NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

[Swordsmyth]

NBC host Chuck Todd kicked off a full hour of discussion about Climate change on Sunday by telling "Meet the Press" viewers that there would be no debate over the topic - as the "science is settled."
"We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period," said Todd. "We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not."
Meanwhile, outgoing Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown was on the show to discuss global warming - calling it a serious threat akin to what Americans faced at the beginning of WWII, and that the United States is not doing enough to address the problem.
"[N]ot even close, and not close in California, and we’re doing more than anybody else, and not close in America or the rest of the world," said Brown, adding "We’ve got to get off this idea, ‘it’s the economy, stupid.’ No, it’s the environment."
Brown also knocked President Trump over his skepticism regarding climate change.
"[Trump] is very convinced of his position," said Brown. "And his position is that there’s nothing abnormal about the fires in California or the rising sea level or all the other incidents of climate change."
Former New York City Mayor and potential 2020 presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg echoed Brown's sentiment, telling Todd "I will be out there demanding that anybody that’s running has a plan. And I want to hear the plan, and I want everybody to look at it and say whether it’s doable," said the billionaire philanthropist.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-30/nbcs-chuck-todd-were-not-going-give-tv-time-climate-deniers

[Origanalist]

So brave.

[Anti Globalist]

Chuck Todd is a scumbag.

[oyarde]

Nobody watches NBC .

[euphemia]

What science?

[Dr.3D]

What science?

It's political science. :p

[Anti Federalist]

Nice to know our rulers will now decide what is and what is not "news".

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody watches NBC .

Millions and millions of people watch NBC.

It is the largest TV network in the nation, with access to 97% of all homes in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_terrestrial_television_netwo rks)

We don't watch NBC.

But "we" are a tiny, insignificant, minority.

[Anti Federalist]

"We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period," said Todd. "We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not."

In 1970 the "settled science" said the following:

7 ENVIRO PREDICTIONS FROM EARTH DAY 1970 THAT WERE JUST DEAD WRONG

https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/

9:36 AM 04/22/2016 | ENERGY
Andrew Follett | Energy and Science Reporter
Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.

Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.

So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.

Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.

From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”

Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.

Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”

Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.

Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”

Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.

5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”

Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”

Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.

6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”

David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.

Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.

Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.

7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”

On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.

American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.

Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.

[Origanalist]

In 1970 the "settled science" said the following:

7 ENVIRO PREDICTIONS FROM EARTH DAY 1970 THAT WERE JUST DEAD WRONG

https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/

9:36 AM 04/22/2016 | ENERGY
Andrew Follett | Energy and Science Reporter
Environmentalists truly believed and predicted during the first Earth Day in 1970 that the planet was doomed unless drastic actions were taken.

Humanity never quite got around to that drastic action, but environmentalists still recall the first Earth Day fondly and hold many of the predictions in high regard.

So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.

Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying.

From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.

1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”

Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Wald was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and the nuclear arms race. He even flew to Moscow at one point to advise the leader of the Soviet Union on environmental policy.

Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.

2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”

Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.

Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.

3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.

Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”

Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.

5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”

Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”

Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.

6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”

David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.

Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.

Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.

7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”

On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Numerous academics like Watt predicted that American oil production peaked in 1970 and would gradually decline, likely causing a global economic meltdown. However, the successful application of massive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, caused American oil production to come roaring back and there is currently too much oil on the market.

American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.

Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.

https://i.redd.it/dm0pzjcyteiz.jpg

[RJB]

I remember in the 1970s and 1980s hearing ideas such as spreading cinder on the polar ice to prevent the coming ice age due to global cooling from pollution. I also remember in 1981 to 1985 having a few school years where they taught both global cooling and global warming. In fact we joked about the greenhouse effect solving the coming ice age.

[Anti Federalist]

Shifting goalposts.

Al Gore in 2006


Gore said U.S. government and business leaders must follow the lead of other nations that have enacted stricter mileage standards for cars. Utility companies worldwide must adopt cleaner methods of burning fossil fuels

Alex Cortez in 2018:


Democratic House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied an audience of supporters in Washington Thursday evening ... (along) with an appeal to stop fossil fuel production entirely. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-theres-no-debate-that-fossil-fuel-production-should-stop)

Never was it about being "clean" or more efficient.

It's about putting you proles cold, hungry and in the dark, where you belong.

But nobody cares.

Idiot AmeriKunts want to be abused and enslaved.

[Anti Federalist]

I remember in the 1970s and 1980s hearing ideas such as spreading cinder on the polar ice to prevent the coming ice age due to global cooling from pollution. I also remember in 1981 to 1985 having a few school years where they taught both global cooling and global warming. In fact we joked about the greenhouse effect solving the coming ice age.

No you didn't, that's crimethink.

2 + 2 has always equaled five, comrade.

[enhanced_deficit]

If I'm not mistaken, it was an NBC producer while back who had caused damage to environment by placing explosive devices next to some vehicle's gas tanks to make reporting on risky vehicles more dramatic without disclosing such tactics to the viewers. They have come a long way on fakenews reporting since then.

BTW, at some point in future, could "climate deniers" be jailed?


Holocaust denier jailed
https://www.theguardian.com/guardianweekly/story/0,,1715580,00.html

[Brian4Liberty]

Brown also knocked President Trump over his skepticism regarding climate change.

"[Trump] is very convinced of his position," said Brown. "And his position is that there’s nothing abnormal about the fires in California or the rising sea level or all the other incidents of climate change."

There were never fires until the man-made global warming! And right here in California, there used to be a neighborhood called “Atlantis” in San Francisco, but it is now submerged under the SF Bay due to the rising ocean. Such a catastrophe. It’s undeniable!

[Occam's Banana]

NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

Translation: "We're going to work harder at making ourselves even more irrelevant and unworthy of trust than we already are."

GOOD.


Millions and millions of people watch NBC.

It is the largest TV network in the nation, with access to 97% of all homes in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_terrestrial_television_netwo rks)

We don't watch NBC.

But "we" are a tiny, insignificant, minority.

Our merry band of refuseniks is indeed dwarfed by all the self-selected ballast out there.

But even so, I'm still LMAO @ Todd if he really thinks that NBC are the keepers of the gates of establishment sycophancy through which all must pass.

https://i.imgur.com/9PePosP.jpg

[kpitcher]

They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers. You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.

[Anti Federalist]

They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers. You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.

So people that question whether the "consensus science", which has proved to be spectacularly and utterly wrong in the past, is actually correct, are now on the same scientific footing as flat earthers?

[Swordsmyth]

They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers. You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.
They are the flat earthers.

[kpitcher]

So people that question whether the "consensus science", which has proved to be spectacularly and utterly wrong in the past, is actually correct, are now on the same scientific footing as flat earthers?

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

[Swordsmyth]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.
LOL

The "consensus" has been debunked over and over, it is held together only by wealth and power.
Science isn't settled by voting, not even by having scientists vote, it is settled by facts and the facts are all against the AGW hoax.
Once upon a time the flat earth was scientific consensus.

[Schifference]

If science and predictions are so good, how come the flu shot is so ineffective?

[Schifference]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

I would imagine scientists that have a different opinion are scared to speak out against the mob.

[asurfaholic]

I d lived on or near the ocean for 33 of my 33 years. The sea level isn’t rising. I’ve seen the islands I lived on slowly move and change shapes, but that is what happens over time on low lying barrier islands made of shifting sand. But the actual water level has not changed even a little.

[A Son of Liberty]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Unlike "climate change", it's relatively easy to comprehend - and even prove - that the Earth is not flat, even for the layman.

However, AGW has a lot going against it. The global climate is an extremely complex system, impacted by almost literally countless inputs... people who've been alive longer than 30 and 40 years can reach back into their memory and recall a much dirtier environment, yet a brow-beaten to just "accept" that things are somehow getting worse... cynics recognize that such "global crises" are used to usher in all manner of regulation, taxation, and law which seemingly has very little to do with "saving the world" and more to do with transferring wealth...

And on and on and on...


As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

And - again - the cynic recognizes that there are agendas at play... that doesn't mean that the science isn't right... but it also doesn't mean that it IS.


As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

But see, that's not the question though. We're TOLD that what we do about it, and we're to like it. And it seems as though very little of what we're to do should have any impact on "climate change" at all.

[acptulsa]

Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Well, yeah. Why wouldn't oil companies "admit" that? Climate change due to carbon dioxide is a fine way to kill "King Coal", and stealing market share from coal is a thing Big Oil would happily pay a billion dollars to achieve.


As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

Oh? Gee, I could have sworn the cure for carbon dioxide was well known--flora. Plants absorb the stuff and put off oxygen. Restore a few rain forests and voila!

Forty years ago warnings of a new ice age were real. And they weren't lying when they said they had data. Then they passed laws limiting particulate emissions which were reflecting sunlight, and voila! Global warming! So don't tell me nobody has a clue how to reverse the alleged temperature change if it were to become an actual emergency.

Even the oil companies admit it. Yeah buddy. The oil companies engineered it. Now if only we could use manufactured carbon hysteria to stop a war or two.

[Anti Globalist]

Didn't Al Gore say the polar ice capes would be gone by like 2013?

[acptulsa]

Didn't Al Gore say the polar ice capes would be gone by like 2013?

Oh, I see. You were never willing to endure the pain and loss of brain cells that comes of listening to Al Gore. But you expected us to suffer and report back to you.

[dannno]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.


How the hell have you been here this long and are still so uneducated about this topic??

Of course the big oil companies want you to think climate change is primarily man-made.. Of course the big oil companies want to create legislation and carbon credit systems that will keep them in control of the market..



'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong


Alex Epstein (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/)
Contributor

Energy & Environment (https://www.forbes.com/energy-environment)


If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.



More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6c8cbf053f9f


Everybody agrees the temperatures are getting warmer.. but not everybody agrees that man's CO2 output is the primary cause. Also, they lie about the numbers, the temperatures are not varying as much as they claim.

Then there is the joke about sea level rise.. the official estimates are that the sea has risen somewhere between 4" and 8" in the last 100 years.. and the official climate science today claims that it is going to rise something like 30" in the next 20 or 30 years.. or more.. It's completely insane.

[Anti Federalist]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real

I think you mean that the science says mankind is accelerating the warming.

Obviously the planet's climate is not static, and has warmed and cooled thousands of times in thousands of cycles, millions of years before there was any such thing as mankind.

Where I live, just 100,000 years a ago, a blink in geologic time, the land was cover by a mile thick ice sheet.

Mankind didn't melt that.


As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

If it is accepted as a religious dogma, and people that do find conflicting evidence are jailed, persecuted, silenced and shunned, then how could that new info ever get out to change the consensus?


As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

Let's assume that it is real.

What do suggest be done, that would not involve Draconian and extraordinarily heavy handed government measures, seeing as how every single human being is now an emitter of toxic gases?

Seems to me if the problem is too many people making too much pollution, the solution to that is free markets and cheap energy.

First world countries that have both, have declining populations.

[dannno]

I d lived on or near the ocean for 33 of my 33 years. The sea level isn’t rising. I’ve seen the islands I lived on slowly move and change shapes, but that is what happens over time on low lying barrier islands made of shifting sand. But the actual water level has not changed even a little.

Yes, sea level rise is the biggest tell that modern climate science is completely full of shit, in my opinion..

I would love for kpitcher to try and school me about sea level rise and why I am wrong..


Based on a medium-high risk scenario, the consultants concluded the sea level would rise by 2.5 feet between now and 2060 and by 6.6 feet by the year 2100.
https://www.independent.com/news/2018/nov/28/when-will-sea-level-rise-swallow-santa-barbaras-be/

So the sea level has risen 4" - 8" in the last 100 years, but they expect us to believe it will rise 30" in the next 40 years and 76" in the next 80 years??

That is like a 6x - 8x increase in sea level rise than we have seen over the last 100 years..

[dannno]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1MoRNdCQAAEluE.png

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/historicalco2_ward.jpg

[specsaregood]

The fact that they can't even call it what they mean, "Man-made Global Warming" is telling. Instead they obfuscate it and calling "climate change", because nobody anywhere denies that the climate has changed naturally throughout history.

But there is no real hope, those that have accepted the religion of Man made global warming will deny all evidence disputing their God.

[Brian4Liberty]

Unlike "climate change", it's relatively easy to comprehend - and even prove - that the Earth is not flat, even for the layman.

However, AGW has a lot going against it. The global climate is an extremely complex system, impacted by almost literally countless inputs... people who've been alive longer than 30 and 40 years can reach back into their memory and recall a much dirtier environment, yet a brow-beaten to just "accept" that things are somehow getting worse... cynics recognize that such "global crises" are used to usher in all manner of regulation, taxation, and law which seemingly has very little to do with "saving the world" and more to do with transferring wealth...
...

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

Carbon credit schemes and regulations, written by Goldman Sachs, big oil companies and government, to benefit all of them, at the expense of everyone else.

[juleswin]

We are told that the 3.8% of man's portion of atmospheric CO2 is tipping the scale of the CO2 balance, like nature is only capable of absorbing xxx amount of CO2. Call BS on it, this is what happens when u increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jODIYw_5A40

Yes, the plants grow bigger and use more CO2.

[Brian4Liberty]

To be clear, there are many things done by man that can have a severe effect on the environment. Acid rain, polluted water, air pollution, radiation pollution, garbage in the ocean, etc.

To go apeshit hysterical over unproven and unidentifiable effects of CO2, is clearly leftist corporatist politics, and not “science”. In the worst case scenario, it is something to objectively study, but the pro-climate change scientific community is far from objective. There is no evidence that minor fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 levels alone have any specific effect. And CO2 levels are only one small factor. There are far more pressing environmental issues than CO2.

Without CO2, there would be no more plants. It is not a man-made addition to the ecosystem, it has always been there.

[Brian4Liberty]

Where is the hysterical mainstream concern about industrial chemicals, drugs, hormone mimicking chemicals and other pollutants in our water?

What? No money and power in that for the crony corporatists and big brother?

[Schifference]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus. But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.


This is well worth the watch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1285&v=IjsolpOmvIo

[Occam's Banana]

I can't find any good flat earther numbers. However less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute that mankind is the cause of the warming of the planet. Even the oil companies acknowledge that anthropogenic global warming is real.

If you are looking for "good flat earther numbers", then you should definitely avoid the place where you found the claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [anthropogenic global warming]".

The claim that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) comes from a paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024)". That paper reviewed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific articles - not the articles themselves, but just the abstracts of those articles (an abstract is a brief one-paragraph summary of an article). In fact, if you read the abstract of the paper itself (i.e., the one used to support claims that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming), it says the following (bold emphasis added):


We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So it turns out that 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent explicitly rejected it, and 0.3 percent explicitly expressed uncertainty - while 66.4 percent expressed no position on AGW at all.

IOW: Two-thirds of the abstracts examined had no opinion on the matter.

So where does that 97 percent figure come from? They calculated it by counting only the abstracts that explicitly expressed a position (either acceptance, rejection or uncertainty). If you add up 32.6 + 0.7 + 0.3, you get 33.6. And 32.6 is 97 percent of 33.6.

IOW: In order to arrive at that 97 percent figure, they completely ignored the 66.4 percent that took no position at all

THIS is how you lie with statistics. THIS deceitful bullshit is how you turn 32.6 percent (less than one-third) into 97 percent. THIS is how you dupe useful idiots into thinking that you have some kind of overwhelming "consensus" when you don't actually have any such thing.

And look at that statement I bolded in the abstract I quoted above. Notice how it doesn't say that AGW is the "consensus" position because 97 percent of abstracts endorse AGW. Rather, it says that AGW just is the "consensus" position - and that 97 percent of abstracts happen to endorse that supposedly already-existing "consensus". So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers.

But what's really ironic here is the fact that your claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [AGW]" could instead be stated as "less than 1 percent" - since according to the study your claim is based on, only 0.7 percent explicitly rejected AGW, But of course, putting it that way would leave you stuck with having to admit that only 32.6 percent explicitly accepted AGW - instead of the much more impressive-sounding 97 percent. And 32.6 percent (less than one-third) just doesn't sound like that much of a "consensus", now does it?

Anyway, once you account for the two-thirds of abstracts they simply ignored because it didn't suit their purposes to count them, the only thing you can say about the "scientific consensus" on this issue is that it simply does not exist - 66.7 percent either take no position or express uncertainty. There's your only "consensus".


As with any science new theories and modelling can come about, be peer reviewed, and if there is something to it then it could could change the consensus.

In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.

Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.


But that's getting less and less likely with every new paper being reviewed.

No, it is not. In fact, just the opposite has happened.

During the 20-year period around 1980 to 2000, the average global temperature increased by about 0.4°C - which was more or less in line with some of the models predicting "catastrophic" global warming. But in the two decades since then, the temperature stopped increasing while greenhouse gasses continued to increase steadily. According to the "catastrophe" models, the average global temperature was supposed to continue increasing by about 0.2°C per decade, precisely because of those steadily increasing greenhouse gasses. But is has not done so, and "The Pause" (as it is called) has yet to be adequately accounted for by any of the "catastrophe" models. The average global temperature has fallen below the levels predicted by 95 percent of the "catastrophic" climate model forecasts. In other words, almost all of those models have been falsified (only a few have not, and if global temperatures don't start increasing again in the next five to ten years or so, those remaining models will be falsified, too).

So the "climate change" alarmists make and use broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions. Yet we are told that the science is "settled" and that those who are skeptical of "climate change" alarmism are just crackpot "deniers" who are not to be given any "air time" - and all because there is a "consensus" among the makers and users of those same broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


As it stands, Mankind has warmed the planet and it will keep on getting warming. The question then becomes what, if anything, we do about it.

It has not been shown that that is how it stands. See all the above, just for starters.

[Occam's Banana]

They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers.

You're right. They aren't. But do you really understand why?

Notice that Round Earthers don't go around constantly jabbering about a Round Earth "consensus" or about how the Earth's roundness is "settled". They don't need to, because there are no serious people who take Flat Earthism seriously. (I am not convinced that the Flat Earthers themselves really even take it seriously.) Hence, there is no need for Chuck Todd (or any other establishment mouthpiece) to make announcements about not giving air time to Flat Earthers.

But there are plenty of serious people who take "climate change" skepticism seriously - and the only response the "climate change" alarmists can come up with is to shout them down with bullshit cries of "consensus!" and "the science is settled!" - and to declare in a huff that they're not going to give "air time" to "deniers" anymore.


You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.

Of course you can. In fact, you cannot do science any other way. The only people you can't have a scientific discussion with are the ones who demand that "the science is settled" - or who insist that "consensus" is any kind of evidence for "correctness".

For just one of myriad possible examples, if Max Planck had not disputed the "energy-as-continuum" consensus among physicists, then he would not have become the "Father of Quantum Physics". And notice how quantum physicists don't need to jabber about "scientific consensus" (or how quantum theory is "settled science") in order to defend their theory. Instead, all they have to do is point to the fact that they have the most successful predictive model in all of human history and then say, "Deny this, bitchez!"

If "climate change" alarmists had any models that consistently provided correct predictions, then they wouldn't need to jabber about "consensus" either. Hell, they don't even need a model that works as well as quantum mechanics does. They just need one that works at all.

[Anti Federalist]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

[Brian4Liberty]

...So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers ...

Lol. Winner.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

Covered.

[Swordsmyth]

If you are looking for "good flat earther numbers", then you should definitely avoid the place where you found the claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [anthropogenic global warming]" ...

The claim that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) comes from a paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024)". That paper reviewed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific articles - not the articles themselves, but just the abstracts of those articles (an abstract is a brief one-paragraph summary of an article). In fact, if you read the abstract of the paper itself (i.e., the one claiming that over 97 percent of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming), it says the following (bold emphasis added):

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So ... it turns out that 32.6 percent explicitly endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent explicitly rejected it, and 0.3 percent explicitly expressed uncertainty - while 66.4 percent expressed no position on AGW at all.

IOW: Two-thirds of of the abstracts examined had no opinion on the matter.

So where does that 97 percent figure come from? They calculated it by counting only the abstracts that explicitly expressed a position (either acceptance, rejection or uncertainty). If you add up 32.6 + 0.7 + 0.3, you get 33.6. And 32.6 is 97 percent of 33.6.

IOW: In order to arrive at that 97 percent figure, they completely ignored the 66.4 percent that took no position at all

THIS is how you lie with statistics ... THIS deceitful bull$#@! is how you turn 32.6 percent (less than one-third) into 97 percent ... THIS is how you dupe useful idiots into thinking that you have some kind of overwhelming "consensus" when you don't actually have any such thing ...

And look at that statement I bolded in the abstract I quoted above. Notice how it doesn't say that AGW is the "consensus" position because 97 percent of abstracts endorse AGW. Rather, it says that AGW just is the "consensus" position - and that 97 percent of abstracts happen to endorse that supposedly already-existing "consensus". So now they're adding mealy-mouth weasel words to their mealy-math weasel numbers ...

But what's really ironic here is the fact that your claim that "less than 3% of climate scientists and published scientific articles dispute [AGW]" could instead be stated as "less than 1 percent [...]" - since according to the study your claim is based on, only 0.7 percent explicitly rejected AGW, But of course, putting it that way would leave you stuck with having to admit that only 32.6 percent explicitly accepted AGW - instead of the much more impressive-sounding 97 percent. And 32.6 percent (less than one-third) just doesn't sound like that much of a "consensus", now does it ... ?

Anyway, once you account for the two-thirds of abstracts they simply ignored because it didn't suit their purposes to count them, the only thing you can say about the "scientific consensus" on this issue is that it simply does not exist - 66.7 percent either take no position or express uncertainty. There's your only "consensus" ...



In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.

Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.



No, it is not. In fact, just the opposite has happened.

During the 20-year period around 1980 to 2000, the average global temperature increased by about 0.4°C - which was more or less in line with some of the models predicting "catastrophic" global warming. But in the two decades since then, the temperature stopped increasing while greenhouse gasses continued to increase steadily. According to the "catastrophe" models, the average global temperature was supposed to continue increasing by about 0.2°C per decade, precisely because of those steadily increasing greenhouse gasses. But is has not done so, and "The Pause" (as it is called) has yet to be adequately explained by any of the "catastrophe" models. The average global temperature has fallen below the levels predicted by 95 percent of the "catastrophic" climate model forecasts. In other words, almost all of those models have been falsified (only a few have not, and if global temperatures don't start increasing again in the next five to ten years or so, those remaining models will be falsified, too).

So ... the "climate change" alarmists make and use broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ... yet, we are told that the science is "settled" and that those who are skeptical of "climate change" alarmism are just crackpot "deniers" who are not to be given any "air time" ,,, and all because there is a "consensus" among the makes and users of those same broken models that have repeatedly produced incorrect predictions ...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



It has not been shown that that is how it stands. See all the above, just for starters.
You must spread some reputation around.......

[juleswin]

I d lived on or near the ocean for 33 of my 33 years. The sea level isn’t rising. I’ve seen the islands I lived on slowly move and change shapes, but that is what happens over time on low lying barrier islands made of shifting sand. But the actual water level has not changed even a little.

The earth is warming, the sea levels are rising, tide gauges show this and it has been happening since the last ice age. The increase is usually in the millimeters per year that most people do not notice it with their bare eyes. I don't think anything in nature stays constant.

[kpitcher]

Obviously this is one of those issues that we have no consensus on within these forums. Heathy debate is always good, some of the posted info has been interesting to look through, but it fails to show any change in the underlying science.

I've found that the skeptical inquirer has always had a good read into a variety of topics. They have addressed global warming a number of times, nothing really recent but their skeptical views are still applicable.
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/disinformation_about_global_warming

A non related site, basically a Wiki for climate change, has excellent links to resources, including 7 links to studies on climate science studies to show current consensus numbers. These range from 91% - 100%
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

One rebuttal on "the pause" is found at https://skepticalscience.com/study-drives-sixth-nail-into-pause-myth.html
Sample size and small time periods of less than a decade appear to be the cause for that.


I did look for the many serious people who dispute the info. I found this list..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientifi c_consensus_on_global_warming

Easier to find people in support : This has links to various scientific organizations that have given statements
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
or
https://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics


Obviously just jumping into following whomever has the most names on a list isn't the right approach or we wouldn't be on a Ron Paul website

[fisharmor]

Obviously this is one of those issues that we have no consensus on within these forums.

1. Except there *IS* consensus on this site by your definition. There's literally every other poster here on the "denier" side, and then there's you. By your own fallacious logic, that subscribes to the position that popularity equals truth, you are wrong.

2. Everyone here has read skepticalscience, at least a decade ago. It is a site of strawman arguments and if anything demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the agw movement.

3. I also owe Occam's Banana a rep. He demonstrated quite expertly the aforementioned intellectually bankrupt chicanery in play.

[kpitcher]

1. Except there *IS* consensus on this site by your definition. There's literally every other poster here on the "denier" side, and then there's you. By your own fallacious logic, that subscribes to the position that popularity equals truth, you are wrong.


My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

I'm definitely an outlier in these forums on this topic, my attempt at a pun appears to have fallen flat. Although I'm sure that in time and a few more years of continued research some of you will come around... It's not like things are going to be getting any better.

[Swordsmyth]

My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

I'm definitely an outlier in these forums on this topic, my attempt at a pun appears to have fallen flat. Although I'm sure that in time and a few more years of continued research some of you will come around... It's not like things are going to be getting any better.
And they call our side the science deniers?:rolleyes:

[Slave Mentality]

Where is the hysterical mainstream concern about industrial chemicals, drugs, hormone mimicking chemicals and other pollutants in our water?

What? No money and power in that for the crony corporatists and big brother?

Indeed. The fact that they have people whipped up over something harmless like CO2 when some very nasty stuff is being pumped into the air and water without the same scrutiny and fear mongering is quite telling.

[Influenza]

And they call our side the science deniers?:rolleyes:
What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

[dannno]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

How much has the sea level risen in the last 100 years?

[CaptUSA]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

Ok. So, we know that humans can affect the global climate and we know that the global climate can change from natural occurrences. Can you tell me who is responsible for what percentage?? I can never get a straight answer on this - and there is certainly no consensus. Are humans 20% responsible? 80%? .0002%?

And once we get that number, it would seem logical to discuss whether our resources should be spent on correction or adaptation, right?

In any case, the discussions shouldn't be concluded.

[fisharmor]

My definition is in support of science, via the current established peer review method. Not sure how you find that fallacious, that's simply how science works.

If science "works" by taking a vote and then refusing to listen to anything that the minority opinion says, then science is wrong.
That is not how truth works.
You're buckling down on that answer despite the fact that Occam's Banana obliterated it already. If our 20-year internet argumentation history on this topic is any guide, you're not even going to understand, despite the fact that I am clearly pointing it out to you here and now, that we are simply years ahead of you on this topic.

It's bloody obvious to the rest of us why that is - it's because there has never been any actual debate on this topic. If there is truth to this claim then the claim can withstand serious scrutiny, let alone scrutiny from laymen. The fact that information is only accepted from one source is telling - besides being evidence that this is actually a religion, it has also forced those of us interested in truth (whose bullshit alarms went off the second it became obvious that only officially sanctioned arguments are accepted) to do the homework ourselves, go outside the norm, and listen to some actual counterarguments - not just the strawmen at skepticalscience.com.

But instead we get:


What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum
Ad hominem,

think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions
red herring,

than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.
and circular reasoning.

FFS, agw cultists... go to the effort of learning how to formulate a valid argument before calling people stupid.

It's easy:
Given
1. Scientific claims require evidence
2. Evidence that shows AGW is easy to undermine
3. No counterevidence is entertained in public discourse
4. Public policy has a real potential to seriously reduce standards of living
Therefore
the burden of proof still rests with the AGW proponents before any discussion of public policy can rightly take place.

[Ender]

The Science we never hear about actually says we are approaching a mini ice-age & this is from the sun cycle not mankind's doing.


According to the Royal Astronomical Society:

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.[/I]

A few years ago, the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales was held, where Valentina Zharkova, a mathematics professor from Northumbria University (UK), presented a model that can predict what solar cycles will look like far more accurately than was previously possible. She states that the model can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent, and says it is showing that Earth is heading for a “mini ice age” in approximately fifteen years.

Zharkova and her team came up with the model using a method called “principal component analysis” of the magnetic field observations, from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. Looking forward to the next few solar cycles, her model predicts that from 2030 to 2040 there will be cause for a significant reduction in solar activity, which again, will lead to a mini ice age. According to Zharkova. You can read more about that here.

Again, these are just a few examples of multiple scientists pointing to these facts.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/no_author/a-little-ice-age-is-where-we-are-heading-according-to-multiple-scientists/

There are multiple articles on this if people would actually do some research.

[AuH20]

It's always been a hysteria based hoax, instead of initiating an adult conversation about our consumption habits.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/


Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

[Influenza]

Ad hominem,

red herring,

and circular reasoning.

FFS, agw cultists... go to the effort of learning how to formulate a valid argument before calling people stupid.

It's easy:
Given
1. Scientific claims require evidence
2. Evidence that shows AGW is easy to undermine
3. No counterevidence is entertained in public discourse
4. Public policy has a real potential to seriously reduce standards of living
Therefore
the burden of proof still rests with the AGW proponents before any discussion of public policy can rightly take place.

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum, that, thankfully, have very little power in the real world? Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine, or it would have already been done and accepted within the scientific community. The fact that it hasn't been, tells me that you are suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to silence the truth regarding climate change. Please provide evidence for this vast conspiracy. Or do you think all the scientists are just too stupid to properly interpet their own observations?

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

[AuH20]

The Science we never hear about actually says we are approaching a mini ice-age & this is from the sun cycle not mankind's doing.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/no_author/a-little-ice-age-is-where-we-are-heading-according-to-multiple-scientists/

There are multiple articles on this if people would actually do some research.

They hate it when you bring up solar cycles.

[AuH20]

I understand what the AGW cultists want (cleaner energy, less habitat destruction, etc.) and I want the same without oppressive regulation and a totalitarian world government.

[CaptUSA]

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum,

Care to respond to my post, then? #52??

I do none of the things that you're complaining about.

[Influenza]

Ok. So, we know that humans can affect the global climate and we know that the global climate can change from natural occurrences. Can you tell me who is responsible for what percentage?? I can never get a straight answer on this - and there is certainly no consensus. Are humans 20% responsible? 80%? .0002%?

And once we get that number, it would seem logical to discuss whether our resources should be spent on correction or adaptation, right?

In any case, the discussions shouldn't be concluded.

I don't know if anyone can address what exact percentage humans are responsible for climate change, but ultimately, the question is actually not even important, let me explain why. It is known that the temperature of the planet is greatly correlated with the quantity of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. They are able to estimate the CO2 from all those years ago from samples of air bubbles trapped in ice in the arctic and Antarctica. One of quite a few ways that they can estimate the temperature from all those years ago from the ratio of Oxygen isotopes found in shells from the same period.

https://skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif

In the last 400,000 years, the CO2 in the atmosphere has not exceeded ~300 PPM. Right now the CO2 is estimated to be about ~400 PPM. According to the data, the temperature of the planet lags behind the CO2 concentration by a few hundred years. So we won't see the effects of all the CO2 in the atmosphere right now, but the planet will gradually warm corresponding to the CO2 concentration.

So, it's not even important if we are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 levels or it's caused by aliens pumping CO2 from their planet's atmosphere to our own. What is important is that the levels are limited so that the temperature does not deviate too much from the range in which humans have thrived. So if there is something that can be done to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, (there is) then it should be done.

[CaptUSA]

I don't know if anyone can address what exact percentage humans are responsible for climate change, but ultimately, the question is actually not even important, let me explain why...

...So, it's not even important if we are causing 100% of the increase in CO2 levels or it's caused by aliens pumping CO2 from their planet's atmosphere to our own. What is important is that the levels are limited so that the temperature does not deviate too much from the range in which humans have thrived. So if there is something that can be done to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, (there is) then it should be done.

But there are other natural phenomena that cause more CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic activity, additional algae blooms, etc. This is why it matters. What is the human contribution compared to nature?? Because if there's nothing we can do about it, we should be directing our resources at adapting to it instead of trying to adjust something that we have little impact upon.

But we have to be allowed to ask the question. Aren't you at least curious?? Because I don't think, "it doesn't matter" is a scientific response. I'm not even looking for a solid number - just a rough estimate... "The consensus is that humans have caused 40-60% of the climate change we're seeing." But the "scientists" never address that. The best you'll get is "the primary cause". But they never mention the secondary causes or the degree of impact of either? Aren't you curious as to why??

[Brian4Liberty]

Ok. So, we know that humans can affect the global climate and we know that the global climate can change from natural occurrences. Can you tell me who is responsible for what percentage?? I can never get a straight answer on this - and there is certainly no consensus. Are humans 20% responsible? 80%? .0002%?

And once we get that number, it would seem logical to discuss whether our resources should be spent on correction or adaptation, right?

In any case, the discussions shouldn't be concluded.

Discussions are concluded, and so-called “solutions” are being rammed down your throat right now. Those solutions are the cause for the controversy. This is not some bland scientific debate in the hallowed halls of objective science. This is a political agenda being forced upon you, with real impact of every individual, whether you like it or not. Your consent is not required.

[Swordsmyth]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.
The science that says that climate change is natural and driven by factors far more powerful than anything man can do, like solar cycles.
The science that says that the AGW side has been caught cheating over and over.
The science that says that none of what the AGW side has predicted has happened.

[Brian4Liberty]

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum, that, thankfully, have very little power in the real world? Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine, or it would have already been done and accepted within the scientific community. The fact that it hasn't been, tells me that you are suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to silence the truth regarding climate change. Please provide evidence for this vast conspiracy. Or do you think all the scientists are just too stupid to properly interpet their own observations?

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

I must have missed the religious discussion in this thread. Is the Catholic Church leading a revolt against the AGW hypothesis?

[CaptUSA]

Discussions are concluded, and so-called “solutions” are being rammed down your throat right now. Those solutions are the cause for the controversy. This is not some bland scientific debate in the hallowed halls of objective science. This is a political agenda being forced upon you, with real impact of every individual, whether you like it or not. Your consent is not required.

Exactly. That this doesn't concern some people is concerning in itself.

I mean, I really appreciate scientific study. But these "studies" seem extremely incomplete. I'll take them at their word that there is a 95% probability that humans contribute to climate change - I mean, all creatures affect their environment over time - but they don't want us to ask questions????! I don't know what you call it, but it ain't "science".

[shakey1]

Discussions are concluded, and so-called “solutions” are being rammed down your throat right now. Those solutions are the cause for the controversy. This is not some bland scientific debate in the hallowed halls of objective science. This is a political agenda being forced upon you, with real impact of every individual, whether you like it or not. Your consent is not required.

^^^^^^^^

[Influenza]

But there are other natural phenomena that cause more CO2 in the atmosphere. Volcanic activity, additional algae blooms, etc. This is why it matters. What is the human contribution compared to nature?? Because if there's nothing we can do about it, we should be directing our resources at adapting to it instead of trying to adjust something that we have little impact upon.

But we have to be allowed to ask the question. Aren't you at least curious?? Because I don't think, "it doesn't matter" is a scientific response. I'm not even looking for a solid number - just a rough estimate... "The consensus is that humans have caused 40-60% of the climate change we're seeing." But the "scientists" never address that. The best you'll get is "the primary cause". But they never mention the secondary causes or the degree of impact of either? Aren't you curious as to why??

There are many factors that cause the CO2 levels to be what they are. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 level was around 285 PPM, now it's over 400 as I said, which has not been seen in 400k years or more. The USGS estimates that volcanic activity accounts for 200 million tons of yearly CO2 emissions, while automotive and industrial activities account for over 100x that.

I don't know if there's a pretty, simplified percentage that scientists can come up with to dumb down the information for the average person to more easily digest, but they have created models about what the temperature would be with and without human influence.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Attribution_of_global_warming_%E2%80%93_simulation _of_20th_century_global_mean_temperatures_%28with_ and_without_human_influences%29_compared_to_observ ations_%28NASA%29.png
Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line).[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42) Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred.[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42) The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records.[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

As for people talking about solar cycles... lol


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Global_surface_temperature_%28top%2C_blue%29_and_t he_Sun%27s_energy_received_at_the_top_of_Earth%27s _atmosphere_%28red%2C_bottom%29._Solar_energy_has_ been_measured_by_satellites_since_1978.gif/574px-thumbnail.gif

[Influenza]

I must have missed the religious discussion in this thread. Is the Catholic Church leading a revolt against the AGW hypothesis?
small government absolutism manifests itself as a fundamentalist religion

[fisharmor]

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

Religion and evolution actually are two other topics where I routinely go outside official channels of information and weigh every truth claim primarily on its merits and not on its source.

I'm not even mad that you stoop to name calling. It's all you've got - the one two punch of "This is what the officials say" followed by "you're stupid if you don't believe it".


Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine

You say that because "science", in all its glory, cannot comprehend why a photo of a single global temperature sensor next to an HVAC exhaust duct, or a single photo of Mt Kilamanjaro's ice in 2018, takes all the collected data and scraps it.

This isn't the way the rest of the world works outside of state-funded academia. People lose multi-million dollar fortunes every day for slip-ups that are nowhere close to that severe.

[Swordsmyth]

There are many factors that cause the CO2 levels to be what they are. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 level was around 285 PPM, now it's over 400 as I said, which has not been seen in 400k years or more. The USGS estimates that volcanic activity accounts for 200 million tons of yearly CO2 emissions, while automotive and industrial activities account for over 100x that.

I don't know if there's a pretty, simplified percentage that scientists can come up with to dumb down the information for the average person to more easily digest, but they have created models about what the temperature would be with and without human influence.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Attribution_of_global_warming_%E2%80%93_simulation _of_20th_century_global_mean_temperatures_%28with_ and_without_human_influences%29_compared_to_observ ations_%28NASA%29.png
Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line).[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42) Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred.[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42) The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records.[42] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#cite_note-lindsey_20th_century_gmt_simulations-42)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

As for people talking about solar cycles... lol


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Global_surface_temperature_%28top%2C_blue%29_and_t he_Sun%27s_energy_received_at_the_top_of_Earth%27s _atmosphere_%28red%2C_bottom%29._Solar_energy_has_ been_measured_by_satellites_since_1978.gif/574px-thumbnail.gif

In case you haven’t heard (and you probably haven’t due to the media blackout on the subject), the largest two-year global average temperature drop in a century occurred between February 2016 and February 2018. Global average temperature dropped .056C over that period according to the GISS Surface Analysis (GISSTEMP) (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) team at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. To find a two-year period even close to that drop, you have to back to the 1982-1984 time period when a .047C drop occurred.


GISSTEMP is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to reporting global average temperature. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses GISSTEMP data in their reports. Included in the data is the biggest five-month average global temperature drop ever recorded between February to June in 2016. The fourth largest five-month drop occurred from February to June of 2017.


But how can that be with all of these “warmest year ever” reports (http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record)?


The reason, of course, is that pretty much all mainstream coverage on climate change is agenda — not fact — driven. This is why there is wall-to-wall coverage of the off-the-cuff and, admittedly, rather silly statement of Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) about falling rocks causing sea level rise during a congressional hearing and nary a peep regarding the NASA data from 2016-2018. Because if, in fact, global temperature has dropped for any significant amount of time, it gives “deniers” a leg to stand on in the climate-change debate, which — despite carbon-credit salesman Al Gore’s pronouncements on the subject — is still very much ongoing.


In the weeks since Aaron Brown first reported this “Big Chill” in Real Clear Markets (https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.h tml), the mainstream media has seen fit to push other climate-related stories. They saw a group looking to carve President Trump’s face into a glacier (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-climate-change-project-trumpmore-melting-ice-nicholas-prieto-paris-accord/) in order to prove global warming is real as newsworthy. The New York Times claimed that global warming is causing mischievous, insomniac bears (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/climate/bears-not-hibernating.html). So much nonsense is seen as newsworthy, only because it fits the climate-alarmist narrative, while real climate data is ignored.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...l-cooling-data (https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/29094-mainstream-media-completely-ignores-global-cooling-data)




Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274385-Water-Vapor-is-97-of-Greenhouse-Gases-on-Earth-Man-s-CO2-is-1-!!!/page2)







In The Hinge of Fate, volume 3 of his marvelous 6-volume history of World War II, Churchill reflected, “It may almost be said, ‘Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein we never had a defeat.’”
The publication of Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry’s newest paper in The Journal of Climate reminds me of that. The two authors for years have focused much of their work on figuring out how much warming should come from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In this paper they conclude that it’s at least 30 percent and probably 50 percent less than climate alarmists have claimed for the last forty years.
In fact, there are reasons to think the alarmists’ error is even greater than 50 percent. And if that is true, then all the reasons for drastic policies to cut carbon dioxide emissions – by replacing coal, oil and natural gas with wind and solar as dominant energy sources – simply disappear. Here’s another important point.

For the last 15 years or more, at least until a year or two ago, it would have been inconceivable that The Journal of Climate would publish their article. That this staunch defender of climate alarmist “consensus science” does so now could mean the alarmist dam has cracked, the water’s pouring through, and the crack will spread until the whole dam collapses.
Is this the beginning of the end of climate alarmists’ hold on climate science and policy, or the end of the beginning? Is it the Second Battle of El Alamein, or is it D-Day? I don’t know, but it is certainly significant. It may well be that henceforth the voices of reason and moderation will never suffer a defeat.

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (https://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Consensus-State-Global-Warming/dp/0742549232) was edited 13 years ago by climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, then Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the State Climatologist of Virginia; now Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute. Its title was at best premature.
The greatly exaggerated “consensus” – that unchecked human emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases would cause potentially catastrophic global warming – wasn’t shattered then, and it hasn’t shattered since then. At least, that’s the case if the word “shattered” means what happens when you drop a piece of fine crystal on a granite counter top: instantaneous disintegration into tiny shards.

However, although premature and perhaps a bit hyperbolic, the title might have been prophetic.
From 1979 (when the National Academy of Sciences published “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/charney_report1979.pdf)”) until 2013 (when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its “5th Assessment Report” or AR5), “establishment” climate-change scientists claimed that – if the concentration of carbon dioxide (or its equivalent in other “greenhouse” gases) doubled – global average surface temperature would rise by 1.5–4.5 degrees C, with a “best estimate” of about 3 degrees. (That’s 2.7–8.1 degrees F, with a “best” of 5.4 degrees F.)
But late in the first decade of this century, spurred partly by the atmosphere’s failure to warm as rapidly as the “consensus” predicted, various studies began challenging that conclusion (https://www.cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Call-to-Truth-Prudence-and-Protection-of-the-Poor-2014-The-Case-Against-Harmful-Climate-Policies-Gets-Stronger.pdf#page=16), saying “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) was lower than claimed. As the Cornwall Alliance reported four years ago (https://www.cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Call-to-Truth-Prudence-and-Protection-of-the-Poor-2014-The-Case-Against-Harmful-Climate-Policies-Gets-Stronger.pdf#page=1):
“The IPCC estimates climate sensitivity at 1.5C to 4.5C, but that estimate is based on computer climate models that failed to predict the absence of warming since 1995 and predicted, on average, four times as much warming as actually occurred from 1979 to the present. It is therefore not credible. Newer, observationally based estimates have ranges like 0.3C to 1.0C (NIPCC 2013a, p. 7) or 1.25C to 3.0C – with a best estimate of 1.75C (Lewis and Crok 2013, p. 9). Further, “No empirical evidence exists to support the assertion that a planetary warming of 2°C would be net ecologically or economically damaging” (NIPCC 2013a, p. 10).” [Abbreviated references are identified here.] (https://www.cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Call-to-Truth-Prudence-and-Protection-of-the-Poor-2014-The-Case-Against-Harmful-Climate-Policies-Gets-Stronger.pdf#page=7)
However, most of the lower estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity were published in places that are not controlled by “consensus” scientists and thus were written off or ignored.

Now, though, a journal dead center in the “consensus” – the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate – has accepted a new paper, “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity (https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf),” by Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry. It concludes that ECS is very likely just 50–70 percent as high as the “consensus” range. (Lewis is an independent climate science researcher in the UK. Curry was Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and now is President of the Climate Forecast Applications Network.)
Here’s how Lewis and Curry summarize their findings in their abstract, with the takeaways emphasized:
“Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived based on the best estimates and uncertainty ranges for forcing provided in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Scientific Report (AR5).
“Recent revisions to greenhouse gas forcing and post-1990 ozone and aerosol forcing estimates are incorporated and the forcing data extended from 2011 to 2016. Reflecting recent evidence against strong aerosol forcing, its AR5 uncertainty lower bound is increased slightly. [I]Using a 1869–1882 base period and a 2007−2016 final period, which are well-matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5−95%: 1.05−2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5−95%: 0.9−1.7 K). These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011.
“Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates; a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K). These ECS estimates reflect climate feedbacks over the historical period, assumed time-invariant.
“Allowing for possible time-varying climate feedbacks increases the median ECS estimate to 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K), using infilled temperature data. Possible biases from non-unit forcing efficacy, temperature estimation issues and variability in sea-surface temperature change patterns are examined and found to be minor when using globally-complete temperature data. These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.”
A press release (https://mailchi.mp/thegwpf/press-release-new-data-imply-slower-global-warming?e=3acdae4011) from the Global Warming Policy Forum quoted Lewis as saying, “Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level.”

Veteran environmental science writer Ronald Bailey commented on the new paper in Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/24/global-warming-likely-to-be-30-to-45-per), saying: “How much lower? Their median ECS estimate of 1.66°C (5–95% uncertainty range: 1.15–2.7°C) is derived using globally complete temperature data. The comparable estimate for 31 current generation computer climate simulation models cited by the IPCC is 3.1°C. In other words, the models are running almost two times hotter than the analysis of historical data suggests that future temperatures will be.
“In addition, the high-end estimate of Lewis and Curry’s uncertainty range is 1.8°C below the IPCC’s high-end estimate.” [emphasis added]
Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama-Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for NASA’s satellite global temperature monitoring program) commented on the paper (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/new-lewis-curry-study-concludes-climate-sensitivity-is-low/). Even Lewis and Curry’s figures make several assumptions that are at best unknown and quite likely false. He noted:
“I’d like to additionally emphasize overlooked (and possibly unquantifiable) uncertainties: (1) the assumption in studies like this that the climate system was in energy balance in the late 1800s in terms of deep ocean temperatures; and (2) that we know the change in radiative forcing that has occurred since the late 1800s, which would mean we would have to know the extent to which the system was in energy balance back then.
“We have no good reason to assume the climate system is ever in energy balance, although it is constantly readjusting to seek that balance. For example, the historical temperature (and proxy) record suggests the climate system was still emerging from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s. The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of their own unforced chaotic changes on century to millennial time scales, that can in turn alter atmospheric circulation patterns, thus clouds, thus the global energy balance. For some reason, modelers sweep this possibility under the rug (partly because they don’t know how to model unknowns).
“But just because we don’t know the extent to which this has occurred in the past doesn’t mean we can go ahead and assume it never occurs.
“Or at least if modelers assume it doesn’t occur, they should state that up front.
“If indeed some of the warming since the late 1800s was natural, the ECS would be even lower.”
With regard to that last sentence, Spencer’s University of Alabama research colleague Dr. John Christy and co-authors Dr. Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. James Wallace published a paper (https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf) in the fall of 2016 (revised in the spring of 2017). It argued that solar, volcanic and ocean current variations are sufficient to explain all the global warming over the period of allegedly anthropogenic warming, leaving no global warming to blame on carbon dioxide.

More at: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e...t-be-shattered (https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/e-calvin-beisner/climate-alarmist-consensus-about-be-shattered)

Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on "settled science."

The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they've determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet's bedrock that plants also feed on.
This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed.
University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, says that "This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences."
Pay close attention to the word "paradigm."
If Houlton's finding about these vast, previously unknown nitrogen stores holds true, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions.


Climate scientists have long known that plants offset some of the effects of climate change by absorbing and storing CO2. But climate scientists assumed that the ability to plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited.
As a 2003 study published in the same Science journal put it, "there will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios."
In the wake of the latest findings, Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, told Chemical and Engineering News that "If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think."
In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

More at: https://www.investors.com/politics/e...itrogen-rocks/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-model-nitrogen-rocks/)


The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (http://www.psmsl.org/) (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.

The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z) – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.

More at: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ea-level-rise/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/06/tidalgate-climate-alarmists-caught-faking-sea-level-rise/)


Earlier we reported on ocean temperatures dropping (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/28/inconvenient-oceans-continue-to-cool/), now we have confirmation that global air temperature is dropping as well. The latest data is in, and now according to HadCRUT data, we are back to the same level as before the 2014/2016 super El Niño event heated up the planet.

More at: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/...inues-to-cool/ (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/01/global-temperature-continues-to-cool/)

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sunspot-Number-and-Temperature-Since-1850.jpg



In a development that could further advantage OPEC members as they step up production (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-22/we-have-deal-principle-opec-agrees-real-production-increase-600000-barrels-day) to compensate for falling exports out of Venezuela and (potentially) Iran, the Barents Observer (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2018/06/midsummer-tankers-get-ice-trapped-near-russian-arctic-port) is reporting that two of Russia's largest Arctic out-shipment points for oil and LNG have become "packed with ice" leaving tankers and carriers stranded in the "paralyzed" area, which hasn't been this packed with ice at midsummer in four years. Experts had expected that ice clogging up the Gulf of Ob would melt with the summer months, allowing Rosatomflots, the state-owned energy company responsible for the region, to avoid relying on their nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear the area.

Click here to view the original image of 822x328px.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018.06.25ob.JPG
According to Rosatomflot, its icebreakers will be working at least through the first week of July to free stranded ships from the ice. Two icebreakers, the Taymyr and the Vaygach, are working overtime. There are also several smaller tugs and icebreakers working in the waters around the Sabetta port.
One Rosatomflot representative pointed out that the climate change fears which had analysts worried about rapid melting of ice caps in the Arctic have apparently receded.
The global warming, which there has been so much talk about for such a long time, seems to have receded a little and we are returning to the standards of the 1980s and 1990s, says company representative Andrey Smirnov.

Click here to view the original image of 890x411px.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018.06.25oi.JPG
Companies shipping from the area have in recent years invested in building more powerful tankers capable of breaking up the ice on their own. The projects are expected to ratchet up exports from the region by the equivalent of millions of barrels of oil per year.
The Yamal LNG plant is fully dependent on smooth shipping to and from the port of Sabetta. A fleet of 15 powerful top ice-class carriers are being built for the project. The ships are capable of independently breaking through more than two meter thick ice. Commercial shipments from Sabetta started in early December 2017.
Further south, company Gazprom Neft is operating the Novy Port project, which is built to be able to deliver up to eight million tons of oil per year. A fleet of six tankers are being built for the Novy Port. The first vessels of the new fleet, the Shturman Albanov and the "Shturman Malygin" were put on the water in early 2016. The third fleet tanker, the “Shturman Ovtsyn” set course for the history books when it in mid-winter 2017 left the yard of the Samsung Heavy Industries in South Korea, made it through the Bering Strait and sailed all the way to Yamal. Later, also the Shturman Shcherbinin and the Shturman Koshelev webre built.
To help put the ice-pack in perspective, the blog Climateer Investor (http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2018/06/something-odd-is-happening-in-arctic-at.html) published a pair of heat-coded images showing the extent of the sea ice thickness in June 2018...
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018.06.25ice.JPG
...Compared with June 2008 - a decade earlier.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018.06.252008.JPG
So much for "global warming"...



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ankers-trapped (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-25/meanwhile-arctic-unanticipated-ice-pack-leaves-oil-and-lng-tankers-trapped)

[Swordsmyth]

small government absolutism manifests itself as a fundamentalist religion
Projection.
You worship the state and institutional "scientists".

[Influenza]

Very impressive copy pasta swordsmyth, I'm sure you are feeling mighty smart right now in those holy underpants of yours. I don't have time to go through every single BS article/graph in detail but I will go through a few to show how idiotic you are.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yes. But the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is a a function of the atmospheric temperature. The hotter it gets, the more water vapor there will be. I already demonstrated with the data provided in this thread, that the temperature of the atmosphere is a function of the amount of CO2 concentration.

Now please tell me: what the fuck is this graph?

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sunspot-Number-and-Temperature-Since-1850.jpg

This is the most unscientific shit I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. Where is the Y axis for the sunspot number? Why is temperature the Y-axis for both the number of sunspots and the temperature of the planet? How are the amount of sun spots related to the temperature of the earth? I already showed, in the very post you are quoting, that the sun's energy output is very constant, only varying between ~1367.5 and ~1365.5 W/m^2, meanwhile the temperature of the earth has been recorded to increase over the same duration. It is all a lie.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Zurich_sunspot_number_since_1750.png

Why is it that, like the solar cycle, the amount of sunspots on the sun increases and decreases in a periodic fashion? Why was your graph an idiotic, low-IQ lie?

Also, Swordsmyth, please explain to me why there is absolutely no unifying theme with the links you have provide, other than their paltry attempt to discredit climate science?

One link says there is no notable increase in temperature! It's a hoax! The arctic ice is getting thicker!
Another link says the increase in temperature can be attributed to the sunspots!
Another link says we shouldn't worry about CO2 emissions, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas!

Why is there no consistent viewpoint provided? It's because the only tactic they have is mud slinging. They can't provide any alternative theories, they just misconstrue the data to fit their dishonest narrative and LIE and LIE and LIE. Like you. You are a low-iq, religious fanatic, liar Swordsmyth.

[AZJoe]

"Climate Deniers" - what a ridiculous goofy label - as if any scientists are denying that climate exists.
So if Chuck Todd disagrees with scientists that show that the sun and earth cycles are the primary drivers of climate, does that make Chuck Todd a "sun denier".
- No TV time for Sun deniers!

[juleswin]

Very impressive copy pasta swordsmyth, I'm sure you are feeling mighty smart right now in those holy underpants of yours. I don't have time to go through every single BS article/graph in detail but I will go through a few to show how idiotic you are.

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yes. But the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is a a function of the atmospheric temperature. The hotter it gets, the more water vapor there will be. I already demonstrated with the data provided in this thread, that the temperature of the atmosphere is a function of the amount of CO2 concentration.



The same goes for CO2 also, go back to your carbon cycle map and see the arrows pointing up from water. Increase in temperature would increase the average speed of the CO2 molecules which causes them break the bonds with water and escape to the atmosphere. This is why some people believe that the graphs showing increase in temp and them increase in CO2 means that temperate leads to increase in CO2 and not the other way around.

Someone else asked you this question which you never really answered, but what % of the CO2 in the air everyday is from man made sources i.e. humans, industries, cars etc etc?

[Influenza]

The same goes for CO2 also, go back to your carbon cycle map and see the arrows pointing up from water. Increase in temperature would increase the average speed of the CO2 molecules which causes them break the bonds with water and escape to the atmosphere. This is why some people believe that the graphs showing increase in temp and them increase in CO2 means that temperate leads to increase in CO2 and not the other way around.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

[Swordsmyth]

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yes. But the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is a a function of the atmospheric temperature. The hotter it gets, the more water vapor there will be. I already demonstrated with the data provided in this thread, that the temperature of the atmosphere is a function of the amount of CO2 concentration.
It isn't, CO2 follows temperature not the other way around.


Now please tell me: what the $#@! is this graph?

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Sunspot-Number-and-Temperature-Since-1850.jpg

This is the most unscientific $#@! I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. Where is the Y axis for the sunspot number? Why is temperature the Y-axis for both the number of sunspots and the temperature of the planet? How are the amount of sun spots related to the temperature of the earth? I already showed, in the very post you are quoting, that the sun's energy output is very constant, only varying between ~1367.5 and ~1365.5 W/m^2, meanwhile the temperature of the earth has been recorded to increase over the same duration. It is all a lie.
Sunspots affect the earth's magnetic field etc. and allow more of the sun's energy in:
Changes in the number of sunspots cause only slight changes in the sun's radiation, but these changes are amplified many fold by the radiation's interaction with 1) ozone in the upper stratosphere, and 2) clouds in the lower troposphere. The sun's energy output that reaches earth varies only slightly (about 0.1 percent) throughout most 11-year solar cycles. However, in ultra-long cycles (since the Maunder Minimum) the irradiance changes are estimated to be as high as 0.4%.
More at: http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2014/02/its-sun-stupid.html





https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Zurich_sunspot_number_since_1750.png

Why is it that, like the solar cycle, the amount of sunspots on the sun increases and decreases in a periodic fashion? Why was your graph an idiotic, low-IQ lie?
I'm not sure about that graph, perhaps it is adjusted to show variation from the cyclical average, here is a better one:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTJG65jxFa_-vwyAJvcms_-hP_24QWNZT9lSoVcno_n06T7ktO0

Notice anything?







Also, Swordsmyth, please explain to me why there is absolutely no unifying theme with the links you have provide, other than their paltry attempt to discredit climate science?
They are all scientific evidence that the "consensus" is wrong.


One link says there is no notable increase in temperature! It's a hoax! The arctic ice is getting thicker!
Another link says the increase in temperature can be attributed to the sunspots!
Both are true, the increase isn't notable and any increase is due to sunspots etc.




Another link says we shouldn't worry about CO2 emissions, water vapor is the main greenhouse gas!
And?
You can't deal with your cherished beliefs being wrong for multiple reasons?


Why is there no consistent viewpoint provided? It's because the only tactic they have is mud slinging. They can't provide any alternative theories, they just misconstrue the data to fit their dishonest narrative and LIE and LIE and LIE. Like you. You are a low-iq, religious fanatic, liar Swordsmyth.
More projection.
Your side has been caught misconstruing data and outright lying over and over and your side is the one that insists that its religious dogma can't be questioned.

[juleswin]

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

OK? I was trying to tell u that u release more CO2 from the oceans int the atmosphere when temp increases. Do you not believe it?

[Brian4Liberty]

small government absolutism manifests itself as a fundamentalist religion

Zealotry often manifests itself with true believers. But it is hard to ignore the fact that the true believers in global warming and climate change are using terms like “deniers”. They might as well be calling others “blasphemers”.

[Anti Federalist]

There are many factors that cause the CO2 levels to be what they are. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 level was around 285 PPM, now it's over 400 as I said, which has not been seen in 400k years or more. The USGS estimates that volcanic activity accounts for 200 million tons of yearly CO2 emissions, while automotive and industrial activities account for over 100x that.

Let's assume you are correct.

What do you suggest be done about it?

[CCTelander]

Zealotry often manifests itself with true believers. But it is hard to ignore the fact that the true believers in global warming and climate change are using terms like “deniers”. They might as well be calling others “blasphemers”.


That's exactly what they mean. Blasphemers and heretics.

[Anti Federalist]

I am unqualified, as are you, to argue about the details of climate change. Why should I waste my time trying to argue with religious imbeciles on an internet forum, that, thankfully, have very little power in the real world? Evidence demonstrating the veracity of anthropogenic climate change is not easy to undermine, or it would have already been done and accepted within the scientific community. The fact that it hasn't been, tells me that you are suggesting there is a vast conspiracy to silence the truth regarding climate change. Please provide evidence for this vast conspiracy. Or do you think all the scientists are just too stupid to properly interpet their own observations?

You are like those religious idiots who pretend that evolution isn't real so they can continue to believe the Bible is the literal word of an omniscient creator.

How in the hell do you have a "Reputation Beyond Repute" when Zippy, for all his faults, has the highest neg rep on this board?

Even when he is wrong, Zippy is not crude, harsh and insulting.

[Anti Federalist]

What science, exactly, is he denying? The sad thing is, low-IQ people like you and the majority of this forum think there is more evidence for bronze age superstitions than the incontrovertible reality of human-caused climate change.

-rep

[Influenza]

How in the hell do you have a "Reputation Beyond Repute" when Zippy, for all his faults, has the highest neg rep on this board?

Even when he is wrong, Zippy is not crude, harsh and insulting.
How does an overt racist like you have one? How did those Taliban-Christan types like Christian_Liberty, hells_unicorn, etc have them? How do <85 IQ people like Swordsmyth and NCL have them? It's a mystery I tell you, a mystery!

[Anti Federalist]

How does an overt racist like you have one?

Because even if I disagree with somebody, I try to remain civil and polite and understanding, in an effort to reach consensus and understanding.

Not be a condescending jackass.

So, moving on...lets assume you are correct about AGW.

What do you propose be done?

[Influenza]

OK? I was trying to tell u that u release more CO2 from the oceans int the atmosphere when temp increases. Do you not believe it?

More CO2 being present in the atmosphere will increase the temperature, which causes CO2 to be released more quickly from the ocean

[Influenza]

Because even if I disagree with somebody, I try to remain civil and polite and understanding, in an effort to reach consensus and understanding.

Not be a condescending jackass.

So, moving on...lets assume you are correct about AGW.

What do you propose be done?

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

[Swordsmyth]

More CO2 being present in the atmosphere will increase the temperature, which causes CO2 to be released more quickly from the ocean
Or maybe the warming comes first and releases the CO2, that is what the data shows.

[Anti Federalist]

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.

Uh huh...but from what I've read, from the same sources you are quoting, is that those efforts are no where near enough, that massive and radical reductions are required, that the small baby steps being taken now are not nearly enough, in fact, are merely a drop in the bucket.

Is it your contention that the severity of the problem is overstated?

That the measures being done now are enough?

ETA - And let me ask this: why is it OK within your worldview that a "country" can act in a collective manner in its own self interest to preserve itself to combat something like AGW, but not act collectively in its own self interest to preserve itself when the source of danger is say, uncontrolled immigration?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a "no borders, no walls, no countries at all" kind of guy?

[Swordsmyth]

What countries around the world have already been starting to do - limiting their CO2 emissions by investing in alternative forms of energy and heavily reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity, etc.
So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

Just why do you come to this site again?

[Influenza]

Uh huh...but from what I've read, from the same sources you are quoting, is that those efforts are no where near enough, that massive and radical reductions are required, that the small baby steps being taken now are not nearly enough, in fact, are merely a drop in the bucket.

Is it your contention that the severity of the problem is overstated?

That the measures being done now are enough?

I think it's obvious that some of the "doomsday" predictions have been overstated. People that have exaggerated such predictions have done a disservice to the greater issue, because it causes people like you, (and me until a few years ago) to completely reject the idea of climate change and pretend it's nothing to worry about, when it certainly is. Those exaggerators are almost as bad as the politicians and "scientists" who get paid millions by oil companies to ensure that people remain ignorant and apathetic about the very real issue

[Influenza]

So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

Just why do you come to this site again?

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other shit every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's obvious that some of the "doomsday" predictions have been overstated. People that have exaggerated such predictions have done a disservice to the greater issue, because it causes people like you, (and me until a few years ago) to completely reject the idea of climate change and pretend it's nothing to worry about, when it certainly is. Those exaggerators are almost as bad as the politicians and "scientists" who get paid millions by oil companies to ensure that people remain ignorant and apathetic about the very real issue

How would anybody have known that those predictions were "overstated", if the AGW proponents had their way, and had effectively silenced all opposition, criticism and critical analysis?

[fisharmor]

So basically you want government to steal more money and waste it on inefficient projects while forcing everyone to have a lower standard of living.

I believe I called it in post 53, and that this proves my other earlier assertion that agw cultists can't keep up.

[fisharmor]

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other shit every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

Translation: it's ok to waste trillions, as long as it's wasted on what ***Influenza*** wants to waste it on.

[Swordsmyth]

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other $#@! every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)
The military budget may be far too large but it is nowhere near as large as the money demanded to fix a nonexistent problem and the projects are inefficient or they wouldn't need the government to force people to invest in them.

[kpitcher]

If our 20-year internet argumentation history on this topic is any guide, you're not even going to understand, despite the fact that I am clearly pointing it out to you here and now, that we are simply years ahead of you on this topic.

You are years ahead... and I'm too dim to understand... hrm, alright. I'll let the pompous attitude slide if I'm to be a grasshopper learning from the master.

What do you consider sources of valid knowledge? Obviously you don't follow with the peer review scientific method. That removes the IPCC reports, NASA, NOAA, almost all the various scientific organizations in the US and worldwide, the usual multi discipline journals like Nature, Science, let alone all the specialized earth and climate journals. Ok, I shall learn from new founts of wisdom.

What is the years ahead enlightened methodology of education on a complex topic like worldwide climate? I went through an engineering school if you're worried about my mental ability for comprehension.

If I'm to truly understand how AGW is a myth, I can't simply parrot every climate change is not real website that lists the same things like natural CO2, sun cycles, models from decades ago didn't get everything perfect, fake temp recordings, and all those others. I want to get to the real science that somehow is overlooked by oh 90% of scientists. This supplicant is after the source of apparently hidden knowledge.

I'm eager to start my journey, please point me in the right direction.

[kpitcher]

Let's assume you are correct.

What do you suggest be done about it?

Actually that is the most interesting question and is what will cause the biggest impact on our lives. Regardless of the reason behind climate change, everyone from the pentagon to insurance agencies are preparing for changes. We will have people try to spin this to their agenda and in our pre-dominate crony capitalism system many will try to profit hugely from it at the cost to citizens.

Most things to do boil down to find a way to stop polluting as much. Very libertarian ideal, none of us want someone else using our personal resources (Clean air, clean water, non polluted ground to grow our food, shared resources like the ocean shouldn't be destroyed, etc). Doing this in a way that doesn't increase government oversight will be hard, we'll have to find the right battles.

- Move to an increase in Nuclear power. Another thread shows that Bill Gates invested with some MIT grads for a new reactor design but is trying to put them in China. We have so much waste stored around the country we have energy just waiting to be utilized. We have unwarranted fears about nuclear power, new tech can make it even safer. I have 2 plants within 40 miles of me, one is being decommissioned in the next few years. Good time for a new plant.

- The US stopped their own research into fusion and joined ITER. We're over a decade away, at least, with ITER. China and Lockheed Martin is supposedly working on it. If we could crack fusion, clean power would solve a lot of pollution issues. However I'm not sure that any government funded big science ends up helping any more than it hurts. That could be an worthy discussion there, if big science could help, and how to fund it besides tax payer money.

- Plan better for handling issues that a warming climate brings. Plan for once a century floods as they turn into once a decade. This should be local and state issues mostly. We are bad as a county for any long term goals, can't hurt to start now.

I'm sure there are a lot more. The worse thing we can do is nothing and the Dems and Reps put climate change as a party plank with lobbyists telling them what to do.

[dannno]

You are years ahead... and I'm too dim to understand... hrm, alright. I'll let the pompous attitude slide if I'm to be a grasshopper learning from the master.

What do you consider sources of valid knowledge? Obviously you don't follow with the peer review scientific method. That removes the IPCC reports, NASA, NOAA, almost all the various scientific organizations in the US and worldwide, the usual multi discipline journals like Nature, Science, let alone all the specialized earth and climate journals. Ok, I shall learn from new founts of wisdom.

What is the years ahead enlightened methodology of education on a complex topic like worldwide climate? I went through an engineering school if you're worried about my mental ability for comprehension.

If I'm to truly understand how AGW is a myth, I can't simply parrot every climate change is not real website that lists the same things like natural CO2, sun cycles, models from decades ago didn't get everything perfect, fake temp recordings, and all those others. I want to get to the real science that somehow is overlooked by oh 90% of scientists. This supplicant is after the source of apparently hidden knowledge.

I'm eager to start my journey, please point me in the right direction.

Where did you get your 90% of scientists figure? Seems like you are back-peddling, you know your 97% figure was thoroughly debunked.. doesn't that make you weary of their other figures if they are willing to fudge on something like that? I mean, they really pushed that 97% consensus hard.. and it's totally bunk.

[dannno]

Actually that is the most interesting question and is what will cause the biggest impact on our lives. Regardless of the reason behind climate change, everyone from the pentagon to insurance agencies are preparing for changes. We will have people try to spin this to their agenda and in our pre-dominate crony capitalism system many will try to profit hugely from it at the cost to citizens.

Most things to do boil down to find a way to stop polluting as much. Very libertarian ideal, none of us want someone else using our personal resources (Clean air, clean water, non polluted ground to grow our food, shared resources like the ocean shouldn't be destroyed, etc). Doing this in a way that doesn't increase government oversight will be hard, we'll have to find the right battles.

- Move to an increase in Nuclear power. Another thread shows that Bill Gates invested with some MIT grads for a new reactor design but is trying to put them in China. We have so much waste stored around the country we have energy just waiting to be utilized. We have unwarranted fears about nuclear power, new tech can make it even safer. I have 2 plants within 40 miles of me, one is being decommissioned in the next few years. Good time for a new plant.

- The US stopped their own research into fusion and joined ITER. We're over a decade away, at least, with ITER. China and Lockheed Martin is supposedly working on it. If we could crack fusion, clean power would solve a lot of pollution issues. However I'm not sure that any government funded big science ends up helping any more than it hurts. That could be an worthy discussion there, if big science could help, and how to fund it besides tax payer money.

- Plan better for handling issues that a warming climate brings. Plan for once a century floods as they turn into once a decade. This should be local and state issues mostly. We are bad as a county for any long term goals, can't hurt to start now.

I'm sure there are a lot more. The worse thing we can do is nothing and the Dems and Reps put climate change as a party plank with lobbyists telling them what to do.

Not a bad post - pollutants are bad..

Here's the problem.

You and most enviros presume CO2 is a pollutant.

Let's say you have two project plans:

A) More harmful pollutants, less CO2

B) Less harmful pollutants, more CO2

Which option do you choose? Based on your post I would hope you would choose B.. but with the legislation and the environmental movement going the way it is, option A will be chosen.

How does that further your goals?

Brian has been trying to make this point several times throughout the thread.

[kpitcher]

Where did you get your 90% of scientists figure? Seems like you are back-peddling, you know your 97% figure was thoroughly debunked.. doesn't that make you weary of their other figures if they are willing to fudge on something like that? I mean, they really pushed that 97% consensus hard.. and it's totally bunk.

There are a number of meta analysis of support for AGW, they range from 90-100, most are in the high 90s. In this case I went with the lowest number, I figure if there is other information out there then perhaps that explains how the worse meta analysis was 90%

[UWDude]

There are a number of meta analysis of support for AGW, they range from 90-100, most are in the high 90s. In this case I went with the lowest number, I figure if there is other information out there then perhaps that explains how the worse meta analysis was 90%

Yeah yeah yeah, global warming is going to kill us all.
And Hell is real.

And the believers TALK about the danger, and reality of their illusions with emphatic belief, as if it is the most important thing facing humanity.

And yet they continue to LIVE as if it is all just fantasy.

And fuck your science by consensus.
Metadata is not science.
Metadata is metadata.
and worse, one bad strain in metadata can corrupt it all.

Oh yeah, and Al Gore said New Yorkers would be ankle deep in water by now. And that was if carbon production slowed. Carbon production has accelerated worldwide, and yet there are still no dolphins in the subways.

I guess he figured time would stop before 20 years passed, so nobody would remember or call out his global warming, err. Climate change, bullshit.

But I remembered. I remembered back then all the idiots yelling about the end of the world, and how in 20 years they would have to eat their shit.
And I'll remember 20 years from now, when still not a god damned thing has drastically changed.

But this time, I'll know: the idiots have no shame or memory, so they'll still be bleating about how we only have 20 years left, 20 years from now.

[Danke]

Let's assume you are correct.

What do you suggest be done about it?

Attend one of oyarde's Going Green courses.

https://www.ducksters.com/history/native_american_decorated_tepee.jpg

[specsaregood]

What is important is that the levels are limited so that the temperature does not deviate too much from the range in which humans have thrived. So if there is something that can be done to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, (there is) then it should be done.

Funny, I'd wager that if you polled people that believe in man-made global warming and whether they believe that the world is over populated/mandating population control; I'd wager you would find a high correlation between the 2.

[Stratovarious]

Actually that is the most interesting question and is what will cause the biggest impact on our lives. Regardless of the reason behind climate change, everyone from the pentagon to insurance agencies are preparing for changes. We will have people try to spin this to their agenda and in our pre-dominate crony capitalism system many will try to profit hugely from it at the cost to citizens.

Most things to do boil down to find a way to stop polluting as much. Very libertarian ideal, none of us want someone else using our personal resources (Clean air, clean water, non polluted ground to grow our food, shared resources like the ocean shouldn't be destroyed, etc). Doing this in a way that doesn't increase government oversight will be hard, we'll have to find the right battles.

- Move to an increase in Nuclear power. Another thread shows that Bill Gates invested with some MIT grads for a new reactor design but is trying to put them in China. We have so much waste stored around the country we have energy just waiting to be utilized. We have unwarranted fears about nuclear power, new tech can make it even safer. I have 2 plants within 40 miles of me, one is being decommissioned in the next few years. Good time for a new plant.

- The US stopped their own research into fusion and joined ITER. We're over a decade away, at least, with ITER. China and Lockheed Martin is supposedly working on it. If we could crack fusion, clean power would solve a lot of pollution issues. However I'm not sure that any government funded big science ends up helping any more than it hurts. That could be an worthy discussion there, if big science could help, and how to fund it besides tax payer money.

- Plan better for handling issues that a warming climate brings. Plan for once a century floods as they turn into once a decade. This should be local and state issues mostly. We are bad as a county for any long term goals, can't hurt to start now.

I'm sure there are a lot more. The worse thing we can do is nothing and the Dems and Reps put climate change as a party plank with lobbyists telling them what to do.



If there were an ounce of truth to AGW Al Gore et all would
have been out planting massive forests 20 years ago,
however SOLUTIONS is the enemy to the NWO heretics,
the High Priests of AGW, they are holding on for the Trillions
in taxes to aid the acceleration of the roll out of Globalism ,
sadly for them there is a global shift back towards the
preservation of sovereignty, culture, and freedom.
Cherry pick data, lie , and pay out a few million to sympathetic
and opportunistic scientists to secure Trillions , hells' yea' !!
-
Look out the window, California is under 22'' of water, seals and polar bears
are extinct, coral reefs have vanished, and Al Gore's CO2 foot print is no longer
bigger than the Maui.

[oyarde]

How would anybody have known that those predictions were "overstated", if the AGW proponents had their way, and had effectively silenced all opposition, criticism and critical analysis?

Personally I have been for decades in the camp that even if there was climate change it is the natural course . Nothing yet has ever changed my mind . People lack wisdom and nothing will be done to correct that so it is better if they have no access to the peoples money or tax revenues for projects of evil.

[oyarde]

Attend one of oyarde's Going Green courses.

https://www.ducksters.com/history/native_american_decorated_tepee.jpg

Pretty sweet huh ? Most of you probably got your first blowjob in a toyota .

[Superfluous Man]

Who said I want to the government to steal more money? They are wasting trillions of dollars on the military and other $#@! every year, certainly there is a lot of money that can be diverted to actually useful causes (not inefficient projects like you HAVE to pretend they are because your fundamentalist religion of "small government when it suits me" demands it of you)

The only way for the government to divert money to useful causes is by not spending any at all and letting the people who earned that money decide how to allocate it.

Also, inefficiency isn't one of the downsides of government spending. It's one of the upsides. Thank heavens we don't get all the government we pay for.

[Superfluous Man]

There are a number of meta analysis of support for AGW, they range from 90-100, most are in the high 90s. In this case I went with the lowest number, I figure if there is other information out there then perhaps that explains how the worse meta analysis was 90%

So your actual sources don't actually even make any claims about what 90% (or any other percent) of scientists believe.

[dannno]

There are a number of meta analysis of support for AGW, they range from 90-100, most are in the high 90s. In this case I went with the lowest number, I figure if there is other information out there then perhaps that explains how the worse meta analysis was 90%

Sort of like the meta analysis of 97% that you posted earlier which turned out to be like 67% in reality?

Why do you keep dodging the fact that they are using wrong data at every turn and you are falling for it?

[Stratovarious]

So your actual sources don't actually even make any claims about what 90% (or any other percent) of scientists believe.

There is no documentation that I have found showing the roster of this' so called unanimous 97% + -
of scientists that claim 'irrefutable' data proving the case for AGW, it's all secret, invisible, unverifiable,
unless you factor in the 'mirrors' and puppeteering' behind the 'curtain' .

[Occam's Banana]

Sort of like the meta analysis of 97% that you posted earlier which turned out to be like 67% 32.6% in reality?

Fixed - 66.7% of the abstracts expressed no position on AGW at all (66.4%) or explicitly expressed uncertainty (0.3%).

It was the "meta-analyzed" 32.6% that explicitly accepted AGW that got "meta-meta-analyzed" into 97% ... ;)

[Occam's Banana]

And I'll just point out (again) that you don't see physicists invoking "consensus" in order to defend quantum mechanics. You also don't see them doing "meta-analyses" of physics journal articles in order to claim that such-and-such a percentage of physicists agree with quantum mechanics - and that therefore quantum mechanics must be accepted as undeniably correct.

They don't have to do those things because quantum mechanics is a model that makes consistently correct predictions, time after time after time after time.

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" either. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say it because they don't have one - all they have been able to do is concoct excuses for why their models have not made consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

[CCTelander]

And I'll just point out (again) that you don't see physicists invoking "consensus" in order to defend quantum mechanics. You also don't see them doing "meta-analyses" of physics journal articles in order to claim that such-and-such a percentage of physicists agree with quantum mechanics - and that therefore quantum mechanics must be accepted as undeniably correct.

They don't have to do those things because quantum mechanics is a model that makes consistently correct predictions, time after time after time after time ...

If climate change alarmists had a consistently correct predictive model, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" either. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say it because they don't have one - all they have been able to do is concoct excuses for why their models have not made consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because "meta-analysis" supposedly shows that they have a "consensus" ...


That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that climate science is so massively politicized whereas quantum physics is not, could it? Just askin' is all.

[Occam's Banana]

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that climate science is so massively politicized whereas quantum physics is not, could it? Just askin' is all.

Hmmmmm. Could be, could be ...

And this highlights the need for another important distinction to be made: the difference between science and policy.

Unlike policy, science is not normative. It does not tell us whether something should be done about anything (let alone what that something ought to be).

Even if some issue of policy did hinge on quantum physics, there still wouldn't be any controversy over the authoritativeness of quantum mechanics itself. The authoritative power of quantum mechanics derives from the consistently correct predictions produced by the model, and any sensible policy contingent upon quantum physics would have to respect that fact.

But having no such models, "climate change" alarmism cannot claim such authority - and thus, alarmists must resort to fig leaves such as (meta-analyzed) "consensus" as substitutes for authoritativeness (and note the significance of the fact that "consensus" is properly a term of policy, not of science).

[fisharmor]

That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that climate science is so massively politicized whereas quantum physics is not, could it? Just askin' is all.

I personally find CERN quite troubling. It may not be politicized to the degree AGW is but particle physics certainly could be politicized pretty much overnight.

Cosmology is certainly another area where predictive models spectacularly fail pretty much monthly.

This isn't even getting into soft sciences like sociology or economics... I mean hell, if anyone reading this doesn't think economics isn't a politicized study then you should probably just GTFO right now.

The point is, the politicization of science isn't just not hard to find, you just need to open your eyes for a second and see it.

[nikcers]

"Climate Change" is just political double speak, if it wasn't possible than why does ENMOD exist in the first place?

[Brian4Liberty]

Funny, I'd wager that if you polled people that believe in man-made global warming and whether they believe that the world is over populated/mandating population control; I'd wager you would find a high correlation between the 2.

There are interesting cross-issue comparisons to be made. I am not aware of any statistics on coinciding opinions on AGW and population control, but it certainly sounds plausible.

More to the point, how many AGW zealots are also pro-US immigration zealots? If AGW is such an urgent issue, why take people from a village in Guatemala, where their carbon footprint is relatively tiny, and move them to the US, where they will have one of the largest carbon footprints? Seems to be a glaring contradiction.

[Brian4Liberty]

I personally find CERN quite troubling. It may not be politicized to the degree AGW is but particle physics certainly could be politicized pretty much overnight.

Cosmology is certainly another area where predictive models spectacularly fail pretty much monthly.

This isn't even getting into soft sciences like sociology or economics... I mean hell, if anyone reading this doesn't think economics isn't a politicized study then you should probably just GTFO right now.

The point is, the politicization of science isn't just not hard to find, you just need to open your eyes for a second and see it.

When an issue can be translated into a Wall Street carbon credit exchange, with carbon credits distributed by the government to their favorite cronies (and donors), then it will become highly politicized.

[Danke]

6298

[Brian4Liberty]

And I'll just point out (again) that you don't see physicists invoking "consensus" in order to defend quantum mechanics. You also don't see them doing "meta-analyses" of physics journal articles in order to claim that such-and-such a percentage of physicists agree with quantum mechanics - and that therefore quantum mechanics must be accepted as undeniably correct.

They don't have to do those things because quantum mechanics is a model that makes consistently correct predictions, time after time after time after time ...

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" either. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say it because they don't have one - all they have been able to do is concoct excuses for why their models have not made consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

Didn’t you know? Science is based on voting in a democracy. And a plurality will do if it serves the proper agenda.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Oh yeah, and Al Gore said New Yorkers would be ankle deep in water by now. And that was if carbon production slowed. Carbon production has accelerated worldwide, and yet there are still no dolphins in the subways.

I guess he figured time would stop before 20 years passed, so nobody would remember or call out his global warming, err. Climate change, bullshit.

But I remembered. I remembered back then all the idiots yelling about the end of the world, and how in 20 years they would have to eat their shit.
And I'll remember 20 years from now, when still not a god damned thing has drastically changed.

But this time, I'll know: the idiots have no shame or memory, so they'll still be bleating about how we only have 20 years left, 20 years from now.

They said it would be much deeper than your ankles:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJn261UAdaA

And then it would insta-freeze:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjMmDsycHC0

[Suzanimal]

There are interesting cross-issue comparisons to be made. I am not aware of any statistics on coinciding opinions on AGW and population control, but it certainly sounds plausible.

More to the point, how many AGW zealots are also pro-US immigration zealots? If AGW is such an urgent issue, why take people from a village in Guatemala, where their carbon footprint is relatively tiny, and move them to the US, where they will have one of the largest carbon footprints? Seems to be a glaring contradiction.

Specs is right. In just about all the global warming climate change articles I've come across wasted precious minutes of my life reading, there has been at least a hint of population reduction. To be fair, I haven't read that many BUT just look at the tv shows and movies - just look at how they changed Thanos's reasons for killing half the population in Infinity Wars. Now, Thanos is a bad guy BUT they make his reasons seem noble. :rolleyes: In the comics, he did it for a piece of tail.

I'm not saying most lefties would agree with Thanos's methods (after all, they could be the ones disappeared) but they are definitely sympathetic to his reasons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2018/04/30/avengers-infinity-war-overpopulation/#5532fcba1c58

[Danke]

6299

[Danke]

6300

[Stratovarious]

I wish Al Gore would share some of the GW around my 'neck of the woods' ,
its 28f here , in the frgn desert...........brrr,,,,,,,

[Stratovarious]

In legislation recently passed by Congress, all 2019 US passenger vehicles
will have 'personal CO2 breathalizers' installed that will enable the starter
switch provided the operator does not exceed Federal Emissions Standards
as co-sponsored and written by Al Gore, transponders will trigger internal
audit stations throughout the continental US and initiate armed response
teams, as well as armed drones to offending operator locations, in an
effort to abate CO2 infections to adjacent personnel.
-
In other news;
Al Gore's 2019 personal vehicles have been impounded, the story
is unfolding, we're going live, on location in 3, 2.......................
-
*NPI
Never Printed International

[Occam's Banana]

Google Won’t Fund Sites, YouTube Videos That Deny Climate Change
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-07/google-won-t-fund-sites-youtube-videos-that-deny-climate-change
Mark Bergen (07 October 2021)

Alphabet Inc.'s Google will ban advertisements and stop funding media that contradict scientific consensus on climate change, another attempt from the internet giant to stamp out environmental conspiracies it has fueled for years.

The new prohibition applies to commercials Google places online, as well as the websites and YouTube videos that run Google ads. It includes any content that denies human contributions to global warming or treats “climate change as a hoax or a scam,” Google said in a blog post Thursday.

Google, the largest digital-ad seller, has been criticized for letting companies looking to debunk or deny climate change buy search ads. On YouTube, which Google owns, inaccurate videos about the climate received more than 21 million views and frequently ran ads, according to 2020 research from the nonprofit organization Avaaz. That report prompted a congressional scolding of Google, which has otherwise touted its environmental record.

Earlier this week, Google released several eco-friendly features for search, Maps and other services. In recent years, YouTube has tried to stop recommending climate deniers to viewers. Facebook Inc. has taken similar steps on its platforms.

For the new ads rule, Google said it consulted with experts behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The company will begin enforcing the ban in November.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

Never, ever forget: The ScienceTM is settled - follow The ScienceTM!!!



The ScienceTM in 1969:

https://i.imgur.com/YLnnWwg.png


The ScienceTM in 1989:

https://i.imgur.com/bzSitzU.jpg


The ScienceTM in 2004:

https://i.imgur.com/iCiH2R0.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 2007:

https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1451022117294592003
1451022117294592003

Nobel Laureate Al Gore : Arctic Ice Free By 2014
Fourteen years ago, Nobel Laureate Al Gore solemnly told the world that the Artic will be ice-free by 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC31Z5ckros

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC31Z5ckros

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

We have cooling around here. I can prove it by just going outdoors. There should be more concern for the trees. There is something going wrong with them. Like all of a sudden they are all sick. Every single tree that has leaves is getting sick. The leaves are all turning brown and falling to the ground. If this keeps up we won't have any trees in 2022.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1971:

https://i.imgur.com/xMEJmdy.jpg

[Anti Globalist]

Still waiting for any climate predictions to actually come true. Have a feeling I'll be a skeleton by the time that happens.

[acptulsa]

Still waiting for any climate predictions to actually come true. Have a feeling I'll be a skeleton by the time that happens.

https://i.imgflip.com/3lto4b.jpg

[Sammy]

Climate change is still a chinese hoax.

[Anti Globalist]

Yet another prediction that will not come true in the slightest.

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/247264630_1828495074023186_2683561265623909196_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=15wLCAp7S-MAX8m5MMr&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=d675cc02d2053287f5b3ddcbd6ac6211&oe=61A0079F

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1995:

https://i.imgur.com/nZXJbzS.png

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM in 2021:

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1453798996066119684
1453798996066119684

[Occam's Banana]

h/t Not the Bee: https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1453819720277401600

The Science ReligionTM in 2021:



https://twitter.com/SovMichael/status/1453737053011595271
1453737053011595271
https://i.imgur.com/TYP2T2W.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

You can't have a scientific discussion with people that dispute the current consensus science.
Of course you can. In fact, you cannot do science any other way. The only people you can't have a scientific discussion with are the ones who demand that "the science is settled" - or who insist that "consensus" is any kind of evidence for "correctness".

The following is from "Aliens Cause Global Warming", a lecture presented at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, by Michael Crichton, M.D.

Bold emphasis has been added, and I have inserted relevant quotes from earlier in this thread.

[source: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

And this highlights the need for another important distinction to be made: the difference between science and policy.

Unlike policy, science is not normative. It does not tell us whether something should be done about anything (let alone what that something ought to be).

[...] "consensus" is properly a term of policy, not of science.
Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

For just one of myriad possible examples, if Max Planck had not disputed the "energy-as-continuum" consensus among physicists, then he would not have become the "Father of Quantum Physics". And notice how quantum physicists don't need to jabber about "scientific consensus" (or how quantum theory is "settled science") in order to defend their theory. Instead, all they have to do is point to the fact that they have the most successful predictive model in all of human history and then say, "Deny this, bitchez!"

If "climate change" alarmists had any models that consistently provided correct predictions, then they wouldn't need to jabber about "consensus" either. Hell, they don't even need a model that works as well as quantum mechanics does. They just need one that works at all.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.


They also aren't giving air time to flat earthers.

You're right. They aren't. But do you really understand why?

Notice that Round Earthers don't go around constantly jabbering about a Round Earth "consensus" or about how the Earth's roundness is "settled". They don't need to, because there are no serious people who take Flat Earthism seriously. (I am not convinced that the Flat Earthers themselves really even take it seriously.) Hence, there is no need for Chuck Todd (or any other establishment mouthpiece) to make announcements about not giving air time to Flat Earthers.

But there are plenty of serious people who take "climate change" skepticism seriously - and the only response the "climate change" alarmists can come up with is to shout them down with bullshit cries of "consensus!" and "the science is settled!" - and to declare in a huff that they're not going to give "air time" to "deniers" anymore.



In other words, science is never "settled" - and "consensus" is nothing more than the prevailing opinion at any given moment.

Even when it exists, scientific "consensus" does not have any dispositive value. It is not evidence of anything except that some number of people have some particular opinion.

[Occam's Banana]

NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

NBC host Chuck Todd kicked off a full hour of discussion about Climate change on Sunday by telling "Meet the Press" viewers that there would be no debate over the topic - as the "science is settled."

"We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period," said Todd. "We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not."

[...]

https://i.imgur.com/4iubb2V.jpg

[Intrepid]

Yet another prediction that will not come true in the slightest.

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/247264630_1828495074023186_2683561265623909196_n.j pg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=15wLCAp7S-MAX8m5MMr&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=d675cc02d2053287f5b3ddcbd6ac6211&oe=61A0079FDude, that's the Mediterranean Sea. That picture is an attempt at comedy, not science.

[acptulsa]

Dude, that's the Mediterranean Sea. That picture is an attempt at comedy, not science.

What?! You mean Dodge City isn't really in Sicily?!

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1988:



https://i.imgur.com/aVsyhUd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VIBPJdI.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1975:

https://i.imgur.com/J0xaUxz.png

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1981:

https://i.imgur.com/knGZWeu.png

[Anti Globalist]

Fun fact: When Al Gore was born there were 130,000 glaciers.

Today that number of glaciers is still 130,000.

[RJB]

In 5th grade and earlier grades, I heard about the coming ice age due to pollution stopping the sun rays from reaching the Earth. In 6th, 7th and 8th they introduce the greenhouse effect that was supposed to warm the Earth due to pollution. They were taught simultaneously as competing hypothesises. I remember the students laughed saying that the green house effect and global cooling would cancel each other.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1856:

https://twitter.com/NBCLX/status/1458487927449792519
1458487927449792519

[acptulsa]

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/climate-change-cult.jpg

[Anti Globalist]

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/247913553_196374576011600_8337651438638386753_n.jp g?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=Sn4tme-nbmMAX9Rk2AT&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=70d51393e012f5b5cb331863ce0c9dbd&oe=61956B4E

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1972:

https://i.imgur.com/LoifI58.png

[Anti Globalist]

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/258704529_1278549979295095_4854157246855085987_n.j pg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oKdd17o4Rk0AX-pHA_h&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=383b8d8c23c46108f0169779c342987f&oe=619DA166

[enhanced_deficit]

Hopefully this won't spur growth of 'Chuck Todd deniers'.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/258704529_1278549979295095_4854157246855085987_n.j pg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=oKdd17o4Rk0AX-pHA_h&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=383b8d8c23c46108f0169779c342987f&oe=619DA166

Unfortunately, “acid rain” was a real problem. It was a result of pollution, that for the most part has been dramatically reduced in the US. Real problem, with real solutions.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1981:

https://i.imgur.com/EP1AlJy.png

[Anti Globalist]

Climate change is a never ending grift to extract money.

[A Son of Liberty]

The ScienceTM in 1981:

https://i.imgur.com/EP1AlJy.png

I went from "Climate Change Skeptic" to "I don't care" the moment I listened to Michael Shellenberger talk about it.

Anyone who is an advocate of "climate change", or even unsure, should give him a sounding.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).



The ScienceTM in 2010:

https://i.imgur.com/bj0RinI.jpg
The ScienceTM in 2020:

https://i.imgur.com/pJymNyF.jpg

[DamianTV]

Lets just translate this:

"If you do not express an opinion that we approve of, we will not permit you to speak."

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 1989:

https://i.imgur.com/lLpLshi.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

Anthropogenic Porcinogenic Global Warming

https://www.wired.com/story/hungry-wild-pigs-are-worsening-climate-change/


https://i.ibb.co/g7kdZHc/1.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/rwwM8rG/2.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM (present day):

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1471888928663867399
https://i.imgur.com/mXvIeTz.png

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM in 2020:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html
https://i.imgur.com/K3ck4HS.jpg

FTA (bold emphasis added):

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.

The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.

In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said.

[...]


If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM in 2022:

https://twitter.com/business/status/1488681845289984002
https://i.imgur.com/apGdw2Z.png

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM in 1969:

https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/20/archives/expert-says-arctic-ocean-will-soon-be-an-open-sea-catastrophic.html
https://i.imgur.com/cHXlvOy.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't say [that] because they don't have [a consistently correct predictive model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it ...).

The ScienceTM in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616
https://i.imgur.com/shTb0X1.jpg

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Thank God the new administration will be changing the MPG regulations on all new cars. We need a Green Planet with a New Green Deal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ihOoUNAZv8

[acptulsa]

Here's some climate change deniers Chuck Todd will always give all the airtime they want:

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/barack-obama-nancy-pelosi-bill-gates-beachfront-property-768x960.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

(h/t NY Post (https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/))
(h/t Not the Bee (https://notthebee.com/article/the-un-is-warning-that-we-have-just-a-scant-few-years-to-avert-utter-climate-catastrophe-theyve-been-saying-this-literally-for-decades-and-we-have-the-receipts))


If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] consistently correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The ScienceTM in 1972:
https://i.imgur.com/prjsCpK.jpg

The ScienceTM in 1982:
https://i.imgur.com/wwri95G.jpg

The ScienceTM in 1989:
https://i.imgur.com/LjJcD8k.jpg

The ScienceTM in 1990:
https://i.imgur.com/2nYXrxO.jpg

The ScienceTM in 2004:
https://i.imgur.com/ogOeYy1.jpg

The ScienceTM in 2007:
https://i.imgur.com/s5z6lNz.jpg

The ScienceTM in 2019:
https://i.imgur.com/tSD8pNa.jpg


The ScienceTM in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616
https://i.imgur.com/shTb0X1.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

The ScienceTM in 1989:

https://i.imgur.com/lLpLshi.jpg

Hey, they were half right. Since 2021 we have been flooded with refugees.

[Anti Globalist]

The ScienceTM in 2022:

https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616
https://i.imgur.com/shTb0X1.jpg
Oh look, another climate prediction that is going to age like milk.

[Pauls' Revere]

Millions and millions of people watch NBC.

It is the largest TV network in the nation, with access to 97% of all homes in the US. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_terrestrial_television_netwo rks)

We don't watch NBC.

But "we" are a tiny, insignificant, minority.

Easily stigmatized as loony conspiracy theorist fringe and quixotic. ;) My peeps!

[Pauls' Revere]

Oh look, another climate prediction that is going to age like milk.

And just as Dementia in Chief's term expires. Coincidence?

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The ScienceTM in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
https://i.imgur.com/1Ou2q7g.png

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The ScienceTM in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice
https://i.imgur.com/1Ou2q7g.png
I was hoping to see the same picture in 2022.

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/C9ANIdp.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM:

https://i.imgur.com/THGQPRQ.jpeg

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The ScienceTM in 2017:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/great-barrier-reef-damaged-beyond-repair-can-no-longer-saved/
https://i.imgur.com/lLwRbqL.png

https://i.imgur.com/6HTVUFi.png

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-bursts-back-life-climate-change-still-poses/
https://i.imgur.com/UDTreV6.png

Even after their spectacularly failed predictions have exposed them as being completely full of shit, these assholes (and their acolytes) still demand that they be taken seriously as "experts".

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The ScienceTM in 1978:


https://i.imgur.com/pSoB7MM.png

[pcosmar]

It's all too "Hole in the Ozone" for me..

I don't care for pseudoscience. and they gave real science to the Madmen.

[acptulsa]

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/year-and-decade-of-highest-US-temperature-records-by-state.jpeg

[acptulsa]

Department of Very Bad Omens

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/C6625EEA-75AF-4D9D-B056-F1287DD498E5.jpeg?w=615&ssl=1
..

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/krrtYyv.jpg

[PAF]

https://i.imgur.com/krrtYyv.jpg


I don't give a crap about his Rights climate catastrophe, they better not f&ck with my Welfare ketchup!

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/rVdfNG0.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fguz4tyUAAYO20X.jpeg?resize=768%2C843&ssl=1

[Working Poor]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fguz4tyUAAYO20X.jpeg?resize=768%2C843&ssl=1

It is a cocktail of aspartame, vaccines and. microwave . Aspartame and it's derivatives is in almost if not all processed food this is a very chilling fact.

Aspartame is a neurotoxin and it is in all the food modern vaccine harms the immune system and microwaves are attacking the aspartame weakened neurological system The only "sweeteners"" that is that is safe is pure non gmo cane sugar organic is okay but, not with out being non gmo.. Microwave is also everywhere and a real high percentage of people are vaccinated so who knows what will happen? I want God's will to be done.

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/3DB6731D-DF2E-41E3-9BF6-DA2AC8A05785.png?resize=768%2C674&ssl=1

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/7074E30B-6B9F-4EF7-B415-BDAD65F61F46.jpeg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1

[acptulsa]

They give airtime to this guy...

1589595351077785601

[acptulsa]

1591116908111499264

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/GrpEmJs.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/911296F0-D51B-4D78-991B-5A822A09BE85.jpeg?resize=768%2C760&ssl=1

[Anti Globalist]

Still waiting for our politicians to talk about all the population that China causes since they're responsible for the majority of it.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/Surfinbones/status/1602441471638003718
https://i.imgur.com/AjAw3Po.png

[AngryCanadian]

1591116908111499264

Politicians and elitists should start flying normally like normal people do.

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/D3180CA5-9148-4B97-B8AB-04EDC699C096.jpeg?resize=768%2C590&ssl=1

[RJB]

https://twitter.com/Surfinbones/status/1602441471638003718
https://i.imgur.com/AjAw3Po.png
It's a doomsday cult. Commies replace religious beliefs with a secular religion. This country replaced the Bible with the communist manifesto. Replaced Jesus for Greta. Replaced morality for woke ideology. And replaced the Book of Revelation with An Inconvenient Truth. Extiction Rebellion people are the new prosilityzers for the end is near.

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1613724250011242497

1613724250011242497

[Snowball]

Global warming is real. But they are misrepresenting its true causes and their solutions are meant to implement tyranny.

Habitat loss, biodiversity collapse and deforestation are why. "Infrastructure" propagation and urban/suburban sprawl is why.

Moreover, they cook the upper atmosphere. This is because they want the Northern Hemisphere to be warmer.
They are intentionally doing the warming and providing the fraudulent solution at the same time.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?561341-They-are-making-winter-warmer-with-frequencies&goto=newpost

[acptulsa]

Global warming is real...

Moreover, they cook the upper atmosphere. This is because they want the Northern Hemisphere to be warmer.
They are intentionally doing the warming and providing the fraudulent solution at the same time.

So, what you're saying is, yes they're evil and yes they're conspiring. But instead of just cooking the numbers, they're endangering themselves too by spending their hard-stolen money creating a real crisis that's unnecessary to achieve their aims (and which the data says doesn't exist). So, they've already got us hostage and we have to do what they say, no matter how evil it is and how much we get to sacrifice.

Right?

http://grasshopperpoliticalblog.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/1/0/31100241/useful-idiot_orig.jpg

[Snowball]

So, what you're saying is, yes they're evil and yes they're conspiring. But instead of just cooking the numbers, they're endangering themselves too by spending their hard-stolen money creating a real crisis that's unnecessary to achieve their aims (and which the data says doesn't exist). So, they've already got us hostage and we have to do what they say, no matter how evil it is and how much we get to sacrifice.

Right?

http://grasshopperpoliticalblog.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/1/0/31100241/useful-idiot_orig.jpg

look into it if you want.
Otherwise why should I bother.

[acptulsa]

look into it if you want.
Otherwise why should I bother.

I looked. I don't know why I bothered, except to hold you up to everyone as an object lesson in why they should be careful not to be useful idiots.

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions



If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/Surfinbones/status/1602441471638003718
https://i.imgur.com/AjAw3Po.png

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/69F8B664-37D4-47A9-8C63-2EFD11E7D807.webp?w=640&ssl=1

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1621686480912384001
https://i.imgur.com/KoddDyZ.png

[A Son of Liberty]

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1621686480912384001
https://i.imgur.com/KoddDyZ.png

I saw that tweet and it confirmed my layman experience and expectations.

We live on a planet where paleontologists have told us that Eurasians crossed a Bering Sea land bridge from modern day Russia to Alaska and populated North America some many thousand years ago.

We live on a planet where historical records tell us that there were thriving and lush vineyards in England and Northern Europe produced wine as fine as modern French and Italian vineyards do today.

In the 18th century, the northern hemisphere experienced a mini ice age.

The sun cycles and brings highs and lows of heat periodically over hundreds of years.

All of this is well documented and well understood.

Do humans have the capacity to influence the climate? I'm quite sure. Do we have the capacity to catastrophically impact it, in the face of these other factors? No. That's utter nonsense.

Again, I'll refer doubters to Michael Shellenberger. Go listen to him. Read his book, Apocalypse Never (https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2S9S388LKYY09&keywords=apocalypse+never&qid=1675602386&sprefix=apocalypse+never%2Caps%2C104&sr=8-1).

All of this is just another hype.

[DamianTV]

I think he should join in on the Hollywood Strike where all the actors (read: LIARS) are threatening to go on strike and deprive us of our Woke Libtard Mental Diarrhea stream they call movies if we do not all take our Vaxtermination Shots.

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

The ScienceTM in 2018:

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1634644472553168896
https://i.imgur.com/QDO2S76.png

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The ScienceTM in 2018:

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1634644472553168896
https://i.imgur.com/QDO2S76.png

and, they call those that question elections and the weaponization of the US government Conspiracy Theorists.

[Occam's Banana]

https://youtu.be/-Hw3yf1O9Zk
//

[Occam's Banana]

The ScienceTM in 2023:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1637801949432012801
https://i.imgur.com/CwvEMwc.png


https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1637817029540413442
https://i.imgur.com/P10f2jf.png

[A Son of Liberty]

The ScienceTM in 2023:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1637801949432012801
https://i.imgur.com/CwvEMwc.png


I simply responded thusly: "Again?"

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/lpNyOi0FueBv.jpeg?resize=686%2C1024&ssl=1

[DamianTV]

Semi off topic...

I watched a movie on Hulu last night called 2067. Absolute trash and pure propaganda. The plants suffocated because "they couldnt breathe the artifical oxygen", and I spent the rest of the movie wondering to myself how the fuck this dipshit that wrote this movie even had his script read after the first line? Like dude, #1 plants dont breathe in oxygen, they breathe in CO2 you dumb fuck! Then #2 WTF is ARTIFICIAL OXYGEN? Then I just kept going. #3 is like "basic science? stick two DC electrodes in water and release hydrogen and oxygen?". Not exactly "artificial". This is exactly WHY children have become so stupid.

Yes, this ties back to "NBC's Chuck Todd: We're not going to give TV time to Climate Deniers". The real solution here is to stop giving NBC, Chuck Todd, or HULU (also owned by NBC) one more second of our attention, so go ahead and censor us all you want, no one pays any attention to you. Youve made yourselves irrelevant.

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/AlbertaBound9/status/1656529782530805760

1656529782530805760

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/14bwK8g.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1659615371446345728
1659615371446345728



https://i.imgur.com/6Ou5ES7.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/empirenet17/status/1662822135742582785

1662822135742582785

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/Magus_Janus/status/1663125408894844928

1663125408894844928

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/Foxylady146/status/1663527450284785669

1663527450284785669

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/IMG_1643.jpeg?w=648&ssl=1

[A Son of Liberty]

https://twitter.com/Magus_Janus/status/1663125408894844928

1663125408894844928

"JUST STOP OIL"


Okay. Here ya go...

You just stopped: plastics including all of those that are used in our heathcare system such as that tubing that delivers saline, and blood, and medications to your body when you're in a medical facility, synthetic fibers like polyester, fiberglass - your cars just gained a couple hundred or even thousand pounds... I'm sure your unicorn farts and rainbows will keep those 5000 lb vehicles running down your roads that are no longer made of asphalt, which by the way the best case you can hope for is that they're made of concrete, which is exponentially more expensive than asphalt, I can assure you, and is much more of a pain in the @ss to fix when it breaks. Say goodbye to the paint on your walls, that comfortable office chair you sit in, regular, consistent energy distribution which means that you're going to have to spend a helluva lot less time on twitter and a helluva lot more time tending a garden that is way bigger than the window pots you currently tend that you think could sustain you, even though it wouldn't get you from this Tuesday to next Tuesday. Also, say hello to freezing your a$$ off next January. Say goodbye to that big, comfy comforter. Say goodbye to consistent refrigeration. Say goodbye to your car... but do for sure say hello to a hellscape of solar panels and wind farms that will for sure be a magnificent destructor of the entire countryside, because the amount of energy that you need if you "JUST STOP OIL" is going to absolutely destroy all of that lush, green forest that you think is just so beautiful and serene and really the way humans should be living anyway.

These F**KING people have NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. NONE.

[acptulsa]

... but do for sure say hello to a hellscape of solar panels and wind farms that will for sure be a magnificent destructor of the entire countryside, because the amount of energy that you need if you "JUST STOP OIL" is going to absolutely destroy all of that lush, green forest that you think is just so beautiful and serene and really the way humans should be living anyway.

It also just happens to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.


These F**KING people have NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. NONE.

He knows what he's talking about. He just figured those of us who don't far outnumber those of us who do.

[A Son of Liberty]

He knows what he's talking about. He just figured those of us who don't far outnumber those of us who do.

No, he doesn't. He's just a virtue-signalling celebrity reading from a culturally conducted script. He has NO IDEA how damaging what he's proposing would be for humanity.

Frankly he knows nothing about anything, and he should really just keep his stupid, uninformed mouth the f**k shut. These stupid f**king people would be absolutely appalled by the very world they're trying to create, and I'm getting damned well sick and tired of hearing their blinkered, foolish yaps flapping.

ETA: His stupid shirt and the stupid text printed on it were literally made from O&G byproducts, for goodness sake. He couldn't have taken his stupid, pointless, nonsense pic and posted it to social media without O&G byproducts, and no amount of GrEeN EnErGy could ever make that happen consistently. These people are mindless, belly-aching children, and it's well past time that the adults put them in their place and take back control of the running of this planet. WT ACTUAL F is going on in this world right now!?

[Occam's Banana]

Muh ScienceTM

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/media-blames-climate-change-for-canadian-wildfires-despite-arrest-of-multiple-arsonists/
https://i.imgur.com/i0SRP3H.png

[Occam's Banana]

NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

https://i.imgur.com/NOUwKSg.jpg

[acptulsa]

The ScienceTM in 1971:

https://i.imgur.com/xMEJmdy.jpg

https://twitter.com/MikeGeyen/status/1667875254637658112

1667875254637658112

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

Muh ScienceTM (one month ago):

https://www.newstalk.com/news/ireland-will-soon-have-a-mediterranean-style-climate-1466501
& https://www.newstalk.com/news/almost-the-only-exception-ireland-may-see-colder-weather-due-to-climate-change-1462510
https://i.imgur.com/IPZytAx.jpg

[oyarde]

I consider myself to be the greatest man made global warming denier of all time , where do I get my medal and grant money ( disclosure , grant monies may be intermingled with other funds and used for beer and bbq's )

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/IMG_2296.jpeg?w=750&ssl=1

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/Grampsknos/status/1670967090738614275

1670967090738614275

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

https://twitter.com/_ClimateCraze/status/1670575228093702151
https://i.imgur.com/mbF9ke8.png

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1671352422592139266
https://i.imgur.com/ePZOgfX.png

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/FzlkQn8akAEAiKw.jpeg?w=750&ssl=1

[Occam's Banana]

https://i.imgur.com/pV9g5L6.jpg

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1674718315468521472
https://i.imgur.com/DS02otw.png

[Voluntarist]

Giant kites could pull ships across the ocean and cut their carbon emissions ...

Ah, I see they're trying to bring back Clipper Ships. Is there some advantage to using those kites rather than sails and spinnakers attached to masts? Hey, why not just attach a kite to each individual container and fly them across the ocean ... or design the containers with hydrofoils and have them pulled by the kites?

[acptulsa]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMG_2715.jpeg?w=697&ssl=1

[PAF]

https://i0.wp.com/clownuniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IMG_2715.jpeg?w=697&ssl=1


Related and well worth the watch for those who haven't seen it yet:

Isn't it cool how RFK Jr calls out Bill Gates? No other candidate even brings up Gates' name.



https://youtu.be/bqSkbHKSnjI

[Occam's Banana]

Muh ScienceTM in 2023 1979 whenever :shrugging::

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1676649245158285318
https://i.imgur.com/JDeUOl0.jpg

[A Son of Liberty]

Muh ScienceTM in 2023 1979 whenever :shrugging::

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1676649245158285318
https://i.imgur.com/JDeUOl0.jpg

Community Notes for another win...

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1679732505027411968

1679732505027411968

[Occam's Banana]

Muh ScienceTM in 2023:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/12/birthstrikers-meet-the-women-who-refuse-to-have-children-until-climate-change-ends
https://i.imgur.com/Cg2PHXV.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/Trudeaus_Ego/status/1681360099745333283

1681360099745333283

[Occam's Banana]

Muh ScienceTM in 2023:

https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1681086126138748941
https://i.imgur.com/uUKeejB.png

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1681974220396412928

1681974220396412928

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1682544450566778880

1682544450566778880

[Occam's Banana]

If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).

Muh ScienceTM in 2018:

https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1682719214707023872
https://i.imgur.com/gEYsVN4.png

Muh JournalismTM Job Security:


NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

https://twitter.com/legitknuckle/status/1682722107845914624
https://i.imgur.com/sTvKTFG.png

[acptulsa]

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/female-climate-scientist.jpg

[Occam's Banana]

Muh ScienceTM in 2023:


Never-ending hysteria...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arjKzv2oojI

[acptulsa]

https://snuggleduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/weather-map-tv-news-red-scary-768x729.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1683975516578099200

1683975516578099200