Anthropogenic Climate Change/IPCC Fraud - Let me speak to you as a scientist for a moment.

a reply to: ScepticScot

That made me giggle also I bet he has a lab coat and everything.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ScepticScot

That made me giggle also I bet he has a lab coat and everything.

"tee-hee"

a reply to: testingtesting

I usually attack the OP and make jokes about him when I can't be bothered to discuss his points.
It's way easier and makes you look kind of cool.

a reply to: network dude

It kinda helps the op also If he backs his claims up.
Sorry he made me laugh.

Well said!

From a fellow “real scientist”


a reply to: knightsofcydonia

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Thanks for having the courage for posting this.

It's quite telling to read all the replies so far...
When they can't say anything about the info you brought forth, it is blantant to see them going into character assasination, and attempts to ridicule.
This site is rife with those kind of "members".

Don't worry: your message is still being heard.
Many read, and don't comment. Most know about the disinfo agents, and can see through their simple tactics.

It should not be problem to verify climatic models. Feed them with 100 year old data and let it run to present day. Hmmm ... no model will get to present measurements ...

Or is there one?

I don't know how lying about climate change somehow leads to a grand socialist agenda. Maybe someone can tell me exactly what is the scientists agenda promoting global warming?

Anything, it looks real to me. Soot is causing average temperatures to rise:

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Thank you for sharing your insights!!

People would be shocked to know that the Rockefeller's and there henchman Maruice Strong are the ones who funded the IPCC and are the reason that people have been brainwashed into their little plan for global government.

Humans are silly creatures thinking we affect the entire earth with our son called pollution. The main fact is that the sun controls all temperatures which in turn creates warm cold areas which in turn gives us wind and weather there would have to be a trillion people all polluting constantly for us to have any effect. The almighty sun is responsible for all.

a reply to: network dude

Yeah, you do not want FACTS to affect your decision making.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You realise that chart shows 8/10's of a degree change in 100 years.

According to Gore we are supposed to have no glaciers left to melt by now.

Antarctica ice pack is getting thicker and spawning more ice bergs.

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: network dude

Yeah, you do not want FACTS to affect your decision making.

you could discuss facts, that would be super. In fact, I believe that is how all this works.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

S&f... "98% of scientists agree. I hear that and always ask myself when the ballot went around and why didn't I get one?

Then people laughed at me when I said more CO2 would likely fuel an overall increase in plant biomass."

I love this ... as I (a fellow scientist) have thought the same thing, but could not have said it nearly as well!

Very interesting post OP. In any case, I think we can all agree that we need to lower our pollution.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: dfnj2015

You realise that chart shows 8/10's of a degree change in 100 years.

According to Gore we are supposed to have no glaciers left to melt by now.

Antarctica ice pack is getting thicker and spawning more ice bergs.

You realize the difference between mile-thick glaciers covering North America and the temperature at the start of that graph is a mere 5 degrees? 8/10ths of a degree across the entire world is a lot - and that chart only goes up to 2009; we temporarily passed 1 degree with 2015-2016.

Glaciers across the world are melting. There is research both for and against Antarctica's ice sheet (not sea ice) melting.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

My friend,

The debate actually is over. Just as the debate that F=M*V is over, the debate that CO2 absorbs and re-emits electromagnetic radiation at wavelengths of 12 to 15 micrometers (infrared light) is over, and in the field of radiation physics the debate has be over for almost 200 years. This can be measured and observed in a lab and in Earth's atmosphere, and is no longer debatable. It is a scientific fact.

If CO2 and other gases did not absorb and re-emit infrared light, the greenhouse effect wouldn't take place, and none of us would be alive. Radiative forcing is not debatable. Likewise, the Keeling Curve is also not debatable, nor is the cause of the curve.

The only thing debatable at the moment regarding anthropogenic global warming is not "if", but "when" and "how". When will the worse happen, and how much time we have left before human life on Earth becomes difficult and or impossible, and how is Earth going to change in the process.

All the models, simulations, measurements, samples and data that most people (including you) are busy arguing about is not too prove or disprove AGW (because that debate is long over). It is to figure out what exactly is going to happen to Earth and humanity beyond what we already know which is extreme climate changes.

Debating about the accuracy of ice core samples, temperatures sensors, the cause of glaciers melting, the anomalies found in tree rings, and smoothing and messaging of collected data for whatever reason has zero impact on the undebatable scientific fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation (along with other atmospheric gases), and traps enough energy to keep the Earth warm, and increasing said gases increases said energy.

All that arguing serves only to distract and delay our ability to do something about it.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

if all this is known, then why is there such ambiguity with the models as opposed to reality? Why don't we know EXACTLY what will happen when? Is there any chance at all that every factor involved in this process isn't fully accounted for? Is there any chance at all that something new will be discovered and possibly change the thinking on any of this?

The climate change scam is accepted only by politicians and scientists who want more government, more taxes, and more regulations.

I read something recently that had me thinking. Those pushing the global warming agenda are really trying to end democracy. So its really about freedom. Which explains why they are hell bent on winning.

So when govenment(s) and banks want to introduce changes to save us from ourselves we really need to be extra cautoius of their motives,