores opened, the small local hardwares closed down. Society has gone bonx, we buy things from across the ocean where polution laws are not observed instead of building it here where pollution is monitored.

We have created a skitzo society where people cannot even see the whole picture, they believe remodeling their house at great expense is going to lower green house gasses when the project caused more harm than what it helped. The economy is a sham, these new environmental friendly products usually just create more environmental problems. New electronics incorporate a transformer that is always on, they are not as efficient as something is off completely till it is turned on.

The devil would have you believe a lie, right now the devil is climate change. Our negligence has created a problem but these agencies that are collecting money and doing research are mostly just doing it to line their pockets. Climate change is real, the problem is that people are twisting it to make themselves rich. Al Gore is not an environmentalist, he is an egotistical businessman trying to make a buck and make himself look good.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Science is not a liberal leftish conspiracy.

I see many of you self described 'right conservatives' do not like the valid science so you all make up an 'alternative' view point that strokes your confirmation bias.

a reply to: rickymouse

You believe scientist are getting rich off climate change?

The only ones who get rich off this subject are the ones who are shills for the oil/coal industry like Richard Lindzen.

www.theguardian.com...

Your viewpoint is completely backwards.

A good trick of disinfo is to accuse the 'otherside' that of which you are guilty of.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse

You believe scientist are getting rich off climate change?

The only ones who get rich off this subject are the ones who are shills for the oil/coal industry like Richard Lindzen.

www.theguardian.com...

Your viewpoint is completely backwards.

A good trick of disinfo is to accuse the 'otherside' that of which you are guilty of.

The scientific community, which has many scientists, derive their income from this. It is like a boost to their job security. It is the same as a doctor prescribing unneeded tests and keeping people sick longer to support their office workers and other professionals in the medical industry. It is like local governments applying for federal grants to build things nobody even wants. Our society is based on chasing the buck for income for your group. Always at the expense of others.

Yes, climate change is real, but CO2 emissions are just a tiny percent of the problem. Just fix the problem, not spend all the money on tests. Those who deny we are causing harm are actually promoting more wasteful spending on scientific research.

a reply to: rickymouse

Scientists can get paid great for working for the industry, and get paid peanuts for doing actual climate research and data collection.

To suggest they come up with information that confirms human induced climate change for job security is a bit ridiculous.

Gullible people may believe that, free thinkers will not fall for that sort of mental gymnastics one must pull to believe that crap.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Woodcarver

Science is not a liberal leftish conspiracy.

I see many of you self described 'right conservatives' do not like the valid science so you all make up an 'alternative' view point that strokes your confirmation bias.

I subscribe to niether the left or the right. I am scientifically literate though and i understood this way back when Al Gore was doing movies on a scissorlift. The science was fudged. The formula they used was lacking a lot of variables. Read the article again. It does a fine job of articulating the mistakes in the original studies. If those studies were anywher near correct, we would all be dead right now. All you need to do is read the studies and do a little math and you will see that.

They literally admit to adjusting the data. What field of study are you allowed to adjust the data?

a reply to: Woodcarver

When you mention Al Gore in this discussion, it tells me and other aware readers that you are not here to have a productive discussion. The same goes with the OP and his choice of words for the title of the thread.

CO2 is rising as a direct result of our addiction to burning fossil fuels. This fact is indisputable today. Radiative forcing from CO2 is a valid scientific concept.

When one wants to debate climate science but ignores the above reality, they are either blinded by their confirmation bias or trying to push an agenda that casts doubt on the valid science behind human induced climate change.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: rickymouse

Scientists can get paid great for working for the industry, and get paid peanuts for doing actual climate research and data collection.

To suggest they come up with information that confirms human induced climate change for job security is a bit ridiculous.

Gullible people may believe that, free thinkers will not fall for that sort of mental gymnastics one must pull to believe that crap.

Climate change is real, we can effect the weather. If you paid attention to my past post, I said that clearly. I do not deny that. But there is still lots of research going on to prove it is real, why. Because instead of fixing the problems by curbing waste and building products to last twice as long, they are taxing people and using the money to do what ever which is not actually fixing anything. I am not denying that humans have an impact on the planet's ecosystem, we definitely do. I am saying that the programs are scams, designed to create jobs not solve anything. I have lots of time, I actually spent a day researching where the money was going a while back. At that point, ninety five percent was going to administration with only five percent actually being used for anything that actually corrects anything. They are spending most of their time and money trying to find more money and getting more evidence to back their scam.

a reply to: rickymouse

Nobody suggested that the same crooked energy sector would somehow change the rules once renewables are involved. They don't ride on unicorns (yet) either.

It's a corporate sellout, let's face it! And the whole POWERLINE piece adds to your point, perfect example for unholy spinnings for the sake of profitlines. Anyone followed the money trails? Big Oil, Gas and Coal or Big Wind and Solar? Dumb question, I know.. but still. Kinda explains the angry response from the drifter, ya know.

How Big Oil Conquered The World

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: rickymouse

Nobody suggested that the same crooked energy sector would somehow change the rules once renewables are involved. They don't ride on unicorns (yet) either.

It's a corporate sellout, let's face it! And the whole POWERLINE piece adds to your point, perfect example for unholy spinnings for the sake of profitlines. Anyone followed the money trails? Big Oil, Gas and Coal or Big Wind and Solar? Dumb question, I know.. but still. Kinda explains the angry response from the drifter, ya know.

How Big Oil Conquered The World

Don't forget beauracracies in your lists. They seem to waste money yet know how to make it look good on paper. Who cares if they misplace hundreds of millions of dollars, it is deemed poor record keeping and a couple of people down low are fired after blaming it on them.

a reply to: D8Tee

I have done the sellout "climate banter" thing. Its the easiest progressive issue to usurp.

I have sat in on those activist think storms. Its the most telling scew of a narrative I have ever seen.

I dont doubt the authenticity of the people in question. I see a self serving disconnect though.

Here is a free one for them:

"With the recent withdraw from the Paris climate accords that our nation under Trump has been forced to endure, there has never been a moment in history when our core values have been this shaken as they have been now."

"What is the point in saving a world that doesnt exist long enough to be saved?"

"The rollback of our hard fought freedoms and protections must enbolden us to do more. We must stand united and defiant as one voice to echo the multiplicity of concerned voices now muted in this great divide"

See. Easy peasy.

Whatever drives their grant money is what they preach.