DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Exxon Knew About Climate Change

This, right here.

But the problem is Pit, none of the environmentalist cultists (and yes I believe environmentalism is a gov't sponsored religion) believe there is a "middle ground".

And I'm sorry, but we don't live in the days of the Ohio River catching fire anymore so I don't see a need to act like we are.

you're right, we live in the days of massive oil spills in the ocean and tons of plastic in the waters that are killing off marine life.

sooo much better, right?

Do your part: quit using oil or products made from oil.

once again, your extreme post are comical.

nobody is saying end it all. we're saying we need to use more alternative energy sources.

you say you're for taking care of the environment, yet pretty much your position is anything but.

stop lying.

He's not lying. Just a few posts ago rockoptimist was saying how there are too many cars. Why don't all the climate change alarmists lead from the front and get rid of your cars and anything else that contributes to climate change?

no. he's lying.

there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.

but this is what i'm taking about. y'all use these extreme ass points to try and counter us simply saying we need to take care of the planet.

marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"

i mean seriously, what the hell? y'all talk all the time about people needing to take responsibility for their actions.

we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.

No, I wasn't lying, and your stating that I was is pathetic.

Here: instead of asking corporations to take more responsibility (here in the u.s. they all act under the epa that can come in and shut them down in a heart beat), why don't YOU take responsibility and quit buying things with plastic?

Why don't YOU turn your thermostat down to 64 in the winter? I do.

Why don't you keep your house at 78 in the summer? I do.

If half the country did those things, imagine how much better off we'd be.

Oh, I forgot. You'd better get China on board. And India, and Russia, and all the South American countries.

Dude, why don't you feel you need to suffer, yet others should?

Take a ride with me. I can show you wind farms and solar farms out the wazoo.....but the cost of energy is rising. Hell, my electric company charges me MORE per kilowatt hour in the winter because I'm not all electric. So, I use less electric, and they want to charge me MORE for the lower usage?


Why don't YOU suck it up, use less, pay more for using less. Set the example Swish.

I have. Are you game, or do you just want others to do it for you?

What about the government being responsible? There have been 2 spills in Colorado this year that contaminated water that were the fault of the EPA. Yet, the environmentalists have been dead silent on that.

there you go lying again. you just made a claim of stuff that i don't do.

which i do. so you're lying out the side of your neck again.

but i expect nothing less at this point.

I've lived in a country where there was no AC in the buildings. So i didn't turn the AC on in a LONG time. We're used to it.

and this is what i'm talking about. you ignored EVERYTHING i said about just acting responsible, and instead yet AGAIN, went of some craptastic rant about "stop buying plastic".

why is it SO HARD for you and others to understand that all we want is corporations AND the people to be held accountable. stop letting all these plastics into the ocean.

why is that such a bad thing!!! THATS whats pathetic about you, Arch.

all we want is to leave less of a carbon footprint. use more alternative sources. why is that such a bad thing? that's whats pathetic about you Arch.

but once again, you have selective reading. you're gonna read what you want to read, and make some stupid rant in response.

I do suck it up. i pay more for clothes because my wife does research to do OUR best to not buy clothes made in sweat shops, for example.

we don't buy gas guzzlers.

once again, we DON'T run the AC. And i'm not saying others shouldn't run the AC, but my family doesn't. if we lived in Texas, that be a different story.

So stop making crap up, cause i'm losing more and more respect for you by the post. stop your blatant lying cause you don't know a damn thing about my lifestyle.

So yes, i do cut back. i'm wiling to put my money where my mouth is.

stop being a freaking baby. swear to god you're the softest dude i associate with.

and they shouldn't be bro. The government should absolutely be getting blasted for that.

There's no double standards my way. if you're wrong, you're wrong.

huh?

First of all, I'm not lying. Secondly........i just don't understand the "you made a claim of stuff that I don't do, which I do." ?


Well, if you lived in a country where there wasn't a/c, I wouldn't expect you to turn it on.



Get off it bud, I didn't ignore ANYTHING. Sorry you're having trouble following along.

What I DID say is you need to start saving energy.


Reading comprehension is crucial here. Nowhere have I said "use all you want and throw the garbage in the ocean". No where. I DID ask you to be accountable. I don't care, nor does the earth care, what you did when you lived in a country that didn't have a/c.

What I DID say is YOU are part of "the people", so quit using plastic. Period. Wow, you twist things, a lot.

Interesting. On facebook, you threatened to bash my skull in. Now, you're calling me pathetic? I'll keep that in mind.

Again with the "pathetic" thing?

Perhaps you don't understand. Perhaps I haven't made it clear. I don't have a problem with being "green", but when being green costs ME money, and not YOU (not you, but others), sure, I have a problem with it.

Uh oh, sounds like a pre-emptive "try to make someone look bad" statement.

I'm not lying. Sorry you're losing respect for me. That seems to be your problem, not mine.

Oh, hey, why don't you quit calling me a liar? Cause, like, I'm not lying. I guess that makes you a liar?

And you also don't know a damn thing about me and my lifestyle, thanks. Respect is earned, not given. If you don't respect me, that's on you, not me, and I'm fine with it either way.

I'm a "baby"? Not sure where you get that from. And "....the softest dude I associate with"???????? What's that even mean?

j/c

Whenever I think about this global pollution topic, I always default to History. It gives me a sense of perspective that I wouldn't have if I simply reacted to the 'story of the day.'

History has always proven that change is inevitable. As man finds newer, better ways to do things, the old ways get replaced. Every single time. We no longer light our houses with coal oil lamps. We no longer get from point A to point B in horse-drawn carts (unless we're Amish). And we are rapidly approaching the point when we no longer need internal combustion engines to power our personal'professional transportation.

Electric cars are now powerful enough to be used on interstate roads, with performance on par with their gas-powered cousins. The cost of producing and buying them is rapidly becoming less prohibitive. They've moved past the "Ed Begly Jr. oddity" status- and are now becoming mainstream.

In other words, the threshold has already been crossed.
This thing is going to happen. New technology is constantly being applied to this movement, despite Exxon's and BP's best efforts to hamper and forestall its momentum.
Because change is inevitable.

Here's my point: there will still be a need for petrochemical products for some time to come. Too much of our current tech is based upon it. Too much of our global economy is dependent upon it. As things change, the refinery products will, too. Less volume will be dedicated to the production of diesel, gasoline and kerosene. More will be dedicated to polymers and other petrochem offspring until man finds a better alternatiive for those products, as well.

I foresee a time not to long from now, when 'Big Oil' becomes 'Less Big Oil' simply because their role on the world stage will change with the times. They will no longer be able to control the pace of progress to suit their short-term goals. We'll see fewer and fewer gas stations, and more and more charging stations. And only some of that change will be fueled by today's environmental activism. The impetus of the change may have started there, but the momentum will always be fueled by commerce. As it becomes more feasible to gain profit from the new tech, more will enter the field. Competition drives down price, and the new tech becomes mainstream in a big,
fast hurry.

Don't believe me? Try to find a working public phone booth these days.

The first working handheld telephone was unveiled in 1973.

In just 2 generations, we went from 'a phone booth on every other corner' to a society that now carries a supercomputer with worldwide connectivity in their pockets and purses. Syrian refugees with almost nothing on their backs are using these devices to navigate their migration all the way to Europe!

Think about that for a minute.
Let it really sink in.


We've been burrowing under the earth for thousands of years to power our inexorable march to the future. Oil. Coal. Rare Earths. Diamonds. Radioactive materials. That's never going to change.

What will change is the nature and amount of these resources we harvest.

One thing is certain: Whatever we harvest, process and refine...
...for whatever purpose/product....
...our processing of said product will always impact the environment in which we live.

This cannot be disputed. Cause & effect are immutable physical laws.


So... that takes us to my final point.

Exxon (and their like) will eventually occupy a smaller global footprint, simply because they've based their entire raison d'être upon the extraction of a resource that is not feasibly self-sustaining.

This is a win/win for The People, because:

1. As more countries see fewer carbon emissions from their BILLIONS of daily car polluters, fewer hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere

2. 'big Oil' is still around to provide the products we need, until Big Hemp takes over.

3. Other techs/markets will open up, providing investment opportunity, mining/manufacturing, and jobs.... on a worldwide scale.

__________________

Without the petrochemical infrastructure, the solar economy could never happen.

Without the solar/battery initiative, Tesla Motors would not have the traction necessary to have one of their cars sitting next to me at a stop light on the intersection of Monroe & Bancroft in Toledo, Ohio.

This is how Human Progress works. A little at a time. Sometimes, against resistance- fueled by those who think they have something to lose.

___________________


"Modern societies are too often run by those with too much 'focus'- and not enough 'vision.' "
-Clemdawg, 2015

This is the type of alarmism I'm talking about Swish.

How many Dawgs took their family to the beach, the lake, the river, local pond, etc... and found out "Oops! There's oil in the water. Can't go kids ?"

How many oil spills have we had since the Gulf spill? How long before that one? Were there any between that and the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska waaay back?? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what your saying, but from my end you're making it sound like there's a constant layer of oil along our coasts.

I don't believe you.

Where are the facts and data that show your truth IS the truth?

3% to 3.1% is a higher percentage of supporters, but since the claim is that all GW science is paid for by the government, which oddly enough doesn't account for all the data recorded by scientists in other countries, then who's paying for the 3%?

Science denial is a pundit driven "cult of contrary". The only consistent arguments come from radio and tv "personalities" who work(?) to gain sponsors. They pander to the paranoids who hate to agree with anyone who doesn't believe the world is out to get them.

Now there's an energy company that states their belief in the inevitability of climate change/global warming/man made screw up of the atmosphere and ultra-radical, extremist conservatives are still believing humans have caused no damage to the planet.

Weirdly enough they rage against big government, but kiss the butts of big businesses.

What's up with that?

Here's a good one for you to ignore. The 97% nonsense. Make sure you read page 2.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.





Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

[url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong][/url] How climate change deniers got it right — but very wrong

It turns out the climate change deniers were right: There isn’t 97% agreement among climate scientists. The real figure? It’s not lower, but actually higher.

The scientific “consensus” on climate change has gotten stronger, surging past the famous — and controversial — figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.

James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

RELATED: Pope Francis may drop political bombshell on climate change

“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

Powell, a member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, decided to share an exclusive draft of his research on Tuesday — just days before Pope Francis is set to deliver a major address on climate change — because he doesn’t want his holiness to reference outdated numbers.

“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%,” Powell said by phone, arguing that accuracy now is more important than ever. “It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”

Pope Francis is preparing to charge into the political debate over climate change, citing “a very consistent scientific consensus” and the risk of “unprecedented destruction,” according to a leaked draft of Thursday’s papal encyclical.

The notion of 97% agreement among climate scientists started with studies in 2009 and 2010. It wasn’t until a 2013 study, however, that the figure went viral. President Barack Obama tweeted it. The comedian John Oliver set up a slapstick debate between a climate change denier and 97 of his peers.

But Powell argues that acceptance of man-made global warming has grown. The author of a new Columbia University Press book on scientific revolutions used an online database to compile a mountain of global warming papers published in the last two years.

He also tried a different approach than the earlier studies. Rather than search for explicit acceptance of anthropomorphic global warming, Powell searched for explicit rejection. All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.

RELATED: Santorum to Pope Francis: ‘Leave science to the scientists’

The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists — close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.

That’s a rate of one dissenting voice for every 17,000 agreeing scientists, and it’s not a strong voice. Powell called the four dissents “known deniers and crackpots,” and noted that their work had been cited only once by the wider academic community.


“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%. It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”
JAMES L. POWELL, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL SCIENCES CONSORTIUM
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, hasn’t read the Powell paper but she doesn’t doubt the general direction of the findings.
Back in 2004, she became the first researcher to claim a “consensus” on climate change, finding a roughly 75% agreement within the literature.

“Scientists have done so much more work since then,” she said. For me, as a historian of science, it really feels like overkill. One starts to think, how many more times do we need to say this before we really get it and start to act on it?”

One reason for inaction of course is politics. Many of the world’s leaders still doubt the science of climate change, assuming incorrectly that it’s unsettled or exploratory. The view is especially prevalent among the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.

Earlier this month, for example, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told Fox News that the pope would be “better off leaving science to the scientists.” Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, meanwhile, claim that the science remains vague or is made up entirely.

RELATED: Santorum to Pope Francis: ‘Leave science to the scientists’

That raises a second reason for inaction, according to Oreskes: intentional deception. Oreskes is the co-author of the “Merchants of Doubt,” a book that demonstrated how interest groups had undermined the science on tobacco, ozone depletion, acid rain and now climate change.

Many self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” no longer deny that the globe is warming, and some even acknowledge a human role in the new heat wave. Instead, they now say, warming is real — it just isn’t dangerous. They also attack the idea of a consensus, whatever the percentage.

“Nothing has really changed there,” said Oreskes. “The details shift but the overall picture remains the same. It’s a bit like Monet’s water lilies; it can look different at different at different times of day but it’s the same picture.”

Powell, however, hopes his work can finally close the debate, end the notion of doubt, move the frame ahead.

“There isn’t any evidence against global warming and there isn’t any alternative theory,” he said. “We’ve been looking for negative feedbacks and we’ve never found one that amounts to anything. It’s not impossible that we will, but I wouldn’t bet my grandchildren’s future on it.”

____________________________________________________________

This survey was 24,000 peer-reviewed papers yours is only 122 eligible papers.

Did you read the one on the weather stations I posted previously. The only read 'man made' part in all of this is the locations of weather instruments.

I also love the "I wouldn't bet my grandchildren's future on it", as you are no matter if you believe it or not.

Also, the study with the 122 papers is where the 97% number came from in the first place, because they made up the stat. Now, what made the papers in your story 'eligible'? I bet it's that they agreed with agw.

J/C ......

Unfortunately, it appears that science has become big business and politics, as much as exploration. Scientists who take a view contrary to the politically popular view are likely to see funding to dry up and go away, or to have to take funding from companies that want to prove the opposing view. (which has its own conflict of interests)

Take a look at FEMA ......

They are supposed to help people in need. However, look at how the federal government punishes states who elect Governors who deny climate change. What does climate change have to do with disaster preparedness? Now $1 billion is only a drop in the bucket for the federal government, but to states, some of these funds can be important. This is nothing but the federal government deciding what is right, and doing its best to silence opponents.


FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change.

This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth isn't warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.

"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics," said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state" because of his climate beliefs.

The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard-mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven't because FEMA's 2008 guidelines didn't require it.

"This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors," said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. "We aren't just talking about coastal states."

Climate change affects droughts, rainfall, and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. "This could affect state leaders across the country."

Among those who could face a difficult decision are New Jersey's Gov. Christie and fellow Republican Govs. Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Greg Abbott of Texas, and Pat McCrory of North Carolina - all of whom have denied man-made climate change or refused to take action. The states they lead face immediate threats from climate change.

The five governors' offices did not return requests for comment by press time.

Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying.

On March 8, the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting said Scott instituted an unwritten ban on the use of the phrases climate change or global warming" by Florida officials. Also this month, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) took a snowball to the Senate floor as evidence against warming, highlighting GOP leaders' climate views.

"The challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future," FEMA wrote in its new procedures.

FEMA's disaster-preparedness program has been granting money to states since the 1980s for projects as diverse as raising buildings out of floodplains and building safe rooms. States are required to update their plans every five years to be eligible for the agency's mitigation funding. Since 2010, FEMA has doled out more than $4.6 billion to states and territories as part of this program.

Republican-led regions constitute eight of the top 10 recipients of this category of FEMA money between 2010 and 2014. Louisiana was No. 1, having received almost $1.1 billion from FEMA for hazard mitigation. New Jersey was third with nearly $379 million, and Texas fourth with almost $343 million.

The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to "raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards," FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.

The new federal rules don't require public involvement in the creation of states' disaster-preparedness plans, eliminating the opportunity for environmental groups and concerned citizens to submit comments or concerns about the assessments.

Still takes alot of energy (IE: fossil fuels) to produce those cars and, currently the electricity to charge them is mostly from fossil fuels.

Doesn't mean we should not move forward, but they are not void of fossil fuels in their current state either.



The plastic is from the pathetic people who are too damn lazy to look for a trash can, not from government or corporations.



We have made many demands on corps for this stuff, which in turn caused an increase in their cost to produce goods, and eventually found a cheaper location to do business.

At some point we should work together to find a solution that will benefit everyone, without putting all the burden on one. You can't demand something of just one group and never compromise elsewhere.

Let us begin here...

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/extremi...rming-skeptics/

Just getting warmed up, so let us look at this...


Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’

by ElmerB on August 31, 2015 in Opinion, Science
By Christopher Booker, telegraph.co.uk
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/science/rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told

Now you can read this from Forbes...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/

That's the minimization of our forcasted climate outlook... 10% percent chance of denial.... 90% chance of greed.....with a certainty of 100% stupidity.

Now now, I can't bring you around to critical thinking about Climate Change in just one post.

Now, if you are still serious I want to introduce you to
Mark Steyn...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok

Look, I've stated several times that the earth warms and cools. It does it all on its own, too. It has done this since man can determine.

I've been called out to an extent, for stating that fact.

Here's a quote from swish, from page 1:

Yet somehow the earth warming right now is man made? Please.

Most of the time I'm of the opinion that following the money leads to answers. In this case, there's just too much money to be made by stating "man made global warming".....there's too many scare tactics involved.

Is the earth warming? yeah, just look at the climate stations positioned by a/c's, or on blacktop.

I'm all for not polluting. I'm all for being responsible.

Exxon's own scientists looked at "will our drilling, production, and overall consumption of oil contribute to a global temperature rise?" Their scientists, way back in the 70s, determined it could end up happening. Multiple peer reviewed studies and sources now confirm the fact that Exxon's own predictions of their impact proved true.

How is any of this hard to understand?

Because it's supposition that the problem is man made. They also said a 2-3 degree C rise in temperatures, when it's only warmed .8 F. That is a natural rise, not a man made one. Their predictions were just as wrong as the rest of the global warming crowd, as we still have ice on the poles, the sea levels haven't risen, and we are entering a cooling stage right now. It's the sun, not man.

Backed up by a ton of documentation that proves the existence of man made chemicals in the atmosphere.

But AGW deniers don't provide a reasonable replacement for rising CO2 emissions. It's real easy to link CO2 rises to man made emissions even doing engineering style back of the envelope calculations. Once you get into real data collection the finger pointer just gets red hot. If mankind is not causing rising CO2 emissions, then what is? Unless you can provide an alternative then we must go with the most likely suspect.

Where is the smoking gun? Are there invisible aliens? Do blue whales produce all of the CO2 emissions in almost the exact same amount that cars would? Who is doing it then?



Can I get a source on this? I've never read anywhere that temps rose only 0.8 Degrees Fahrenheit, or even the 2-3 degree Celsius rise claim. Plus most scientists use Celsius or Kelvin and not F anyway...

And the ton of documents that have been falsified should by agw supporters should be upheld? What about all the documents that show CO2 does not coincide with temperature increases? Should we ignore that the planet was hotter just 1000 years ago, before we started industrializing?

Claiming AGW is about temperatures is like saying you win football games by getting more scrimmage yards than the opponent. For sure there is some correlation there. Yet it's not how you actually win in football, just as CO2, not temperature, is the measure of concern with AGW.



So Anti-AGW groups get a ton of funding as well, what's your point? The Anti-AGW groups are sketchier to me because they get funded through dark money: channels that are meant to obscure who is actually funding the research.



As fun as it is to use anecdotes to dismiss entire trends, it's a good thing we don't rely on your keen eye for anecdotes in general research initiatives.

And the circular reasoning continues!

The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions.

Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?

I think the farts of GM may be the culprit.

The sun. That great big, glowing, nuclear reactor in the sky. You do know the temperatures on Venus, and Mars rose the same percentage as ours during the same time frame, correct? Are we polluting that much of space too?


See above


Check the Forbes article I posted earlier. In fact, I think it's in a few of them. Glad you guys at least look at the links, when I go through all the trouble to find the articles. The internet searches are horribly skewed towards agw.

You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.

Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming.

Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement.