Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming

[Hank Readon]

Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
Only one major political party in the world denies climate change, and it's
in charge of the most important political body in the world


November 3, 2016
More News
The Point of No Return: Climate Change Nightmares Are Here
Will the Paris Climate Deal Save the World?
Why Young Americans Are Suing Obama Over Climate Change
All Stories
One day in 2009, Henry Waxman, the Democratic congressman representing Santa
Monica and Malibu, paid a visit to one of his Republican counterparts, a
ruddy-faced Texan named Joe Barton. After Democrats had won back the House of
Representatives the previous year, Waxman staged an intraparty coup and
seized the chairman's gavel of the Energy and Commerce committee, which
oversees most legislation on the environment. He vowed to address what he saw
as the gravest threat facing the planet: climate change. As an opening
gesture, Waxman approached Barton, the committee's top Republican, about
finding a way to work together on the new legislation.


For decades, climate-change deniers got away with dismissing the growing body
of science as speculation and guesswork, hysterical or politicized warnings
of a disastrous future. Now, their church is crumbling. Every month of this
year set a new record for the hottest monthly average global temperature in
history. Fifteen of the 16 hottest years ever recorded have occurred in the
21st century. The facts are at our doorstep in the form of drought-fueled
wildfires ravaging Southern California; rising sea levels in New York,
Norfolk, Virginia, and Miami Beach; melting glaciers in Alaska; bleached
coral reefs in the Virgin Islands. We've reached the point where the planet's
warming – and the extreme weather it causes – is outpacing the very models
scientists use to predict the future.


U.S. President Barack Obama, left, meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on
the sidelines of the COP21 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Le
Bourget, outside Paris, Monday, Nov. 30, 2015
President Obama meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of
the COP21 climate change conference near Paris last November. Evan Vucci/AP
The good news is this: Practically every nation on Earth grasps the severity
of the problem. In Paris last year, 195 countries, including the biggest
emitters on the planet – the United States, China and India – came together
and offered real, substantive plans to curb their emissions of greenhouse
gases. Long before Paris, the renewable-energy revolution was underway –
Germany can now power up to 87 percent of the country using renewable
sources, and in some areas of Australia wind power meets 100 percent of
demand for electricity. In September, Chinese president Xi Jinping and
President Barack Obama announced that their countries would ratify the Paris
Agreement. The Chinese leader's public comments at the event – "Our response
to climate change bears on the future of our people and the well-being of
mankind" – would've been unthinkable a decade ago.

In fact, about the only place left on Earth where lawmakers openly and avidly
deny the science of climate change is the U.S. Congress. More to the point,
says Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii and a leader on climate
policy, "There is only one major political party in the world that denies the
existence of climate change. And it happens to be in charge of the most
important political body in the world."

At this summer's Republican National Convention, the party faithful approved
their official platform for the next four years. It reads like a denier's
Christmas wish list, with nearly every point receiving the full-throated
support of the party nominee, Donald Trump: Build the Keystone XL pipeline,
cancel the Clean Power Plan, neuter the EPA and ban it from regulating carbon
dioxide, outlaw a carbon tax, stop all fracking regulations. The broader the
consensus outside Washington that climate change is real and man-made, the
more elaborate Republicans get in refuting its existence. To hear Sen. Ted
Cruz (R-Texas) tell it, climate change is a global conspiracy cooked up by
liberals who want to institute "massive government control of the economy,
the energy sector and every aspect of our lives."


House Republicans have subpoenaed the government's top climatologists.
They've invited discredited deniers to testify before Congress. They've even
fought the Pentagon – a normally untouchable institution in the halls of
Congress – over climate change. Twice this year, the House GOP majority voted
to block the Defense Department from studying the national-security
implications of climate change. In the words of one House Republican, Rep.
David McKinley of West Virginia, the military's efforts amount to partisan
gimmicks and distractions from fighting terrorism. "Why should Congress
divert funds from the mission of our military and national security," he
wrote to colleagues in 2014, "to support a political ideology?"

Republicans who've dared to buck party orthodoxy end up as cautionary tales.
Take Bob Inglis, a six-term congressman with an independent streak who
represented the South Carolina upcountry region. During his 2010 re-election
campaign, Inglis told a local radio host that climate change was real and
humans were responsible. His primary challenger, a local prosecutor named
Trey Gowdy, hammered Inglis as an out-of-touch kook more worried about carbon
taxes than the lives of his constituents. Inglis lost to Gowdy by a
staggering 42 percentage points. "The most enduring heresy that I
committed," Inglis later said, "was saying the climate change is real and
let's do something about it."

Inglis, who now runs a group that promotes conservative-friendly solutions to
climate change, is uniquely suited to diagnose what's gone wrong with his
party. Aside from the fears of being ousted from office by angry party hard-
liners, Inglis says, the GOP is stuck in a cycle of "rejectionism," the total
refusal to believe or concede any fact associated with the opposing side, no
matter how many experts attest to its veracity: "It's a rejection of the
science, rejection of all things Obama and rejection of the idea that we can
come together to solve really big challenges."


It wasn't always so. A Republican president – Richard Nixon – signed into law
the Clean Air Act, approved the Council on Environmental Quality and
established the two federal agencies most focused on climate change today:
the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. In Nixon's day, environmental protection enjoyed bipartisan
support. At the signing of the Clean Air Act in December 1970, which passed
Congress with near unanimity, Nixon hailed it as "a historic piece of
legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal that Theodore
Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about: a goal of clean air, clean
water and open spaces for the future generations of America."


The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 kick-started the conservative backlash
to the environmental movement. The new administration slashed funding for
regulators, laid off renewable-energy researchers and famously removed the
solar panels installed on the White House roof by Jimmy Carter. The
ultraconservative House Republican Study Committee issued a "special report"
titled "The Specter of Environmentalism," which cast activists as
"extremists" trying to block mining operations while snatching private land
away from its owners. Reagan's Interior secretary, James Watt, called the
environmental movement a "left-wing cult" and said his job was to "follow the
Scriptures, which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns."

Yet even Reagan saw the wisdom in signing the Montreal Protocol to protect
the ozone layer, one of the great success stories in the environmental
movement. It took a new generation of hard-line Republican politicians, led
by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to make the environment a partisan issue
while positioning the GOP as the party of the fossil-fuel industry. Oil, gas
and coal companies had typically divided their campaign donations evenly
between the two parties; now they began funneling tens of millions of dollars
to the GOP – two and three times more than Democrats received – and into
front groups and sham think tanks working to undermine climate science. Flush
with cash, the Republican leadership "started running the Congress from the
top down," Waxman recalls. "Committees had less and less say over policy,
decisions were made at the level of the speaker, and a lot of legislation was
being drafted behind closed doors with special interests."

Republicans cloaked their agenda in the language of "deregulation" and
"balancing the budget"; a New York Times editorial called it a "masterpiece
of legislative subterfuge." It was only natural, then, that in 2000, the GOP
picked as its standard-bearers George W. Bush, the scion of an oil-money
family, and Dick Cheney, a former CEO of an oil-services company.

The last real effort Republicans made to work with Democrats on climate
change brought together some of the biggest names in Congress: Republican
senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Democrat John Kerry and Independent
Joe Lieberman. McCain and Lieberman had introduced cap-and-trade legislation
on three different occasions, and McCain, during his 2008 presidential
campaign, had said, "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists
across the world that time is short and the dangers are great." But facing a
far-right primary challenger, McCain abandoned the effort early on, and the
so-called Kerry-Graham-Lieberman coalition collapsed in spectacular fashion
amid bickering with the Obama administration and outside conservative
pressure. Their bill was never put up for a vote.


In the years since, the GOP has only descended further into the madness of
anti-science denialism. And it's not enough to say Republicans have retreated
on the issue to protect themselves against well-funded primary challengers.
Today, denying climate change is a winning stance, the sure path to loads of
campaign cash, plus a way to wage ideological war on the Democratic Party.
With the GOP takeover of Congress, the most ardent deniers have been rewarded
with leadership positions on the committees that oversee our nation's climate
policies.

Look no further than Texas Republican Lamar Smith, the chair of the House
Science Committee, who has received nearly $700,000 from oil and gas
companies (more than any other industry) and launched a crusade to intimidate
scientists at NOAA and the Union of Concerned Scientists over climate
research. Since Smith took over in 2013, the Science Committee has issued
more subpoenas than in the preceding 54 years. Jim Inhofe, chair of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has gone even further, seeking
to block the Obama administration's efforts to limit methane emissions and
regulate the impact of fracking on water supplies. But what else could we
expect from a man whose biggest funders include Exxon and Koch Industries,
who brought a snowball to the Senate floor to disprove global warming and who
believes climate change is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated"?

Rep. David Jolly of Florida is one of the rare Republicans to speak out on
climate change. Talking to me from the speaker's balcony one recent morning,
he traced the current inaction to the deep sense of divide and party anger in
Congress. "I have colleagues who tell me the climate-change science is not
real," Jolly says. "They say it with conviction, and I think it's simply
because this issue generationally was introduced in a highly toxic political
climate where both sides of the aisle dug in their heels and hardened their
positions. And so because of that, I think that legacy has stayed within our
party."


As the evidence piles up that climate change is real and man-made, and an
existential threat to the planet's future, Americans of all ideologies are
coming around. A 2016 poll conducted by researchers at Yale and George Mason
University found that three in four registered voters believe the Earth is
warming, and more than half believe humans are causing it. The poll's biggest
shift occurred among conservative Republicans: The number of those saying the
climate is changing jumped by 19 percent from two years earlier. ExxonMobil
CEO Rex Tillerson accepts the prevailing research. Even Charles Koch has
begun to see the light. A top executive at Koch Industries caused a stir this
past spring when she said, "Charles has said the climate is changing. So the
climate is changing. I think he's also said, and we believe, that humans have
a part in that." In a subsequent interview with The Washington Post, Koch
himself didn't dispute the facts of climate change. "There is some science
behind it," he said. "There are greenhouse gases, and they do contribute to
warming."

Yet Koch is largely responsible for the one factor that helps explain why so
many Republicans cling to their denier talking points (from sunspots and
midcentury global cooling to "I'm not a scientist"). The GOP has come to rely
on (and fear) the spigot of campaign cash from the fossil-fuel industry. The
Koch brothers and their donor pals have pledged $889 million to push their
conservative agenda in 2016. "The Republican voters have moved, the
Republican icons have moved, but the Republicans elected won't move," says
Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist. "Isn't that interesting? You
have 889 million reasons to go against the facts, the voters and their
icons."

Oil and gas companies know that they've all but lost the war of public
opinion on the truth of climate change. So instead they have trained their
firepower on a single party in a single place in hopes of blocking progress.
"They came to the key strategic choke point: Congress," says Sen. Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-R.I.). A leading voice on the climate front, Whitehouse has
delivered nearly 150 speeches on the Senate floor, urging action and calling
out "the Web of Denial," the network of secretly funded groups that peddle
doubt on climate change. "They put a choke chain on the Republican Party that
they gave a couple of hard yanks to say, 'Line up with us.'"

It's a strategy born of desperation, but a clever one all the same. "They
punished the Bob Inglises," Whitehouse says. "They silenced the McCains. They
got [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell totally in their corner with the
floods of money they're pouring in to support his candidates. And once they
had accomplished that, they were able to take what is essentially dirty,
traditional, special-interest pleading and make it look like part of the
partisan wars."


According to congressional Democrats, plenty of Republicans in the House and
Senate know the truth about climate – most of them just won't come out and
say it. Whitehouse tells me he knows a dozen Senate Republicans who want to
help on climate change but say they can't, for political reasons. Sen. Brian
Schatz of Hawaii recalls one Republican senator telling him, "I'm not crazy
on this stuff, but we've got to wait till Obama's gone." The Republicans he
talks to "find their own position embarrassing," Schatz says, but that
embarrassment has yet to outweigh the fear of losing their primaries. "Part
of the evolution that has to occur is they have to be more scared of pro-
climate voters than these Super PACs that threaten them."

Even without Republican help, Democrats in Congress have managed to notch
major victories in the fight against climate change, such as the 2015 renewal
of key tax credits for the solar and wind industries. President Obama, acting
unilaterally, has begun to phase out the coal-fired plants around the country
with the Clean Power Plan. But in reality, the kind of sweeping, historic
legislation needed to address the threats facing our fast-changing planet –
picture a New Deal or a Great Society for the climate – can happen only when
Congress wills itself to act.

There are initial signs that heretics exist within the Church of Carbon. This
year's creation of the Climate Solutions Caucus, a group of 20 House members
equally divided among Democrats and Republicans, is evidence of an awakening
to the reality that waiting one day more to act on climate change is one day
too long. But Jolly, the Republican congressman, says he doesn't expect much
more movement in the current crop of GOP lawmakers. "It might take another 10
years for a new generation of Republicans to take a new approach to this," he
says. Inglis, for his part, is somewhat more optimistic. He says he believes
it's only a matter of time before the ravages of climate change – flooded
cities, resource conflicts, extreme heat in the summers and unbearable cold
in the winters – persuade his fellow Republicans to emerge from hiding. "It's
an unsustainable position," he says. "We're gonna change. The question is
whether we change fast enough."

[Wile E. Coyote]

Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
178.63.61.175:

> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming

Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?

Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed
‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the
alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is
not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at
least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the
supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the
efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the
“significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of
climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science
is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have
people believe.

Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each
of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and
sometimes more.







The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural
mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by
climate alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the
influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of
these papers, for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on
climate and weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation
patterns.

The second position questions the allegedly “unprecedented” nature of
modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice
retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers
suggested that these events fall within the range of natural variability,
while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising
sea levels.



advertisement

The third position casts doubt upon the efficacy and reliability of
computer climate models for projecting future climate states, suggesting
that such predictions are “little more than speculation” given the enormous
uncertainty and margins of error in a non-linear climate system with nearly
infinite variables. Twenty-eight of the articles in question examined
climate model unreliability, including factual errors and the influence of
biases, while an additional 12 found no net global warming during the
20th/21st century.

The fourth position questioned the effectiveness of current policies aimed
at curbing emissions and pushing renewable energy, finding them both
ineffective and even harmful to the environment. This position also offered
a more sanguine evaluation of the projected effects of elevated atmospheric
CO2 and a warmer climate, questioning doomsday scenarios and proposing net
benefits to the biosphere such as a greener planet and enhanced crop
yields.

In this category, 12 of the papers documented the failures of policies
targeting renewable energy and climate, 8 contended that wind power is
harming the environment and biosphere, 13 argued that elevated CO2 levels
make for a greener planet with higher crop yields, and 5 proposed that
warming is beneficial to both humans and wildlife.

All of these factors, Richard declares, substantially undermine the claims
of climate alarmists that scientific opinion on climate change is “settled
enough” and that “the time for debate has ended.”

The articles, in fact, are not written by uninformed “climate deniers,” but
by serious scientists who believe that the true nature of scientific
inquiry is not to bow to some proposed “dogma”—especially where significant
ideological, political and economic interests are at play—but to see where
the facts lead on their own.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/10/report-485-scientific-
papers-published-in-2017-undermine-supposed-consensus-on-climate-change/

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[Polar Vortex]

On 1/10/2018 7:47 PM, Hank Readon wrote:
> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#5a541b9b27ba

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion
that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously
released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of
controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the
Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent
scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to
conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2)
these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than
a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly
admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on
deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science
is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that
independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or
hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or
observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a
concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and
procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information]
Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to
delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a
scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research
grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another
newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S.
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the
original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying
information and data that the public would naturally assume would be
available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you
delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote
to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in
Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar
[Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site]
claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the
debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e]
what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan
Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate
assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith
Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not
helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist
Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts
to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a
scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research,
authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate
scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science
journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a
global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released
emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific
shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount
a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to
communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find
time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the
UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin
on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,”
Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a
number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors
and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days
as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear,
however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by
the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland
Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

[bigdog]

Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change. That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too. Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change, than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists think the climate is not supposed to change.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
> 178.63.61.175:
>
>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>
> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?

**Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.

>
> Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed
> ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

**485 junk science papers are just that: Junk science. Were any
peer-reviewed? Did Breitbart make this shit up (like all the other shit
they publish)?

Have you bothered to read the premier science written about AGW? Or do
you just read Breitbart headlines?

Try this and get back to us:

www.ipcc.ch


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Polar Vortex]

On 1/11/2018 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>> 178.63.61.175:
>>
>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>
>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>
> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree

YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive.
Last May, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists
agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days
later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of
the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.” “Ninety-seven percent of
the world’s scientists” say no such thing. There are multiple relevant
questions: (1) Has the earth generally warmed since 1800? (An
overwhelming majority of scientists assent to this.) (2) Has that
warming been caused primarily by human activity? And, if (1) and (2), is
anthropogenic global warming a problem so significant that we ought to
take action? In 2004, University of California-San Diego professor Naomi
Oreskes reported that, of 928 scientific abstracts from papers published
by refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, “75% . . . either
explicitly or implicitly accept[ed] the consensus view; 25% dealt with
methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic
climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the
consensus position.” Also remarkably, the papers chosen excluded several
written by prominent scientists skeptical of that consensus.
Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic
papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And
Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to
anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in
public policy. RELATED: On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by
University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her
adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman
and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global
warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent
among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term
climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about
160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent”
statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who
were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than
50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate
change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had
generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant
contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student
at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of
the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed
here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did
not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200
scientists. Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Surely
the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by
Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change
Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science
(subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an
analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers
taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed
literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a
position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook
examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at
all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change,
he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a
University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s
Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that
“only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of
the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what
Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s
initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted.
“Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate
remain,” Legates concluded. RELATED: Scientists Don’t Actually Know
What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’ Studies showing a wider range of
opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists,
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of
scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate
models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation,
sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they
were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express
concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to
mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

> that the
> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.

BULLSHIT LIE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

>>
>> Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed
>> ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change
>
> **485 junk science papers are just that: Junk science. Were any
> peer-reviewed? Did Breitbart make this shit up (like all the other shit
> they publish)?
>
> Have you bothered to read the premier science written about AGW? Or do
> you just read Breitbart headlines?
>
> Try this and get back to us:
>
> www.ipcc.ch
>
>

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#4fca08e34c7c


It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the
asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may
indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning
global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers
believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a
survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast,
a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the
primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming
will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists)
and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys
of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism
of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers,
merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The
scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change
is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are
the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming
majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is
skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the
“Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they
believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the
Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any
significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists,
comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as
both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to
be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They
are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC
modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take
action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of
respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists
“diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any
other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is
unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the
‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change
poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal
life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is
settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic
framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation
will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents,
fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate
change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate
public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover,
“They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being
settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36
percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a
serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist
bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to
describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming
crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against
climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate
projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the
survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate
denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the
beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often
publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We
now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that
they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the
bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and
suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite
of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming
alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such
alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to
hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not
only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but
these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 6:56 AM, Polar Vortex wrote:
> On 1/11/2018 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>
>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>
>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>
>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree
>
> YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!
>

**You dumb cunt. I will say again:

100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS on this planet agree that the planet is
warming and warming fast. 100%.

100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (not geologists, biologists, electronics
engineers, but CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) agree that there is a 95% probability
that humans are responsible for the observed warming.

Do try to keep up. Go study some science before you discuss these things
with adults.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:

>
> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.

**No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.

That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.

**What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
decades.

Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
think the climate is not supposed to change.
>

**If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.

Go study some science before you argue with the adults.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:31:52 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 6:56 AM, Polar Vortex wrote:
> > On 1/11/2018 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
> >>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
> >>> 178.63.61.175:
> >>>
> >>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
> >>>
> >>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
> >>
> >> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree
> >
> > YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!
> >
>
> **You dumb cunt. I will say again:
>
> 100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS on this planet agree that the planet is
> warming and warming fast. 100%.
>
> 100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (not geologists, biologists, electronics
> engineers, but CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) agree that there is a 95% probability
> that humans are responsible for the observed warming.
>

So what?

[de chucka]

On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:

Learn the difference between weather and climate before you discuss AGW

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >
> > Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
>
> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
>

For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.

>
> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
>
> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
> decades.
>

The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee

> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
> think the climate is not supposed to change.
> >
>
> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
>

Sounds like a non-denial denial.

> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
>

I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack. We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without questioning it. Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem to be doing.

[de chucka]

On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
>>
>> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
>> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
>> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
>> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
>> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
>> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
>> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
>> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
>>
> For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
>>
>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
>>
>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
>> decades.
>>
> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
>

WOW but that is weather not cimate

>
>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
>>>
>>
>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
>>
> Sounds like a non-denial denial.
>
>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
>>
> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack. We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without questioning it. Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem to be doing.

True but there is scepticism and just plain out and out denial. Just
because some people don't believe man landed on the moon or believe that
the Queen is a tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoid
from the Alpha Draconis star system ( 12 million Amercans believe
America is run by reptiles
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/316706/)
doesn't stand the test of fact.

Good science is always questioning and re-evaluating AGW hence the 485
papers found by Breitbart, sorry for you that the vast majority of those
didn't say AGW isn't occurring.

[de chucka]

snip

>> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I
>> throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal
>> attack. We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us
>> without questioning it. Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks
>> of good science. If a scientific position is sound, it should be able
>> to stand up to tough questioning. Good science is always questioning
>> and reevaluating. It is never good science to say the science is
>> settled, which is what you seem to be doing.
>
>
> True but there is scepticism and  just plain out and out denial. Just
> because some people don't believe man landed on the moon or believe that
> the Queen is a tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoid
> from the Alpha Draconis star system ( 12 million Amercans believe
> America is run by reptiles
> https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/316706/)
> doesn't stand the test of fact.
>
> Good science is always questioning and re-evaluating AGW hence the 485
> papers found by Breitbart, sorry for you that the vast majority of those
> didn't say AGW isn't occurring.

A few more things that Americans believe sorry about the formatting


Conspiracy Percent believing Number Americans believing
JFK was killed by conspiracy 51 percent 160,096,160
Bush intentionally misled on Iraq WMDs 44 percent 138,122,178
Global warming is a hoax 37 percent 116,148,195
Aliens exist 29 percent 91,035,072
New World Order 28 percent 87,895,931
Hussein was involved in 9/11 28 percent 87,895,931
A UFO crashed at Roswell 21 percent 65,921,948
Vaccines are linked to autism 20 percent 62,782,808
The government controls minds with TV 15 percent 47,087,106
Medical industry invents diseases 15 percent 47,087,106
CIA developed crack 14 percent 43,947,966
Bigfoot exists 14 percent 43,947,966
Obama is the Antichrist 13 percent 40,808,825
The government allowed 9/11 11 percent 34,530,544
Fluoride is dangerous 9 percent 28,252,264
The moon landing was faked 7 percent 21,973,983
Bin Laden is alive 6 percent 18,834,842
Airplane contrails are sinister chemicals 5 percent 15,695,702
McCartney died in 1966 5 percent 15,695,702
Lizard people control politics 4 percent 12,556,562

[benj]

"What", Bigdog, is you were right the first time when you called him a
lying sack of shit!

First of all 100% of climate scientists DO NOT agree that the planet is
"warming fast". (Note it is warming because the ice age is over. Perhaps
Trevor wants a mile of ice over his house like there once was over mine?

Next the warming TREND that occurred about a decade ago stopped, which
all these fraudsters tried to pretend would go on forever unless the
Trillion dollar tax was instituted. Only the liars didn't call it "stop"
they called it "hiatus" or "pause". Such wishful thinking for disaster
on their part!

But wait we aren't done with this lying sack of shit yet. What about
that so-called 95% probability? Well it turns out there is a failed
cartoonist and website designer in OZ who got a job as a paid global
warming propagandist and runs the so-called skepticalscience website. He
tries to give the impression he is some kind of scientist and he asked
various climate scientists as to their opinion of global warming. Then
wrote it up as if it were some kind of scientific study. His 95% result
seemed certain proof of global warming...But wait, as soon as this
report started to go viral the very scientists who were supposed to be
believers started raising hell saying that he totally misrepresented
what they gave as their opinion. So one has a fake scientist using fake
quotes to create a fake fraudulent report on climate science opinion
that really doesn't exist. Typical.

That pseudoscience is what you are asked to believe as they try to steal
a trillion dollars a year from your electric bill and gas tank.

[de chucka]

The science of GHGs has been known since the 1800s. It is that basic
that one of my daughters did it as a Year 9 science project yet you
claim pumping millions of tonnes of GHGs has no effect. You probably
think dumping raw sewerage or nuclear waste into the oceans is OK
because they are really really big

>
> Next the warming TREND that occurred about a decade ago stopped, which
> all these fraudsters tried to pretend would go on forever unless the
> Trillion dollar tax was instituted. Only the liars didn't call it "stop"
> they called it "hiatus" or "pause". Such wishful thinking for disaster
> on their part!

Why would it stop if we are coming out of an ice-age

>
> But wait we aren't done with this lying sack of shit yet. What about
> that so-called 95% probability? Well it turns out there is a failed
> cartoonist and website designer in OZ who got a job as a paid global
> warming propagandist and runs the so-called skepticalscience website.

Is this the bloke you mean?
John Cook is a research assistant professor at the Center for Climate
Change Communication at George Mason University, researching cognitive
science. In 2007, he founded Skeptical Science, a website which won the
2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prize for the Advancement of Climate
Change Knowledge and 2016 Friend of the Planet Award from the National
Center for Science Education. John co-authored the college textbooks
Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Weber State University
professor Daniel Bedford. He was also a coauthor of the textbook Climate
Change Science: A Modern Synthesis and the book Climate Change Denial:
Heads in the Sand. In 2013, he published a paper analysing the
scientific consensus on climate change that has been highlighted by
President Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron. In 2015, he
developed a Massive Open Online Course at the University of Queensland
on climate science denial, that has received over 25,000 enrollments.

John earned his PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of Western
Australia in 2016.
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/

He
> tries to give the impression he is some kind of scientist

He is

and he asked
> various climate scientists as to their opinion of global warming. Then
> wrote it up as if it were some kind of scientific study. His 95% result
> seemed certain proof of global warming...But wait, as soon as this
> report started to go viral the very scientists who were supposed to be
> believers started raising hell saying that he totally misrepresented
> what they gave as their opinion. So one has a fake scientist using fake
> quotes to create a fake fraudulent report on climate science opinion
> that really doesn't exist. Typical.

He is a scientist, oh well try researching before you spread more BS

>
> That pseudoscience is what you are asked to believe as they try to steal
> a trillion dollars a year from your electric bill and gas tank.

OOOh AAAAAAh it is a giant conspiracy

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:

> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
>>
>> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
>> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
>> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
>> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
>> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
>> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
>> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
>> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
>>
> For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.

**Listen VERY, VERY carefully:

At no time in at least the past million years (probably, much longer)
has the planet warmed as fast and as far as it has and is right now. The
observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
concern. No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
capacity to deal with it.

Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
shadow of doubt:

* As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
* As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
time.
* CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
* We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
past million years or so.
* We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
time in the past million years or so.
* CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
molecule.
* Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
runaway'. We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
will be under water.

It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
costs will be immense.

>>
>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
>>
>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
>> decades.
>>
> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.

**You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
cool days. Big deal.

>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
>
>
>
>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
>>>
>>
>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
>>
> Sounds like a non-denial denial.

**I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.

>
>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
>>
> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.

**I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.

We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
questioning it.

**Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned. Climate science
has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.

Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
to be doing.
>

**Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.




--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 11:13 AM, benj wrote:

> On 1/11/2018 3:39 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:31:52 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2018 6:56 AM, Polar Vortex wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2018 12:05 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>>>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>>>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree
>>>>
>>>> YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!
>>>>
>>>
>>> **You dumb cunt. I will say again:
>>>
>>> 100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS on this planet agree that the planet is
>>> warming and warming fast. 100%.
>>>
>>> 100% of all CLIMATE SCIENTISTS (not geologists, biologists, electronics
>>> engineers, but CLIMATE SCIENTISTS) agree that there is a 95% probability
>>> that humans are responsible for the observed warming.
>>>
>>
>> So what?
>>
> "What", Bigdog, is you were right the first time when you called him a
> lying sack of shit!
>
> First of all 100% of climate scientists DO NOT agree that the planet is
> "warming fast".

**Really? Cite ten CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who dispute the facts.

(Note it is warming because the ice age is over. Perhaps
> Trevor wants a mile of ice over his house like there once was over mine?

**Nor do I want 50 Metres of water over mine. Because, when the ice caps
melt, that's how much water there'll be over the roof of my home.

>
> Next the warming TREND that occurred about a decade ago stopped,

**Bullshit! 2017 was the third warmest year on record. 2015 was the
hottest, 2014 was next, followed by 2013, 2005, 2009, then 1998. So much
for your lies.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-years-on-record

which
> all these fraudsters tried to pretend would go on forever unless the
> Trillion dollar tax was instituted. Only the liars didn't call it "stop"
> they called it "hiatus" or "pause". Such wishful thinking for disaster
> on their part!

**Hang on a sec: I just showed that YOU are the liar here.

>
> But wait we aren't done with this lying sack of shit yet. What about
> that so-called 95% probability? Well it turns out there is a failed
> cartoonist and website designer in OZ who got a job as a paid global
> warming propagandist and runs the so-called skepticalscience website. He
> tries to give the impression he is some kind of scientist and he asked
> various climate scientists as to their opinion of global warming. Then
> wrote it up as if it were some kind of scientific study. His 95% result
> seemed certain proof of global warming...But wait, as soon as this
> report started to go viral the very scientists who were supposed to be
> believers started raising hell saying that he totally misrepresented
> what they gave as their opinion. So one has a fake scientist using fake
> quotes to create a fake fraudulent report on climate science opinion
> that really doesn't exist. Typical.

**Given that you lied in the very first sentence, why should anyone take
what you have to say seriously?

>
> That pseudoscience is what you are asked to believe as they try to steal
> a trillion dollars a year from your electric bill and gas tank.

**Like it or not, someone will have to pay. I presume you would like it
to be your children or grandchildren?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 6:41:37 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
> >>
> >> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
> >> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
> >> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
> >> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
> >> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
> >> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
> >> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
> >> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
> >>
> > For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
> >>
> >> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
> >>
> >> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
> >> decades.
> >>
> > The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
> >
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
> >
>
> WOW but that is weather not cimate
>

No shit. I was asked for an example of an abnormal cold snap and I provided one. It is the climate alarmists who are fond of pointing at every abnormal weather event and attributing it to climate change. Heat waves, cold snaps, blizzards, hurricanes. Doesn't matter. We can blame them all on climate change.

> >
> >> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
> >> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
> >> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
> >> think the climate is not supposed to change.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
> >> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
> >>
> > Sounds like a non-denial denial.
> >
> >> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
> >>
> > I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack. We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without questioning it. Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem to be doing.
>
>
> True but there is scepticism and just plain out and out denial. Just
> because some people don't believe man landed on the moon or believe that
> the Queen is a tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoid
> from the Alpha Draconis star system ( 12 million Amercans believe
> America is run by reptiles
> https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/316706/)
> doesn't stand the test of fact.
>
> Good science is always questioning and re-evaluating AGW hence the 485
> papers found by Breitbart, sorry for you that the vast majority of those
> didn't say AGW isn't occurring.

Who's denying it is occurring. I'm waiting for somebody to explain to me why it is a crisis. After all, climate change has been occurring for the past 4.5 billion years. The earth has seen extremes far greater than the most dire predictions from the alarmists and life goes on. Even in the brief period in which humans have inhabited the earth we have gone through numerous warming and cooling periods. In the past humans have learned to adapt to changing climate. Now it seems we aren't smart enough to do that any more. We think the way to go is to stop climate change. Good fucking luck.

[bigdog]

I know the difference, asshole. It's the climate alarmists who are constantly point at these weather events as evidence of climate change.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

It's all irrelevant anyway. NYC's lawsuit against the oil companies
will fix it.

[benj]

What facts? That CO2 is causing runaway global warming, only you
propagandists promote that lie. Just because you've line up scientists
(mostly administrators and officials of political groups) doesn't mean
everyone has sold out. Science is not done by democratic vote you know.

>  (Note it is warming because the ice age is over. Perhaps
>> Trevor wants a mile of ice over his house like there once was over mine?
>
> **Nor do I want 50 Metres of water over mine. Because, when the ice caps
> melt, that's how much water there'll be over the roof of my home.

At 2mm a year that will take a while to get 50 feet.

<snicker>

>>
>> Next the warming TREND that occurred about a decade ago stopped,
>
> **Bullshit! 2017 was the third warmest year on record. 2015 was the
> hottest, 2014 was next, followed by 2013, 2005, 2009, then 1998. So much
> for your lies.

Weather is not climate, dude. Quit spreading your pseudoscience. Weather
varies. Polar ice shows a slight long term warming trend as expected.
Massive changes have not been recorded. Do I have to dredge up the
actual data again (in spite of the fact it seems to be disappearing and
getting hidden deeper and deep in the net) I guess if only fake data
comes out then that makes it true.

> http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-years-on-record

Yawn. Propaganda site. Got science?

>  which
>> all these fraudsters tried to pretend would go on forever unless the
>> Trillion dollar tax was instituted. Only the liars didn't call it
>> "stop" they called it "hiatus" or "pause". Such wishful thinking for
>> disaster on their part!
>
> **Hang on a sec: I just showed that YOU are the liar here.

Did no such thing. Proof by assertion does not work in science, mate.

>>
>> But wait we aren't done with this lying sack of shit yet. What about
>> that so-called 95% probability? Well it turns out there is a failed
>> cartoonist and website designer in OZ who got a job as a paid global
>> warming propagandist and runs the so-called skepticalscience website.
>> He tries to give the impression he is some kind of scientist and he
>> asked various climate scientists as to their opinion of global
>> warming. Then wrote it up as if it were some kind of scientific study.
>> His 95% result seemed certain proof of global warming...But wait, as
>> soon as this report started to go viral the very scientists who were
>> supposed to be believers started raising hell saying that he totally
>> misrepresented what they gave as their opinion. So one has a fake
>> scientist using fake quotes to create a fake fraudulent report on
>> climate science opinion that really doesn't exist. Typical.
>
> **Given that you lied in the very first sentence, why should anyone take
> what you have to say seriously?

Given that everything you say is a lie and in addition financially
motivated by a proposed trillion dollar tax, why would any reasonable
person even LISTEN to you let alone believe your silly assertions?

>>
>> That pseudoscience is what you are asked to believe as they try to
>> steal a trillion dollars a year from your electric bill and gas tank.
>
> **Like it or not, someone will have to pay. I presume you would like it
> to be your children or grandchildren?

Pay for what? To give you the socialist utopia where you can live as you
think you deserve to live on other people's money? Is that what we need
to pay for? You should get a real job doing real work instead of selling
bullshit.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>> 178.63.61.175:
>>
>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>
>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>
>**Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.

Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show
that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists
agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely
likely due to human activities.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:44:35 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
> >>
> >> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
> >> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
> >> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
> >> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
> >> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
> >> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
> >> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
> >> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
> >>
> > For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
>
> **Listen VERY, VERY carefully:
>
> At no time in at least the past million years (probably, much longer)
> has the planet warmed as fast and as far as it has and is right now.

Wow. One million years. That ignores 4.499 billion years of climate change.

> The
> observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
> rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
> concern.

Not to me.

> No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
> rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
> humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
> capacity to deal with it.
>

Humans are just one of many factors which affect climate change. I do have the capacity to deal with climate change. I'll adjust my thermostat and open a cold beer. You should try that.

> Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
> happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
> shadow of doubt:
>

Oh, you know what will happen in the future, Nostradamus?

> * As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
> * As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
> time.
> * CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
> the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
> past million years or so.
> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
> time in the past million years or so.

A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator.

> * CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
> molecule.
> * Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
> released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
> Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
> breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
> it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
> continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
> massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
> oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
> This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
> humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
> runaway'.

Oh, yeah. That tipping point was the one Al Gore predicted was ten years away. He made that prediction 12 years ago. I guess it's too fucking late. We're doomed. Might as well open another beer.

> We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
> degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
> become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
> will be under water.
>

Right, Chicken Little. If this dire prediction is true, it will mean that large chunks of the planet which are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable again. Since the Americas broke away from Europe and Africa, Florida has gone through periods in which it was underwater. Nothing new here. As for NYC and California, no great loss.

> It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
> relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
> costs will be immense.
>

Hopefully they will be smart enough to figure out how to deal with a changing climate the way humans have always done before instead of deluding themselves into believing they can stop climate change.

> >>
> >> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
> >>
> >> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
> >> decades.
> >>
> > The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
>
> **You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
> occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
> area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
> entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
> the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
> cool days. Big deal.
>

You asked "what abnormal cold snaps?". I gave you one. How many would you like?

>
> >
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
> >
> >
> >
> >> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
> >> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
> >> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
> >> think the climate is not supposed to change.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
> >> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
> >>
> > Sounds like a non-denial denial.
>
> **I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
> than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
> scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.
>

Kiss my ass. If you libtards were as smart as you pretend to be you would be able to figure out that climate change is the normal order of things and that humans and other life forms have adapted in the past and have survived far more cataclysmic events and life has gone on. I would put more faith in the predictions of these climate scientists if they would be right about their predictions once in a while. Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for how much temperature change there would be. Science is very good at explaining what has happened but the track record for predicting the future has not been so good.

> >
> >> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
> >>
> > I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.
>
> **I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
> engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.
>

So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults rather than replied with substance.

>
> We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
> questioning it.
>
> **Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned.

That's what I'm doing.

> Climate science
> has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
> money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.
>

Attaboy. Keep hurling the insults. It's what people tend to do when they start losing an argument.

>
> Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
> scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
> questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
> never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
> to be doing.
> >
>
> **Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.
>

I can distinguish facts from factoids.

[de chucka]

Something you don't realise

Quit spreading your pseudoscience. Weather
> varies. Polar ice shows a slight long term warming trend as expected.
> Massive changes have not been recorded. Do I have to dredge up the
> actual data again (in spite of the fact it seems to be disappearing and
> getting hidden deeper and deep in the net) I guess if only fake data
> comes out then that makes it true.

yeah go on give us a laugh

[de chucka]

because it is being pushed at such a rate by our pollutants

[de chucka]

At least you've changed your mind and now agree with AGW
snip

[de chucka]

Making them as stupid as you

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>
>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>
>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>
>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
>
> Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.

**Read what I wrote. Carefully.

>
> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show
> that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists
> agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely
> likely due to human activities.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 12:27 PM, benj wrote:

**That the planet is warming faster than at any time in the past million
years or so. Find me ten climate scientists that dispute the facts.

That CO2 is causing runaway global warming, only you
> propagandists promote that lie.

**A "lie"? Prove it. You need to prove that every single climatologist
on the planet is wrong and you are right. Wanna guess who the sane
people will back? Hint: It ain't you.

Just because you've line up scientists
> (mostly administrators and officials of political groups) doesn't mean
> everyone has sold out. Science is not done by democratic vote you know.

**Never claimed otherwise.

>
>>   (Note it is warming because the ice age is over. Perhaps
>>> Trevor wants a mile of ice over his house like there once was over mine?
>>
>> **Nor do I want 50 Metres of water over mine. Because, when the ice
>> caps melt, that's how much water there'll be over the roof of my home.
>
> At 2mm a year that will take a while to get 50 feet.

**When the Greenland ice sheets melt, there will be around 7.5 Metres of
extra sea level to deal with. Whilst it will take a very long time, when
the Antarctic ice melts, that's another 75 Metres.

>
> <snicker>
>
>>>
>>> Next the warming TREND that occurred about a decade ago stopped,
>>
>> **Bullshit! 2017 was the third warmest year on record. 2015 was the
>> hottest, 2014 was next, followed by 2013, 2005, 2009, then 1998. So
>> much for your lies.
>
> Weather is not climate, dude.

**I am well aware of that. I showed you a warming TREND. A trend that
you claimed ceased a decade ago.

Quit spreading your pseudoscience. Weather
> varies.

**No argument from me.

Polar ice shows a slight long term warming trend as expected.
> Massive changes have not been recorded. Do I have to dredge up the
> actual data again (in spite of the fact it seems to be disappearing and
> getting hidden deeper and deep in the net) I guess if only fake data
> comes out then that makes it true.

**You can't produce the data, because it doesn't exist. The planet is in
a warming trend. Some places may become a little cooler and some a
little hotter. Overall, however, the amount of heat in the system is
rising. And that is of great concern to those who can think.

>
>> http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-years-on-record
>
>
> Yawn. Propaganda site. Got science?

**NASA OK?

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

Or do you want more:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/18/u-s-scientists-officially-declare-2016-the-hottest-year-on-record-that-makes-three-in-a-row/?utm_term=.b2e639db6f11

>
>>   which
>>> all these fraudsters tried to pretend would go on forever unless the
>>> Trillion dollar tax was instituted. Only the liars didn't call it
>>> "stop" they called it "hiatus" or "pause". Such wishful thinking for
>>> disaster on their part!
>>
>> **Hang on a sec: I just showed that YOU are the liar here.
>
> Did no such thing. Proof by assertion does not work in science, mate.

**You lied. I supplied the data to prove that you lied. Proof, by
supplying proof.

>
>>>
>>> But wait we aren't done with this lying sack of shit yet. What about
>>> that so-called 95% probability? Well it turns out there is a failed
>>> cartoonist and website designer in OZ who got a job as a paid global
>>> warming propagandist and runs the so-called skepticalscience website.
>>> He tries to give the impression he is some kind of scientist and he
>>> asked various climate scientists as to their opinion of global
>>> warming. Then wrote it up as if it were some kind of scientific
>>> study. His 95% result seemed certain proof of global warming...But
>>> wait, as soon as this report started to go viral the very scientists
>>> who were supposed to be believers started raising hell saying that he
>>> totally misrepresented what they gave as their opinion. So one has a
>>> fake scientist using fake quotes to create a fake fraudulent report
>>> on climate science opinion that really doesn't exist. Typical.
>>
>> **Given that you lied in the very first sentence, why should anyone
>> take what you have to say seriously?
>
> Given that everything you say is a lie

**Prove it.

and in addition financially
> motivated by a proposed trillion dollar tax,

**And just precisely how will I benefit from this alleged "tax" you
speak of? Be precise in your answer. Lies will not be tolerated.

why would any reasonable
> person even LISTEN to you let alone believe your silly assertions?

**Er, 'cause I back them up with facts.

>
>>>
>>> That pseudoscience is what you are asked to believe as they try to
>>> steal a trillion dollars a year from your electric bill and gas tank.
>>
>> **Like it or not, someone will have to pay. I presume you would like
>> it to be your children or grandchildren?
>
> Pay for what?

**Pay for climate change mitigation and/or adaptation.

To give you the socialist utopia where you can live as you
> think you deserve to live on other people's money?

**No idea what the fuck you're smoking, but please put it down.

Is that what we need
> to pay for? You should get a real job doing real work instead of selling
> bullshit.

**Just what do you imagine I am selling?



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[de chucka]

On 12/01/2018 2:14 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> On 12/01/2018 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>>
>>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>>
>>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>>
>>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>>> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>>> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
>>
>> Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.
>
> **Read what I wrote. Carefully.

I for one don't believe there is 100% agreement eg Nir Joseph Shaviv
William "Bill" Mason Gray

[Wile E. Coyote]

On 11 Jan 2018, you wrote in talk.politics.guns:

>
> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.

You are beyond stupid and irredeemable

--
It's time for the students to step up their game and kill people like
Coulter.

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> April 25, 2017

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 12:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:44:35 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
>>>>
>>>> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
>>>> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
>>>> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
>>>> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
>>>> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
>>>> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
>>>> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
>>>> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
>>>>
>>> For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
>>
>> **Listen VERY, VERY carefully:
>>
>> At no time in at least the past million years (probably, much longer)
>> has the planet warmed as fast and as far as it has and is right now.
>
> Wow. One million years. That ignores 4.499 billion years of climate change.

**Then feel free to fill in the remaining data. A million years is the
best that our present science can manage.

>
>> The
>> observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
>> rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
>> concern.
>
> Not to me.

**Well, that's because you are a scientific ignoramus. If you knew
anything about science, you would be very concerned.

>
>> No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
>> rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
>> humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
>> capacity to deal with it.
>>
> Humans are just one of many factors which affect climate change.

**I agree. There are many factors influencing our climate. CO2 is ONE of
those factors. Since humans have increased CO2 levels by a substantial
amount in the past 150 years, then so has the climate been affected.

I do have the capacity to deal with climate change. I'll adjust my
thermostat and open a cold beer. You should try that.

**You THINK you have the capacity to deal with climate change and, if
you are old enough, it probably won't affect you. If you are young and
have children or grandchildren, then they won't be so lucky.

>
>> Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
>> happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
>> shadow of doubt:
>>
> Oh, you know what will happen in the future, Nostradamus?

**It's happening right now. No need to predict the future. We know, from
past events what has happened already.

>
>> * As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
>> * As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
>> time.
>> * CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
>> the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
>> past million years or so.
>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
>> time in the past million years or so.
>
> A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator.

**Absolute and utter bullshit. Which, if you had the mental capacity to
read some data, you would understand. The facts are much more prosaic.
CO2 levels have, in the past, both led and lagged temperature rise. When
one goes up, the other ALWAYS follows. At this time in the planet's
history, CO2 levels are rising and temperature rise is lagging. As
temperatures rise, then the oceans will outgas CO2. Van 't Hoff equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_%27t_Hoff_equation

At that time, CO2 levels may lead temperature rise. For a brief period,
when temperature levels will increase as a response to increased CO2 levels.

Fuck me. This is VERY basic science. Don't you idiots learn anythign in
school?

>
>> * CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
>> molecule.
>> * Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
>> released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
>> Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
>> breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
>> it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
>> continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
>> massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
>> oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
>> This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
>> humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
>> runaway'.
>
>
> Oh, yeah. That tipping point was the one Al Gore predicted was ten years away. He made that prediction 12 years ago. I guess it's too fucking late. We're doomed. Might as well open another beer.

**Now the truth comes out. You just don't care about anyone who wants to
live on this planet after you're gone. I get that.

>
>> We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
>> degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
>> become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
>> will be under water.
>>
> Right, Chicken Little. If this dire prediction is true, it will mean that large chunks of the planet which are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable again. Since the Americas broke away from Europe and Africa, Florida has gone through periods in which it was underwater. Nothing new here. As for NYC and California, no great loss.

**Yup. Greenland, the Russian Steppes, the top end of Canada will be
pretty nice places to live.

>
>> It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
>> relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
>> costs will be immense.
>>
> Hopefully they will be smart enough to figure out how to deal with a changing climate the way humans have always done before instead of deluding themselves into believing they can stop climate change.

**Since humans have caused he warming, then humans may be able to deal
with it.

>>>>
>>>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
>>>>
>>>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.

**Let's not be overly concerned about local weather conditions in an
area that represents 1.7% of the Earth's surface. It's an interesting
anomaly, but nothing more.

>>
>> **You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
>> occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
>> area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
>> entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
>> the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
>> cool days. Big deal.
>>
> You asked "what abnormal cold snaps?". I gave you one. How many would you like?

**An abnormal cold snap that affects the whole planet, you boob. I don't
give a shit what happens in 1.7% of the Earth's surface. Now, if it
concerned (say) 50% of the Earth's surface and represented part of a
trend, then I might get worried. A bit of snow in one tiny corner of the
planet is inconsequential.

>>
>>>
>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
>>>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
>>>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
>>>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
>>>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
>>>>
>>> Sounds like a non-denial denial.
>>
>> **I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
>> than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
>> scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.
>>
> Kiss my ass. If you libtards were as smart as you pretend to be you would be able to figure out that climate change is the normal order of things and that humans and other life forms have adapted in the past and have survived far more cataclysmic events and life has gone on.

**That's the rub: They have NEVER had to adapt to such a rapid warming
trend. Cockroaches will likely survive just fine. Lots of other critters
won't.

I would put more faith in the predictions of these climate scientists
if they would be right about their predictions once in a while.

**That's just it: They HAVE been shown to be correct. Way back in the
middle of the 19th century, Fourier predicted the warming we are
experiencing right now.

Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for
how much temperature change there would be.

**Cite. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to present any evidence
of this insane claim.

Science is very good at explaining what has happened but the track
record for predicting the future has not been so good.
>>>
>>>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
>>>>
>>> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.
>>
>> **I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
>> engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.
>>
> So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults rather than replied with substance.

**Not only have I addressed every point, but I've supplied the data to
back it up.

>>
>> We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
>> questioning it.
>>
>> **Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned.
>
> That's what I'm doing.

**Er, no it isn't. You are denying the science, without showing any
understanding of that same science. BIG difference.

>
>> Climate science
>> has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
>> money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.
>>
> Attaboy. Keep hurling the insults. It's what people tend to do when they start losing an argument.

**Again, I am simply stating the facts. Idiots deny facts.

>>
>> Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
>> scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
>> questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
>> never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
>> to be doing.
>>>
>>
>> **Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.
>>
> I can distinguish facts from factoids.

**I am well ware of that.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 10:53:29 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 12:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:44:35 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>>> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
> >>>>
> >>>> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
> >>>> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
> >>>> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
> >>>> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
> >>>> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
> >>>> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
> >>>> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
> >>>> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
> >>>>
> >>> For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
> >>
> >> **Listen VERY, VERY carefully:
> >>
> >> At no time in at least the past million years (probably, much longer)
> >> has the planet warmed as fast and as far as it has and is right now.
> >
> > Wow. One million years. That ignores 4.499 billion years of climate change.
>
> **Then feel free to fill in the remaining data. A million years is the
> best that our present science can manage.
>

No, not really. Did you happen to see the remake of the Cosmos series hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson which turned out to be little more than thinly disguised climate change propaganda. He spoke of periods in the earth's history in which the environment was far more inhospitable than the most dire predictions by climate alarmists and those periods took place way more than a million years ago. What amused me was at the very beginning of the series he said "Question everything" but then over the course of the series he spewed the usually climate change dogma as if it should be accepted without question. I guess what he really meant was question everything except what the climate alarmists are telling us.

> >
> >> The
> >> observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
> >> rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
> >> concern.
> >
> > Not to me.
>
> **Well, that's because you are a scientific ignoramus. If you knew
> anything about science, you would be very concerned.
>

Spare me. I choose not to join your Chicken Little crowd.

> >
> >> No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
> >> rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
> >> humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
> >> capacity to deal with it.
> >>
> > Humans are just one of many factors which affect climate change.
>
> **I agree. There are many factors influencing our climate. CO2 is ONE of
> those factors. Since humans have increased CO2 levels by a substantial
> amount in the past 150 years, then so has the climate been affected.
>

OK, explain why in the middle of that period between 1940-1980 the earth went through a cooling period.

>
> I do have the capacity to deal with climate change. I'll adjust my
> thermostat and open a cold beer. You should try that.
>
> **You THINK you have the capacity to deal with climate change and, if
> you are old enough, it probably won't affect you. If you are young and
> have children or grandchildren, then they won't be so lucky.
>

They will do just fine. There are far more real threats to deal with such as global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to be concerned that the thermometer has ticked up a few degrees.

>
> >
> >> Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
> >> happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
> >> shadow of doubt:
> >>
> > Oh, you know what will happen in the future, Nostradamus?
>
> **It's happening right now. No need to predict the future. We know, from
> past events what has happened already.
>

What we are seeing is a moderate rise in global temperatures which followed an abnormally cooling period sometimes called the Little Ice Age.

> >
> >> * As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
> >> * As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
> >> time.
> >> * CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
> >> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
> >> the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
> >> past million years or so.
> >> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
> >> time in the past million years or so.
> >
> > A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator.
>
>
> **Absolute and utter bullshit. Which, if you had the mental capacity to
> read some data, you would understand. The facts are much more prosaic.
> CO2 levels have, in the past, both led and lagged temperature rise. When
> one goes up, the other ALWAYS follows. At this time in the planet's
> history, CO2 levels are rising and temperature rise is lagging. As
> temperatures rise, then the oceans will outgas CO2. Van 't Hoff equation:
>

Exactly what I said. Temperature rises cause rising CO2 levels.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_%27t_Hoff_equation
>
> At that time, CO2 levels may lead temperature rise. For a brief period,
> when temperature levels will increase as a response to increased CO2 levels.
>
> Fuck me. This is VERY basic science. Don't you idiots learn anythign in
> school?
>

Do you every apply critical thinking to the propaganda you read or do you just regurgitate the dogma?

> >
> >> * CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
> >> molecule.
> >> * Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
> >> released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
> >> Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
> >> breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
> >> it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
> >> continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
> >> massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
> >> oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
> >> This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
> >> humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
> >> runaway'.
> >
> >
> > Oh, yeah. That tipping point was the one Al Gore predicted was ten years away. He made that prediction 12 years ago. I guess it's too fucking late. We're doomed. Might as well open another beer.
>
> **Now the truth comes out. You just don't care about anyone who wants to
> live on this planet after you're gone. I get that.
>

I see you keep dodging the points being made. If science can accurately predict the future than it's already too late. That's what Al Gore told us in his shitty movie back in 2006. But I'm not too concerned because scientists have a very poor track record of predicting the future. So either the scientific community can accurately predict the future in which case we are already doomed or they are just blowing smoke and their predictions are nothing to worry about. Take your pick.

> >
> >> We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
> >> degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
> >> become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
> >> will be under water.
> >>
> > Right, Chicken Little. If this dire prediction is true, it will mean that large chunks of the planet which are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable again. Since the Americas broke away from Europe and Africa, Florida has gone through periods in which it was underwater. Nothing new here. As for NYC and California, no great loss.
>
> **Yup. Greenland, the Russian Steppes, the top end of Canada will be
> pretty nice places to live.
>

That's been the history of the planet. Climate changes. The face of the globe changes. Humans adapt to the changes. I see no reason that won't continue to happen.

> >
> >> It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
> >> relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
> >> costs will be immense.
> >>
> > Hopefully they will be smart enough to figure out how to deal with a changing climate the way humans have always done before instead of deluding themselves into believing they can stop climate change.
>
> **Since humans have caused he warming, then humans may be able to deal
> with it.
>

Climate change is nothing new. What is different is that for the first time in human history their is a segment of the population who is arrogant enough to think they can stop climate change and stupid enough to think that they should.

>
> >>>>
> >>>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
> >>>>
> >>>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
> >>>> decades.
> >>>>
> >>> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
>
> **Let's not be overly concerned about local weather conditions in an
> area that represents 1.7% of the Earth's surface. It's an interesting
> anomaly, but nothing more.
>
> >>
> >> **You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
> >> occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
> >> area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
> >> entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
> >> the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
> >> cool days. Big deal.
> >>
> > You asked "what abnormal cold snaps?". I gave you one. How many would you like?
>
> **An abnormal cold snap that affects the whole planet, you boob.

You mean like the Little Ice Age.

> I don't
> give a shit what happens in 1.7% of the Earth's surface. Now, if it
> concerned (say) 50% of the Earth's surface and represented part of a
> trend, then I might get worried. A bit of snow in one tiny corner of the
> planet is inconsequential.
>

You mean like the Little Ice Age.

Of course it is silly to treat an unusual weather event as evidence of climate change but that is exactly what the alarmists do when we have a heat wave, or a bad hurricane, or a harsh winter.

>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
> >>>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
> >>>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
> >>>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
> >>>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
> >>>>
> >>> Sounds like a non-denial denial.
> >>
> >> **I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
> >> than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
> >> scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.
> >>
> > Kiss my ass. If you libtards were as smart as you pretend to be you would be able to figure out that climate change is the normal order of things and that humans and other life forms have adapted in the past and have survived far more cataclysmic events and life has gone on.
>
> **That's the rub: They have NEVER had to adapt to such a rapid warming
> trend. Cockroaches will likely survive just fine. Lots of other critters
> won't.
>

Pretending to be Nostradamus again.

>
> I would put more faith in the predictions of these climate scientists
> if they would be right about their predictions once in a while.
>
> **That's just it: They HAVE been shown to be correct. Way back in the
> middle of the 19th century, Fourier predicted the warming we are
> experiencing right now.
>

The current crop of climate scientists have almost all overshot the mark as far as predicted temperature increase goes.

>
> Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for
> how much temperature change there would be.
>
> **Cite. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to present any evidence
> of this insane claim.
>

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm

[quote on]

Scorecard

The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection. As we will show below, this is due to the preponderance of natural temperature influences being in the cooling direction since 2000, while the AR4 projection is consistent with the underlying human-caused warming trend.

[quote off]

This from a website trying to defend the IPCC by making excuses for why their predictions overshot the mark. If you look at the various graphs you will see the blue line (their predictions) are above the red line (actual temperatures).

>
> Science is very good at explaining what has happened but the track
> record for predicting the future has not been so good.
> >>>
> >>>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
> >>>>
> >>> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.
> >>
> >> **I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
> >> engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.
> >>
> > So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults rather than replied with substance.
>
> **Not only have I addressed every point, but I've supplied the data to
> back it up.
>

You mean like when you wrote "Go study some science before you argue with the adults.". Very substantive.

>
> >>
> >> We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
> >> questioning it.
> >>
> >> **Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned.
> >
> > That's what I'm doing.
>
> **Er, no it isn't. You are denying the science, without showing any
> understanding of that same science. BIG difference.
>

We both know that isn't true.

> >
> >> Climate science
> >> has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
> >> money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.
> >>
> > Attaboy. Keep hurling the insults. It's what people tend to do when they start losing an argument.
>
> **Again, I am simply stating the facts. Idiots deny facts.
>

You are regurgitating climate alarmist dogma.

> >>
> >> Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
> >> scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
> >> questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
> >> never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
> >> to be doing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> **Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.
> >>
> > I can distinguish facts from factoids.
>
> **I am well ware of that.

Maybe someday you will be able to do the same.

[de chucka]

And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
into the atmosphere does?
snip

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/01/2018 3:48 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 10:53:29 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 12/01/2018 12:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 7:44:35 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2018 10:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 3:37:53 PM UTC-5, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/01/2018 6:04 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jesus Christ, at least get up to speed. The climate alarmists quit calling it global warming a decade ago and changed the terminology to climate change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **No, "they" did not. YOU get up to speed. That the planet has been
>>>>>> warming has been observed for decades. It was predicted by Fourier and
>>>>>> Arrhenius back in the 19th century. So, no dispute over the warming and
>>>>>> why it is happening. It was predicted and has now been quantified. The
>>>>>> term 'climate change' was proposed by the UN, when the IPCC was set up.
>>>>>> It was done so in order to investigate climate change, it's causes and
>>>>>> ramifications. Call it 'political correctness', if that makes you feel
>>>>>> better. Either way, the planet is warming and humans are causing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> For 4.5 billion years the earth's climate has either been getting warmer or getting cooler. Suddenly it's a crisis. Suddenly you alarmists expect the climate to stop changing.
>>>>
>>>> **Listen VERY, VERY carefully:
>>>>
>>>> At no time in at least the past million years (probably, much longer)
>>>> has the planet warmed as fast and as far as it has and is right now.
>>>
>>> Wow. One million years. That ignores 4.499 billion years of climate change.
>>
>> **Then feel free to fill in the remaining data. A million years is the
>> best that our present science can manage.
>>
> No, not really.

**So, where's the data?

Did you happen to see the remake of the Cosmos series hosted by Neil
DeGrasse Tyson which turned out to be little more than thinly disguised
climate change propaganda.

**Nope. Didn't see it. I acquire most of my scientific knowledge from
reading scientific literature. Not TV. Not Breitbart. Not Newsweek. I
realise that is not a fashionable way to acquire knowledge.

He spoke of periods in the earth's history in which the environment
was far more inhospitable than the most dire predictions by climate
alarmists and those periods took place way more than a million years
ago. What amused me was at the very beginning of the series he said
"Question everything" but then over the course of the series he spewed
the usually climate change dogma as if it should be accepted without
question. I guess what he really meant was question everything except
what the climate alarmists are telling us.

**Since I didn't see the show, nor am I likely to, I can only guess at
what was ACTUALLY said. FWIW: There is nothing wrong with questioning
AGW theory. However, questioning established fact makes one look like a
bumbling idiot. You can, for instance, question how accurate the models
may be, WRT the warming of this planet, as the precise outcome is not
known. You cannot, however, question the data as it pertains to CO2's
influence over the climate. That is an established fact. What you appear
to be doing is to deny EVERYTHING, because a few pieces cannot be
established to 5 decimal places.

>>>
>>>> The
>>>> observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
>>>> rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
>>>> concern.
>>>
>>> Not to me.
>>
>> **Well, that's because you are a scientific ignoramus. If you knew
>> anything about science, you would be very concerned.
>>
> Spare me. I choose not to join your Chicken Little crowd.

**Of course. I expect nothing less from you.

>>>
>>>> No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
>>>> rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
>>>> humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
>>>> capacity to deal with it.
>>>>
>>> Humans are just one of many factors which affect climate change.
>>
>> **I agree. There are many factors influencing our climate. CO2 is ONE of
>> those factors. Since humans have increased CO2 levels by a substantial
>> amount in the past 150 years, then so has the climate been affected.
>>
> OK, explain why in the middle of that period between 1940-1980 the earth went through a cooling period.

**Aerosol pollution.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2119

>>
>> I do have the capacity to deal with climate change. I'll adjust my
>> thermostat and open a cold beer. You should try that.
>>
>> **You THINK you have the capacity to deal with climate change and, if
>> you are old enough, it probably won't affect you. If you are young and
>> have children or grandchildren, then they won't be so lucky.
>>
> They will do just fine. There are far more real threats to deal with such as global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to be concerned that the thermometer has ticked up a few degrees.
>>
>>>
>>>> Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
>>>> happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
>>>> shadow of doubt:
>>>>
>>> Oh, you know what will happen in the future, Nostradamus?
>>
>> **It's happening right now. No need to predict the future. We know, from
>> past events what has happened already.
>>
> What we are seeing is a moderate rise in global temperatures which followed an abnormally cooling period sometimes called the Little Ice Age.

**We're not seeing a cooling, which is what is required to enter an ice
age. We are seeing a WARMING. BIG difference.

>>>
>>>> * As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
>>>> * As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
>>>> time.
>>>> * CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
>>>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
>>>> the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
>>>> past million years or so.
>>>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
>>>> time in the past million years or so.
>>>
>>> A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator.
>>
>>
>> **Absolute and utter bullshit. Which, if you had the mental capacity to
>> read some data, you would understand. The facts are much more prosaic.
>> CO2 levels have, in the past, both led and lagged temperature rise. When
>> one goes up, the other ALWAYS follows. At this time in the planet's
>> history, CO2 levels are rising and temperature rise is lagging. As
>> temperatures rise, then the oceans will outgas CO2. Van 't Hoff equation:
>>
> Exactly what I said. Temperature rises cause rising CO2 levels.

**And rising CO2 levels will raise temperatures.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_%27t_Hoff_equation
>>
>> At that time, CO2 levels may lead temperature rise. For a brief period,
>> when temperature levels will increase as a response to increased CO2 levels.
>>
>> Fuck me. This is VERY basic science. Don't you idiots learn anythign in
>> school?
>>
> Do you every apply critical thinking to the propaganda you read or do you just regurgitate the dogma?

**I don't read propaganda. Let me remind you: _I_ did not quote
Breitbart as a scientific journal of note.

>>>
>>>> * CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
>>>> molecule.
>>>> * Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
>>>> released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
>>>> Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
>>>> breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
>>>> it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
>>>> continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
>>>> massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
>>>> oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
>>>> This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
>>>> humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
>>>> runaway'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, yeah. That tipping point was the one Al Gore predicted was ten years away. He made that prediction 12 years ago. I guess it's too fucking late. We're doomed. Might as well open another beer.
>>
>> **Now the truth comes out. You just don't care about anyone who wants to
>> live on this planet after you're gone. I get that.
>>
> I see you keep dodging the points being made.

**Let me explain that I don't give a flying fuck what a politician says
or doesn't say about climate change. You can bang on about Al Gore all
you want. He is just a politician. He is not a climate scientist. Hell,
this is exactly the problem. You cite idiots and politicians to suit
your denialist agenda. Cite CLIMATE SCIENTISTS when discussing climate
science.

If science can accurately predict the future than it's already too
late. That's what Al Gore told us in his shitty movie back in 2006. But
I'm not too concerned because scientists have a very poor track record
of predicting the future. So either the scientific community can
accurately predict the future in which case we are already doomed or
they are just blowing smoke and their predictions are nothing to worry
about. Take your pick.

**There are a handful of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who are of the opinion that
we have passed the tipping point and a majority who are of the opinion
that we have yet to reach that point. And yes, it is very much a crap
shoot. This planet has entered a climate point that it has never entered
before. The future is highly uncertain. What we should be doing is
considering a worst case scenario and acting accordingly. Kinda like
when you insure your home or car.

>>>
>>>> We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
>>>> degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
>>>> become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
>>>> will be under water.
>>>>
>>> Right, Chicken Little. If this dire prediction is true, it will mean that large chunks of the planet which are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable again. Since the Americas broke away from Europe and Africa, Florida has gone through periods in which it was underwater. Nothing new here. As for NYC and California, no great loss.
>>
>> **Yup. Greenland, the Russian Steppes, the top end of Canada will be
>> pretty nice places to live.
>>
> That's been the history of the planet. Climate changes. The face of the globe changes. Humans adapt to the changes. I see no reason that won't continue to happen.

**And do you think Canada will be accepting of hundreds of millions of
climate change refugees from the US?

>>>
>>>> It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
>>>> relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
>>>> costs will be immense.
>>>>
>>> Hopefully they will be smart enough to figure out how to deal with a changing climate the way humans have always done before instead of deluding themselves into believing they can stop climate change.
>>
>> **Since humans have caused he warming, then humans may be able to deal
>> with it.
>>
> Climate change is nothing new. What is different is that for the first time in human history their is a segment of the population who is arrogant enough to think they can stop climate change and stupid enough to think that they should.

**Wrong again. What is new is the SPEED with which global warming is
occurring. It is unprecedented.

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
>>
>> **Let's not be overly concerned about local weather conditions in an
>> area that represents 1.7% of the Earth's surface. It's an interesting
>> anomaly, but nothing more.
>>
>>>>
>>>> **You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
>>>> occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
>>>> area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
>>>> entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
>>>> the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
>>>> cool days. Big deal.
>>>>
>>> You asked "what abnormal cold snaps?". I gave you one. How many would you like?
>>
>> **An abnormal cold snap that affects the whole planet, you boob.
>
> You mean like the Little Ice Age.

**The so-called Little Ice Age was not a planet-wide effect. But don't
let that stop you from shifting goal-posts. Let's discuss LIA however:

* The LIA was thought to coincide with a fall in Solar activity
(observed). We are presently in the middle of a dramatic fall in Solar
activity, yet the temperatures are still rising. That fact suggests that
a fall in Solar activity is insufficient to counter the falling Solar
activity.

* At some point in the future (no one knows when) Solar activity will
resume it's normal level. At that time, global warming will accelerate
dramatically, due to the increased levels of Solar energy hitting our
planet.

>
>> I don't
>> give a shit what happens in 1.7% of the Earth's surface. Now, if it
>> concerned (say) 50% of the Earth's surface and represented part of a
>> trend, then I might get worried. A bit of snow in one tiny corner of the
>> planet is inconsequential.
>>
> You mean like the Little Ice Age.

**If you like.

>
> Of course it is silly to treat an unusual weather event as evidence of climate change but that is exactly what the alarmists do when we have a heat wave, or a bad hurricane, or a harsh winter.

**Some scientists have established links between certain weather
conditions and global warming. It is wrong to blame ALL unusual weather
events with global warming.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
>>>>>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
>>>>>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
>>>>>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
>>>>>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a non-denial denial.
>>>>
>>>> **I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
>>>> than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
>>>> scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.
>>>>
>>> Kiss my ass. If you libtards were as smart as you pretend to be you would be able to figure out that climate change is the normal order of things and that humans and other life forms have adapted in the past and have survived far more cataclysmic events and life has gone on.
>>
>> **That's the rub: They have NEVER had to adapt to such a rapid warming
>> trend. Cockroaches will likely survive just fine. Lots of other critters
>> won't.
>>
> Pretending to be Nostradamus again.

**Again: Nope. We have seen the results of climate change on many
species. Many populations are failing because it is too
hot/dry/wet/whatever.

>>
>> I would put more faith in the predictions of these climate scientists
>> if they would be right about their predictions once in a while.
>>
>> **That's just it: They HAVE been shown to be correct. Way back in the
>> middle of the 19th century, Fourier predicted the warming we are
>> experiencing right now.
>>
> The current crop of climate scientists have almost all overshot the mark as far as predicted temperature increase goes.

**Prove it.

>>
>> Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for
>> how much temperature change there would be.
>>
>> **Cite. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to present any evidence
>> of this insane claim.
>>
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm
>
> [quote on]
>
> Scorecard
>
> The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection. As we will show below, this is due to the preponderance of natural temperature influences being in the cooling direction since 2000, while the AR4 projection is consistent with the underlying human-caused warming trend.
>
> [quote off]
>
> This from a website trying to defend the IPCC by making excuses for why their predictions overshot the mark. If you look at the various graphs you will see the blue line (their predictions) are above the red line (actual temperatures).

**As has been stated ad nauseum, the climate on this planet is chaotic.
Any predictions made will, of necessity be best guesses, based on
available data. Things will change. People will consume less fossil
fuels (as they did during the GFC), volcanoes will emit large amounts of
aerosols and Solar activity may decrease. All these things and more
affect the climate and the accuracy of predictions. Again, if you had
taken the time to read the science surrounding the issue, yuo would
already know this stuff.

>>
>> Science is very good at explaining what has happened but the track
>> record for predicting the future has not been so good.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.
>>>>
>>>> **I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
>>>> engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.
>>>>
>>> So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults rather than replied with substance.
>>
>> **Not only have I addressed every point, but I've supplied the data to
>> back it up.
>>
> You mean like when you wrote "Go study some science before you argue with the adults.". Very substantive.

**That's part of it, but also my cites are ones you should read.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
>>>> questioning it.
>>>>
>>>> **Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned.
>>>
>>> That's what I'm doing.
>>
>> **Er, no it isn't. You are denying the science, without showing any
>> understanding of that same science. BIG difference.
>>
> We both know that isn't true.

**Actually, I know it to be fact. You display a disturbing level of
scientific ignorance.

>>>
>>>> Climate science
>>>> has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
>>>> money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.
>>>>
>>> Attaboy. Keep hurling the insults. It's what people tend to do when they start losing an argument.
>>
>> **Again, I am simply stating the facts. Idiots deny facts.
>>
> You are regurgitating climate alarmist dogma.

**Facts and data are not dogma.

>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
>>>> scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
>>>> questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
>>>> never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
>>>> to be doing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.
>>>>
>>> I can distinguish facts from factoids.
>>
>> **I am well ware of that.
>
> Maybe someday you will be able to do the same.

**I do every day.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:30 +1100, Trevor Wilson

<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/01/2018 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>>
>>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>>
>>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>>
>>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>>> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>>> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
>>
>> Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.
>
>**Read what I wrote. Carefully.

Read what I wrote. Carefully.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:39:48 +1100, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Of course there isn't, and Trevor knows this.

[bigdog]

My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.

[bigdog]

We all choose where we obtain our propaganda from.

>
> He spoke of periods in the earth's history in which the environment
> was far more inhospitable than the most dire predictions by climate
> alarmists and those periods took place way more than a million years
> ago. What amused me was at the very beginning of the series he said
> "Question everything" but then over the course of the series he spewed
> the usually climate change dogma as if it should be accepted without
> question. I guess what he really meant was question everything except
> what the climate alarmists are telling us.
>
> **Since I didn't see the show, nor am I likely to, I can only guess at
> what was ACTUALLY said. FWIW: There is nothing wrong with questioning
> AGW theory. However, questioning established fact makes one look like a
> bumbling idiot. You can, for instance, question how accurate the models
> may be, WRT the warming of this planet, as the precise outcome is not
> known. You cannot, however, question the data as it pertains to CO2's
> influence over the climate. That is an established fact. What you appear
> to be doing is to deny EVERYTHING, because a few pieces cannot be
> established to 5 decimal places.
>

You say people are allowed to question AGW but then you call them idiots if they do. You resent skepticism to your dogma. We are all supposed to worship at the altar of AGW.

>
> >>>
> >>>> The
> >>>> observed warming is occurring at a rate which is at least 100 times more
> >>>> rapid than at any time in the past million years. That is of great
> >>>> concern.
> >>>
> >>> Not to me.
> >>
> >> **Well, that's because you are a scientific ignoramus. If you knew
> >> anything about science, you would be very concerned.
> >>
> > Spare me. I choose not to join your Chicken Little crowd.
>
> **Of course. I expect nothing less from you.
>

That's nice.

> >>>
> >>>> No animals or plants can evolve fast enough to deal with such a
> >>>> rate of warming. Further: We know, with more than 95% certainty, that
> >>>> humans are the cause of the warming. Therefore, it is within human
> >>>> capacity to deal with it.
> >>>>
> >>> Humans are just one of many factors which affect climate change.
> >>
> >> **I agree. There are many factors influencing our climate. CO2 is ONE of
> >> those factors. Since humans have increased CO2 levels by a substantial
> >> amount in the past 150 years, then so has the climate been affected.
> >>
> > OK, explain why in the middle of that period between 1940-1980 the earth went through a cooling period.
>
> **Aerosol pollution.
>
> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2119
>

So we no longer have aerosol pollution. I didn't know that. You guys can always drum up excuses for why the evidence doesn't fit your theories.

> >>
> >> I do have the capacity to deal with climate change. I'll adjust my
> >> thermostat and open a cold beer. You should try that.
> >>
> >> **You THINK you have the capacity to deal with climate change and, if
> >> you are old enough, it probably won't affect you. If you are young and
> >> have children or grandchildren, then they won't be so lucky.
> >>
> > They will do just fine. There are far more real threats to deal with such as global terrorism and nuclear proliferation to be concerned that the thermometer has ticked up a few degrees.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Crisis? I suggest you study on what is happening right now and what will
> >>>> happen in the future, if nothing is done. This is what we know, beyond a
> >>>> shadow of doubt:
> >>>>
> >>> Oh, you know what will happen in the future, Nostradamus?
> >>
> >> **It's happening right now. No need to predict the future. We know, from
> >> past events what has happened already.
> >>
> > What we are seeing is a moderate rise in global temperatures which followed an abnormally cooling period sometimes called the Little Ice Age.
>
> **We're not seeing a cooling, which is what is required to enter an ice
> age. We are seeing a WARMING. BIG difference.
>

We are warming from what was an abnormally cool period. Go figure.

> >>>
> >>>> * As CO2 levels rise, temperature rise follows. Every, single time.
> >>>> * As temperature levels rise, CO2 levels rise soon after. Every, single
> >>>> time.
> >>>> * CO2 levels and temperature levels are inextricably linked.
> >>>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in CO2 levels at any time in
> >>>> the past million years or so. The rise is higher than at any time in the
> >>>> past million years or so.
> >>>> * We are now witnessing a more rapid rise in temperatures than at any
> >>>> time in the past million years or so.
> >>>
> >>> A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator.
> >>
> >>
> >> **Absolute and utter bullshit. Which, if you had the mental capacity to
> >> read some data, you would understand. The facts are much more prosaic.
> >> CO2 levels have, in the past, both led and lagged temperature rise. When
> >> one goes up, the other ALWAYS follows. At this time in the planet's
> >> history, CO2 levels are rising and temperature rise is lagging. As
> >> temperatures rise, then the oceans will outgas CO2. Van 't Hoff equation:
> >>
> > Exactly what I said. Temperature rises cause rising CO2 levels.
>
> **And rising CO2 levels will raise temperatures.
>

That's happened before. It will happen again. Then we have ice ages and the cycle repeats itself. If you look at the charts, every ice age was preceded by a spike in global temperatures and CO2 levels. Since warm periods between ice ages typically last 10-12 thousand years and this one has lasted about 11,700 years, how do you know the current warming is not the normal temperature spike that has preceded past ice ages? I think a new ice age is a far bigger concern than global warming, not that there's anything we can do to stop it.

http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/images2/ice_core/co2-400k-years.gif

Just as has happened before, there global temperatures spiked. In the past that was followed by a dramatic drop leading to ice ages.

> >
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_%27t_Hoff_equation
> >>
> >> At that time, CO2 levels may lead temperature rise. For a brief period,
> >> when temperature levels will increase as a response to increased CO2 levels.
> >>
> >> Fuck me. This is VERY basic science. Don't you idiots learn anythign in
> >> school?
> >>
> > Do you every apply critical thinking to the propaganda you read or do you just regurgitate the dogma?
>
> **I don't read propaganda. Let me remind you: _I_ did not quote
> Breitbart as a scientific journal of note.
>

Neither did I. Why would you bring them up?

> >>>
> >>>> * CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a very long time. It is a stable
> >>>> molecule.
> >>>> * Methane is of great, immediate, concern. Methane is presently being
> >>>> released from permafrost regions in large quantities. Methane has a
> >>>> Solar forcing ability of many times that of CO2. Fortunately, methane
> >>>> breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere (ca. 20 years), but unfortunately
> >>>> it breaks down into CO2. Thus, ore CO2 is added. As temperatures
> >>>> continue to rise, then more permafrost regions will release their
> >>>> massive load of methane. Thus, temperatures will rise still further. The
> >>>> oceans will outgas their CO2, thus adding even more to the atmosphere.
> >>>> This is known as the 'tipping point'. Beyond which, there is nothing
> >>>> humans can do to prevent the planet entering a period of 'thermal
> >>>> runaway'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oh, yeah. That tipping point was the one Al Gore predicted was ten years away. He made that prediction 12 years ago. I guess it's too fucking late. We're doomed. Might as well open another beer.
> >>
> >> **Now the truth comes out. You just don't care about anyone who wants to
> >> live on this planet after you're gone. I get that.
> >>
> > I see you keep dodging the points being made.
>
> **Let me explain that I don't give a flying fuck what a politician says
> or doesn't say about climate change. You can bang on about Al Gore all
> you want. He is just a politician. He is not a climate scientist. Hell,
> this is exactly the problem. You cite idiots and politicians to suit
> your denialist agenda. Cite CLIMATE SCIENTISTS when discussing climate
> science.
>

So we both agree Al Gore was full of shit. That's called common ground. So now we have climate scientists who are saying we are close to the tipping point. Some say we are already past the tipping point. And we are supposed to believe this doom and gloom prophecy is more accurate than what Al Gore said. Like you he was relying on what climate scientists told him. But we are supposed to take you seriously now.

>
> If science can accurately predict the future than it's already too
> late. That's what Al Gore told us in his shitty movie back in 2006. But
> I'm not too concerned because scientists have a very poor track record
> of predicting the future. So either the scientific community can
> accurately predict the future in which case we are already doomed or
> they are just blowing smoke and their predictions are nothing to worry
> about. Take your pick.
>
> **There are a handful of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who are of the opinion that
> we have passed the tipping point and a majority who are of the opinion
> that we have yet to reach that point. And yes, it is very much a crap
> shoot. This planet has entered a climate point that it has never entered
> before. The future is highly uncertain. What we should be doing is
> considering a worst case scenario and acting accordingly. Kinda like
> when you insure your home or car.
>

Since there is disagreement among the alarmists that means some of them have to be wrong. If some of them can be wrong, they all can be wrong.

>
> >>>
> >>>> We're talking an average temperature rise in excess of 10
> >>>> degrees C. That means melting ice caps and large chunks of the planet
> >>>> become uninhabitable. Florida, NYC and much of the California coastline
> >>>> will be under water.
> >>>>
> >>> Right, Chicken Little. If this dire prediction is true, it will mean that large chunks of the planet which are currently uninhabitable will become inhabitable again. Since the Americas broke away from Europe and Africa, Florida has gone through periods in which it was underwater. Nothing new here. As for NYC and California, no great loss.
> >>
> >> **Yup. Greenland, the Russian Steppes, the top end of Canada will be
> >> pretty nice places to live.
> >>
> > That's been the history of the planet. Climate changes. The face of the globe changes. Humans adapt to the changes. I see no reason that won't continue to happen.
>
> **And do you think Canada will be accepting of hundreds of millions of
> climate change refugees from the US?
>

You speak as if this is something that is going to happen over night. These changes are going to happen gradually and as they do, people will begin to migrate to places where the climate is more to their liking as they have done for as long as creatures started to walk up right. Some people like a warmer climate. That's why so many move to Florida and Arizona when they retire which means adjusting to a much warmer climate.

>
> >>>
> >>>> It's a crisis and we're in it right now. The effects, for now, are
> >>>> relatively benign, but for those who follow us, the difficulties and
> >>>> costs will be immense.
> >>>>
> >>> Hopefully they will be smart enough to figure out how to deal with a changing climate the way humans have always done before instead of deluding themselves into believing they can stop climate change.
> >>
> >> **Since humans have caused he warming, then humans may be able to deal
> >> with it.
> >>
> > Climate change is nothing new. What is different is that for the first time in human history their is a segment of the population who is arrogant enough to think they can stop climate change and stupid enough to think that they should.
>
> **Wrong again. What is new is the SPEED with which global warming is
> occurring. It is unprecedented.
>

So it's happening faster. BFD.

If people hadn't been told the climate had been warming for the past 40 years, I doubt anyone would have noticed.

>
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That way they can blame abnormal cold snaps on climate change too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **What 'abnormal cold snaps'? The planet has been on a warming trend for
> >>>>>> decades.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The Sahara Desert just had just it's third snowstorm in the past 40 years. I'd call that an abnormal cold snap. But let's blame that on climate change too.
> >>
> >> **Let's not be overly concerned about local weather conditions in an
> >> area that represents 1.7% of the Earth's surface. It's an interesting
> >> anomaly, but nothing more.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> **You seem to fixated on one TINY part of the planet. The Sahara
> >>>> occupies 9.2 million sq km. That amounts to 1.7% of the total surface
> >>>> area of this planet. When we speak of GLOBAL warming, we speak of the
> >>>> entire planet, not one tiny corner. 2017 was the third hottest year (for
> >>>> the whole planet) ever recorded. The Sahara may have recorded one or two
> >>>> cool days. Big deal.
> >>>>
> >>> You asked "what abnormal cold snaps?". I gave you one. How many would you like?
> >>
> >> **An abnormal cold snap that affects the whole planet, you boob.
> >
> > You mean like the Little Ice Age.
>
> **The so-called Little Ice Age was not a planet-wide effect. But don't
> let that stop you from shifting goal-posts. Let's discuss LIA however:
>
> * The LIA was thought to coincide with a fall in Solar activity
> (observed).

You mean the sun affects how warm or cool the earth gets???!!! That's shocking!!! We need to do something about that.

> We are presently in the middle of a dramatic fall in Solar
> activity, yet the temperatures are still rising. That fact suggests that
> a fall in Solar activity is insufficient to counter the falling Solar
> activity.
>

So maybe we can forestall the next ice age which would be a good thing.

> * At some point in the future (no one knows when) Solar activity will
> resume it's normal level. At that time, global warming will accelerate
> dramatically, due to the increased levels of Solar energy hitting our
> planet.
>

And so we are supposed to live our lives based on these vague predictions which we have no idea how accurate they are.

> >
> >> I don't
> >> give a shit what happens in 1.7% of the Earth's surface. Now, if it
> >> concerned (say) 50% of the Earth's surface and represented part of a
> >> trend, then I might get worried. A bit of snow in one tiny corner of the
> >> planet is inconsequential.
> >>
> > You mean like the Little Ice Age.
>
> **If you like.
>
>
> >
> > Of course it is silly to treat an unusual weather event as evidence of climate change but that is exactly what the alarmists do when we have a heat wave, or a bad hurricane, or a harsh winter.
>
>
> **Some scientists have established links between certain weather
> conditions and global warming. It is wrong to blame ALL unusual weather
> events with global warming.
>

Are you saying it is OK for alarmists to point to weather events but the skeptics aren't allowed to?

> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/01/08/rare-snowstorm-just-blanketed-parts-of-the-sahara-desert-in-up-to-16-inches-of-snow/#76c3c12f27ee
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Besides when data showed that warming was slowing, it made it harder
> >>>>>> to make the case that warming was a crisis. By saying climate change,
> >>>>>> than any change can be called a crisis. I guess the climate alarmists
> >>>>>> think the climate is not supposed to change.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **If you mean CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, when you refer to alarmists, then that
> >>>>>> paints a poor picture of your (lack of) scientific abilities.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like a non-denial denial.
> >>>>
> >>>> **I accept that you have no respect for those who are more intelligent
> >>>> than you. That makes you look very foolish indeed. If all the climate
> >>>> scientists tell us that we have a problem, then we should listen to them.
> >>>>
> >>> Kiss my ass. If you libtards were as smart as you pretend to be you would be able to figure out that climate change is the normal order of things and that humans and other life forms have adapted in the past and have survived far more cataclysmic events and life has gone on.
> >>
> >> **That's the rub: They have NEVER had to adapt to such a rapid warming
> >> trend. Cockroaches will likely survive just fine. Lots of other critters
> >> won't.
> >>
> > Pretending to be Nostradamus again.
>
> **Again: Nope. We have seen the results of climate change on many
> species. Many populations are failing because it is too
> hot/dry/wet/whatever.
>

That's been true throughout human history. Areas get inhospitable and populations migrate to more hospitable regions. Humans migrated from Africa into Europe and Asia and finally the Americas. They would have moved across the Beringian land bridge which was created when sea levels dropped during the last ice age. Sea levels rose again during the warming period that followed and the Bering Strait was restored. So rising and falling sea levels changing the face of the globe is nothing new and humans have always adapted to them before and will again.

> >>
> >> I would put more faith in the predictions of these climate scientists
> >> if they would be right about their predictions once in a while.
> >>
> >> **That's just it: They HAVE been shown to be correct. Way back in the
> >> middle of the 19th century, Fourier predicted the warming we are
> >> experiencing right now.
> >>
> > The current crop of climate scientists have almost all overshot the mark as far as predicted temperature increase goes.
>
> **Prove it.
>

I already did. See below.

>
> >>
> >> Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for
> >> how much temperature change there would be.
> >>
> >> **Cite. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to present any evidence
> >> of this insane claim.
> >>
> > https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm
> >
> > [quote on]
> >
> > Scorecard
> >
> > The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection. As we will show below, this is due to the preponderance of natural temperature influences being in the cooling direction since 2000, while the AR4 projection is consistent with the underlying human-caused warming trend.
> >
> > [quote off]
> >
> > This from a website trying to defend the IPCC by making excuses for why their predictions overshot the mark. If you look at the various graphs you will see the blue line (their predictions) are above the red line (actual temperatures).
>
> **As has been stated ad nauseum, the climate on this planet is chaotic.
> Any predictions made will, of necessity be best guesses, based on
> available data. Things will change. People will consume less fossil
> fuels (as they did during the GFC), volcanoes will emit large amounts of
> aerosols and Solar activity may decrease. All these things and more
> affect the climate and the accuracy of predictions. Again, if you had
> taken the time to read the science surrounding the issue, yuo would
> already know this stuff.
>

Well at least you admit you alarmists are just guessing. So I'm supposed to get my shorts in a bunch over the guesses of climate alarmists who have been consistently wrong in the past.

> >>
> >> Science is very good at explaining what has happened but the track
> >> record for predicting the future has not been so good.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Go study some science before you argue with the adults.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I've been arguing with you "adults" for over a decade and whenever I throw tough questions at you, the response is usually a personal attack.
> >>>>
> >>>> **I will always respond in kind. You don't "throw tough questions". You
> >>>> engage in mindless rhetoric and insult. Read your own damned words.
> >>>>
> >>> So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults rather than replied with substance.
> >>
> >> **Not only have I addressed every point, but I've supplied the data to
> >> back it up.
> >>
> > You mean like when you wrote "Go study some science before you argue with the adults.". Very substantive.
>
> **That's part of it, but also my cites are ones you should read.
>

You mean your regurgitated dogma?

> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> We are supposed to just accept the dogma you throw at us without
> >>>> questioning it.
> >>>>
> >>>> **Absolutely not! Science should always be questioned.
> >>>
> >>> That's what I'm doing.
> >>
> >> **Er, no it isn't. You are denying the science, without showing any
> >> understanding of that same science. BIG difference.
> >>
> > We both know that isn't true.
>
> **Actually, I know it to be fact. You display a disturbing level of
> scientific ignorance.
>

Just because I won't drink your Kool-Aid.

>
> >>>
> >>>> Climate science
> >>>> has been questioned and it has been shown to be pretty much on the
> >>>> money. Only complete morons dispute the facts.
> >>>>
> >>> Attaboy. Keep hurling the insults. It's what people tend to do when they start losing an argument.
> >>
> >> **Again, I am simply stating the facts. Idiots deny facts.
> >>
> > You are regurgitating climate alarmist dogma.
>
> **Facts and data are not dogma.
>

Sadly, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, but skepticism is one of the hallmarks of good science. If a
> >>>> scientific position is sound, it should be able to stand up to tough
> >>>> questioning. Good science is always questioning and reevaluating. It is
> >>>> never good science to say the science is settled, which is what you seem
> >>>> to be doing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> **Facts are facts. It is sad that you cannot see those facts.
> >>>>
> >>> I can distinguish facts from factoids.
> >>
> >> **I am well ware of that.
> >
> > Maybe someday you will be able to do the same.
>
>
> **I do every day.
>

I've seen no evidence of that.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I did. I will spell it out more clearly. It seems my communication is,
at times, unclear:

* 100% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming faster

than at any time in the past million years.

* 100% of climate scientists agree that the warming is due to high(er)
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
* Something LESS than 100% of climate scientists agree that humans are
responsible.
* Something LESS than 100% of climate scientists believe that a 'tipping
point' will not be reached and that some kind of, yet to be discovered,
mechanism will stop or reverse the warming trend.

Is that a little clearer?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[de chucka]

You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?

[bigdog]

I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.

[de chucka]

snip

>>>> And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
>>>> so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
>>>> into the atmosphere does?
>>>
>>> My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?
>
> I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.

Poor Bigdog you are obviously conflicted because you know that dumping
millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
CO2/temperature positive feedback system but it conflicts with your politics

[bigdog]

The net effective is that my thermometer has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in my lifetime. BFD. If somebody hadn't told me I would have never noticed. My politics aren't dictated by what my thermometer tells me.

[de chucka]

On 13/01/2018 7:20 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>>>> And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
>>>>>> so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
>>>>>> into the atmosphere does?
>>>>>
>>>>> My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?
>>>
>>> I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.
>>
>>
>> Poor Bigdog you are obviously conflicted because you know that dumping
>> millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
>> CO2/temperature positive feedback system but it conflicts with your politics
>
> The net effective is that my thermometer has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in my lifetime.

and 1 degree Celsius on a global measurement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

The good thing is that you agree GW is occurring and that you know that

dumping millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
CO2/temperature positive feedback system

BFD. If somebody hadn't told me I would have never noticed. My politics
aren't dictated by what my thermometer tells me.

obviously

[Just Wondering]

If if was a positive feed back system, that positive feedback would have
heated the Earth to uninhabitable temperatures eons ago.

[de chucka]

Wrong because there are carbon 'sinks' like the oceans/vegetation which
mitigate this positive feedback. Unfortunately these sinks are getting
rather full as we pump GHGs into the atmosphere

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:32:54 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
> On 13/01/2018 7:20 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>>>> And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
> >>>>>> so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
> >>>>>> into the atmosphere does?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?
> >>>
> >>> I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.
> >>
> >>
> >> Poor Bigdog you are obviously conflicted because you know that dumping
> >> millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
> >> CO2/temperature positive feedback system but it conflicts with your politics
> >
> > The net effective is that my thermometer has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in my lifetime.
>
> and 1 degree Celsius on a global measurement
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
>
> The good thing is that you agree GW is occurring and that you know that
> dumping millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
> CO2/temperature positive feedback system
>

No all that is needed is for somebody to convince me that it is a crisis that the average earth temperature has ticked upward one degree in the 66 years I've been around. If I live to be 100, at that rate it will be 1.5 degrees higher than when I was born.

OH THE HUMANITY!!!

> BFD. If somebody hadn't told me I would have never noticed. My politics
> aren't dictated by what my thermometer tells me.
>
> obviously

Obviously that's a good thing.

[de chucka]

On 13/01/2018 9:13 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:32:54 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
>> On 13/01/2018 7:20 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
>>>>>>>> so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
>>>>>>>> into the atmosphere does?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Poor Bigdog you are obviously conflicted because you know that dumping
>>>> millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
>>>> CO2/temperature positive feedback system but it conflicts with your politics
>>>
>>> The net effective is that my thermometer has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in my lifetime.
>>
>> and 1 degree Celsius on a global measurement
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
>>
>> The good thing is that you agree GW is occurring and that you know that
>> dumping millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
>> CO2/temperature positive feedback system
>>
> No all that is needed is for somebody to convince me that it is a crisis that the average earth temperature has ticked upward one degree in the 66 years I've been around. If I live to be 100, at that rate it will be 1.5 degrees higher than when I was born.

Obviously you don't give a stuff for the future, it is all about you

>
> OH THE HUMANITY!!!

Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
else will clean up the mess?

snip

[benj]

note Chuckers pure fantasy science. While dumping huge amounts of
combustion products into the air is NOT a good idea, there are few
alternatives at present. One alternative is a return to the middle ages.
ISIS has pretty much shown us that this in not a very viable solution to
any problems. Best is to minimize effects of nasty pollutants.

However science says chucker is a lying moron. CO2 is a minor GHG, CO2
does NOT cause any serious warming (irrefutable proof is CO2 went UP
from 1940 t0 1970 while climate temperature wend down. How can CO2 then
suddenly be a CAUSE of warming?

http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm

Positive feedback story is pure bullshit invented when suddenly the
rising temperatures supposed to end the world didn't keep going up.
All the hundreds of computer climate models proved WRONG and NONE
Predicted the actual temperature rise that has been observed.

And as always the libs accuse everyone else of doing what they always
do. In this case to trash science by trying to use the respect the
public has for science to promote their fraudulent tax scheme. They turn
science into politics which is a huge No-no in science. And once they
trash the respect that the public has for science there will be hell to
pay to get that respect back.

[benj]

The scary thing, Bigdog is that you only have that tiny rise while
official temperature measurements have been sneakily nudged upward by
clever tricks like closing the coldest weather stations, ignoring the
effects of installing parking lots and air conditioners, and even
"adjusting" past data. All that and still they only get a degree or two.
Hey, is there ANYONE on this planet who can tell if it's 70 degrees
outside or 71.5 degrees?

[de chucka]

Alternatives are becoming better and better

One alternative is a return to the middle ages.
> ISIS has pretty much shown us that this in not a very viable solution to
> any problems. Best is to minimize effects of nasty pollutants.
>
> However science says chucker is a lying moron. CO2 is a minor GHG, CO2
> does NOT cause any serious warming (irrefutable proof is CO2 went UP
> from 1940 t0 1970 while climate temperature wend down. How can CO2 then
> suddenly be a CAUSE of warming?

The science of CO2 is easily shown in the lab, my Year 9 daughter did
it, and has been known since the 1800s
>
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm

page not found

>
> Positive feedback story is pure bullshit invented when suddenly the
> rising temperatures supposed to end the world didn't keep going up.
> All the hundreds of computer climate models proved WRONG and NONE
> Predicted the actual temperature rise that has been observed.

Once again the positive feedback effects are basic science

>
> And as always the libs accuse everyone else of doing what they always
> do. In this case to trash science by trying to use the respect the
> public has for science to promote their fraudulent tax scheme. They turn
> science into politics which is a huge No-no in science. And once they
> trash the respect that the public has for science there will be hell to
> pay to get that respect back.

I'm sorry but you seem very ignorant of basic science

[de chucka]

Ah the great big conspiracy theory. How the hell do they keep all the
people ón game'?

[bigdog]

You're right. I don't give a shit if global temperatures go up another degree during the next 100 years. Somehow I think people will adjust.

> >
> > OH THE HUMANITY!!!
>
> Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
> else will clean up the mess?
>

Do you have any intelligent questions?

[de chucka]

Fair enough you don't give a stuff it has nothing to do with he science.
Maybe that answers the question :- Why Republicans Still Reject the
Science of Global Warming?

>>>
>>> OH THE HUMANITY!!!
>>
>> Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
>> else will clean up the mess?
>>
> Do you have any intelligent questions?

You can't even answer this one so I'll leave more difficult ones to later

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:11:15 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 1/12/2018 3:20 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-5, De Chucka wrote:
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>>>> And increased CO2 cause increased temp, it is a positive feedback system
> >>>>>> so what do you think the effect of dumping millions of tonnes of GHGs
> >>>>>> into the atmosphere does?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My thermometer has gone up one degree. BFD.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You didn't answer the question, I wonder why?
> >>>
> >>> I did answer the fucking question. I thought I typed my answer slow enough that even a dumbass Aussie could understand it. That was my mistake.
> >>
> >>
> >> Poor Bigdog you are obviously conflicted because you know that dumping
> >> millions of tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere increases the
> >> CO2/temperature positive feedback system but it conflicts with your politics
> >
> > The net effective is that my thermometer has gone up one degree Fahrenheit in my lifetime. BFD. If somebody hadn't told me I would have never noticed. My politics aren't dictated by what my thermometer tells me.
> >
> note Chuckers pure fantasy science. While dumping huge amounts of
> combustion products into the air is NOT a good idea, there are few
> alternatives at present. One alternative is a return to the middle ages.
> ISIS has pretty much shown us that this in not a very viable solution to
> any problems. Best is to minimize effects of nasty pollutants.
>
> However science says chucker is a lying moron. CO2 is a minor GHG, CO2
> does NOT cause any serious warming (irrefutable proof is CO2 went UP
> from 1940 t0 1970 while climate temperature wend down. How can CO2 then
> suddenly be a CAUSE of warming?
>
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
>

Oh, they will have an answer (excuse) for that. It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors into the discussion. So it is with the climate alarmists. They want to frame the issue as simply as possible by tying CO2 levels to temperature increases. When you point out instances in which there was a disconnect, then they want to talk about other factors as reasons why the data doesn't fit their narrative.

[bigdog]

Let us know when they become practical and cost effective. If you can do that, you want need the propaganda. People will be happy to go with the alternatives if it makes their lives better and/or costs them less money.

> One alternative is a return to the middle ages.
> > ISIS has pretty much shown us that this in not a very viable solution to
> > any problems. Best is to minimize effects of nasty pollutants.
> >
> > However science says chucker is a lying moron. CO2 is a minor GHG, CO2
> > does NOT cause any serious warming (irrefutable proof is CO2 went UP
> > from 1940 t0 1970 while climate temperature wend down. How can CO2 then
> > suddenly be a CAUSE of warming?
>
> The science of CO2 is easily shown in the lab, my Year 9 daughter did
> it, and has been known since the 1800s
> >
> > http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/40-70GISS.htm
>

I don't give a shit what the weather is like in the lab.

[bigdog]

First of all, I'm not a Republican. Second, computer models aren't science. They are guesswork. Assumptions are plugged in and a predicted result comes out. The prediction is only as good as the assumptions which usually aren't very good. Science relies on real data, not assumptions.

> >>>
> >>> OH THE HUMANITY!!!
> >>
> >> Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
> >> else will clean up the mess?
> >>
> > Do you have any intelligent questions?
>
> You can't even answer this one so I'll leave more difficult ones to later

Why would I waste my time answering such an inane question?

[de chucka]

1) we are talking about climate
2) your ignorance of anything to do with scientific methodology has been
shown.

You are basing your opinion on politics not science. So be it

[de chucka]

Excuse? Just basic science but as that doesn't interest you there is no
point discussing it.

It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
into the discussion.

Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?

So it is with the climate alarmists. They want to frame the issue as
simply as possible by tying CO2 levels to temperature increases. When
you point out instances in which there was a disconnect, then they want
to talk about other factors as reasons why the data doesn't fit their
narrative.

Basic science does not interest you

[de chucka]

Bit left wing for you are they?

Second, computer models aren't science. They are guesswork.
Assumptions are plugged in and a predicted result comes out. The
prediction is only as good as the assumptions which usually aren't very
good. Science relies on real data, not assumptions.

Like data from NASA, NOAA etc ( sorry I forgot that NASA faked the moon
landing)

>>>>>
>>>>> OH THE HUMANITY!!!
>>>>
>>>> Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
>>>> else will clean up the mess?
>>>>
>>> Do you have any intelligent questions?
>>
>> You can't even answer this one so I'll leave more difficult ones to later
>
> Why would I waste my time answering such an inane question?

because it gives an insight to your beliefs

[pyotr filipivich]

It has been documented that those who "believe" in Global Warming
are not open to evidence, because it really isn't "science" - but a
religious cult dressed up with "scientific" sounding verbiage.
--
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.

[benj]

Tell him the Earth is not a jar in a lab and real science is not
performed by 9 year olds. If I say the relevant CO2 band is saturated,
it's because I've actually MEASURED the solar spectra in a lab. His 9
year old has not.

[bigdog]

I'm talking about climate alarmists who point to abnormal weather events as evidence of a climate crisis.

> 2) your ignorance of anything to do with scientific methodology has been
> shown.
>

Your inability to read for comprehension has been shown.

> You are basing your opinion on politics not science. So be it

I am basing my opinion on skepticism. Skepticism is a hallmark of good science. It is the process by which claims are evaluated for validity. A valid claim should have answers for the skeptics. I have seen very few answers to my skepticism. Typically I receive ridicule instead. That doesn't say much for the validity of the claims made by the climate alarmists.

[bigdog]

Keep the ridicule coming. It seems to be all you have in your tool box.

> It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
> simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
> laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
> laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
> into the discussion.
>
> Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?
>

What if they are? What they shows is that many factors dictate a country's violent crime rate. There is no evidence that strictness of gun laws is one of those factors.

> So it is with the climate alarmists. They want to frame the issue as
> simply as possible by tying CO2 levels to temperature increases. When
> you point out instances in which there was a disconnect, then they want
> to talk about other factors as reasons why the data doesn't fit their
> narrative.
>
> Basic science does not interest you

More ridicule. No substance. Easy to ignore. No reason for me to change my lifestyle for a crisis for which I have yet to see any evidence. It's a little chilly this morning. I better turn up my thermostat a few degrees.

[bigdog]

Their models aren't science either. They are guessing too.

> ( sorry I forgot that NASA faked the moon
> landing)
>

Still more ridicule. Still no substance.

> >>>>>
> >>>>> OH THE HUMANITY!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep you don't give a stuff about others. Do you litter because someone
> >>>> else will clean up the mess?
> >>>>
> >>> Do you have any intelligent questions?
> >>
> >> You can't even answer this one so I'll leave more difficult ones to later
> >
> > Why would I waste my time answering such an inane question?
>
> because it gives an insight to your beliefs

I've made it clear what my beliefs are but I'll type them slower this time to make it easier for you to follow along. I believe there is evidence that the earth's climate is warming slightly. I believe human activity is just one of many factors that is leading to that warming and not the most significant one. I don't believe that global warming or climate change or whatever name you want to give it this month is a looming crisis. The climate is constantly changing, we have gone through man warming periods in the past and will continue to do so. Humans have adapted to climate change in the past and will continue to do so. Natural selection will lead to species that are better suited to the changing environment. Climate change will lead to some extinctions and that is also the natural order of things. It has been happening for as long as there has been life on the planet. Most of the plants and animals that once existed are now extinct.

Anything else you want to know?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 05:46:31 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>On 12/01/2018 9:59 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:30 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/01/2018 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>>>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>>>>> 178.63.61.175:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>>>>> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>>>>> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
>>>>
>>>> Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.
>>>
>>> **Read what I wrote. Carefully.
>>
>> Read what I wrote. Carefully.
>>
>
>**I did. I will spell it out more clearly. It seems my communication is,
>at times, unclear:

That probably has to do with your inate ignorance and inability to
communicate in English.

>* 100% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming faster

>than at any time in the past million years.

Wrong. Continuing.....

>* 100% of climate scientists agree that the warming is due to high(er)
>levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Wrong. Continuing.....

>* Something LESS than[..]

Don't care about the "something less than 100%" which is meaningless,
as you should be able to figure out, since 99% is less than 100%, as
is 1%.

>Is that a little clearer?

What's clear is that you're still wrong, as I've already proven.

What you SHOULD have done-- and which we both know you cannot do-- is
provide evidence that EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST ON EARTH is in
agreement with your above statement.

That's what "100%" means here in America- who knows what the fuck it
means by you.

[de chucka]

Than you should look fr them

[de chucka]

?

[de chucka]

I've tried using the data but you ignore it, what is the point of
ponting out the cooling effects of atmospheric particles to someone who
posts "Oh, they will have an answer (excuse) for that."

>
>> It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
>> simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
>> laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
>> laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
>> into the discussion.
>>
>> Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?
>>
> What if they are? What they shows is that many factors dictate a country's violent crime rate. There is no evidence that strictness of gun laws is one of those factors.

Certainly is.

>
>> So it is with the climate alarmists. They want to frame the issue as
>> simply as possible by tying CO2 levels to temperature increases. When
>> you point out instances in which there was a disconnect, then they want
>> to talk about other factors as reasons why the data doesn't fit their
>> narrative.
>>
>> Basic science does not interest you
>
> More ridicule. No substance. Easy to ignore. No reason for me to change my lifestyle for a crisis for which I have yet to see any evidence.

Head in the sand

[benj]

Give up Bigdog. The alarmists are so steeped in their politics they can
see nothing of reason or reality. Reality is they want to collect a
trillion dollars a year to stop a fake problem and then give most (what
they don't keep themselves) away to Third World shitholes where it will
be wasted. And here is the insanity and evil of it all. At the same time
there are REAL environmental problems needing money and effort to be
solved. These include the destruction of rain forests, the pacific
plastic pile, the poaching of certain animals to extinction just to name
a few. And these things actually impact the planetary food chain of
which we are a part. So the alarmists are not only wasting time
promoting a non-problem, but are trying to collect money that they plan
to waste which could have been used to try to solve some pressing REAL
problems. lose-lose.

These Lib alarmists should take a lesson from the gun owners/Hunters
that they so hate and look at their highly successful conservation
programs they imposed on themselves years ago.

[de chucka]

Don't believe the science over your hard right politics so be it It says
a lot about your basic understanding of simple science.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 14/01/2018 1:20 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 05:46:31 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2018 9:59 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:14:30 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/01/2018 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 06:05:28 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>>>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 5:37 PM, Wile E. Coyote wrote:
>>>>>>> Hank Readon <han...@baraksa.su> wrote in news:XnsA866DD8E7A4D0newsdfda@
>>>>>>> 178.63.61.175:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cuz the "consensus" is bullshit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Nope. 100% of all climate scientists on this planet agree that the
>>>>>> planet is warming and warming fast and that humans are most likely the
>>>>>> cause. That humans are the cause is now 95% certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even you aren't stupid enough to think that, Trevor.
>>>>
>>>> **Read what I wrote. Carefully.
>>>
>>> Read what I wrote. Carefully.
>>>
>>
>> **I did. I will spell it out more clearly. It seems my communication is,
>> at times, unclear:
>
> That probably has to do with your inate ignorance and inability to
> communicate in English.

**Probably.

>
>> * 100% of climate scientists agree that the planet is warming faster
>> than at any time in the past million years.
>
> Wrong. Continuing.....
>
>> * 100% of climate scientists agree that the warming is due to high(er)
>> levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Wrong. Continuing.....

**Prove that I am incorrect.

>
>> * Something LESS than[..]
>
> Don't care about the "something less than 100%" which is meaningless,
> as you should be able to figure out, since 99% is less than 100%, as
> is 1%.

**I don't know the precise figure, but it probably lies somewhere around
95% are in agreement.

>
>> Is that a little clearer?
>
> What's clear is that you're still wrong, as I've already proven.

**Have you? Where was that? Perhaps I missed your post.

>
> What you SHOULD have done-- and which we both know you cannot do-- is
> provide evidence that EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST ON EARTH is in
> agreement with your above statement.

**It would be easier to show the number of climate scientists who don't
agree. Since that number presently stands at zero, my job is done.

>
> That's what "100%" means here in America- who knows what the fuck it
> means by you.

**100% means the same everywhere.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

So this time you can't even come up with an excuse.

> >
> >> It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
> >> simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
> >> laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
> >> laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
> >> into the discussion.
> >>
> >> Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?
> >>
> > What if they are? What they shows is that many factors dictate a country's violent crime rate. There is no evidence that strictness of gun laws is one of those factors.
>
> Certainly is.
>

You assumptions aren't evidence of anything.

> >
> >> So it is with the climate alarmists. They want to frame the issue as
> >> simply as possible by tying CO2 levels to temperature increases. When
> >> you point out instances in which there was a disconnect, then they want
> >> to talk about other factors as reasons why the data doesn't fit their
> >> narrative.
> >>
> >> Basic science does not interest you
> >
> > More ridicule. No substance. Easy to ignore. No reason for me to change my lifestyle for a crisis for which I have yet to see any evidence.
>
> Head in the sand
>

More ridicule. No substance. Ho-hum.

[bigdog]

I haven't seen any science coming from you. Just a lot of bluster. You keep trying to bluff you way through. It isn't working.

[de chucka]

Read this as a starting point, anything you don't understand get back to me
Global Warming for Dummies By (author) Elizabeth May and Zoe Caron

https://www.bookdepository.com/Global-Warming-for-Dummies-Elizabeth-May/9780470840986?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base12&utm_source=AU&utm_content=Global-Warming-for-Dummies&selectCurrency=AUD&w=AF45AU9S515P9KA80R7PAC7L&pdg=kwd-104398008339:cmp-680104063:adg-35441289072:crv-151945028117:pid-9780470840986:dev-c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjOfPm6bW2AIVgyQrCh2oQAZcEAYYASABEgJcKvD_BwE

[de chucka]

I never come up with excuses just the science

>>>
>>>> It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
>>>> simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
>>>> laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
>>>> laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
>>>> into the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?
>>>>
>>> What if they are? What they shows is that many factors dictate a country's violent crime rate. There is no evidence that strictness of gun laws is one of those factors.
>>
>> Certainly is.
>>
> You assumptions aren't evidence of anything.

Assumptions, my opinion is based on the current science looking both the
pro and con arguments in papers by scientists

snip

[bigdog]

That book was written for people like you. Not people like me. I'm not a dummy and I'm not worried. What's the matter? You can't make your own arguments. All you can do is post links to other people's arguments.

[bigdog]

My ass.

> >>>
> >>>> It's kind of like the gun grabbers. They want to frame the issue as
> >>>> simply as possible by tying violent crime rates to the strictness of gun
> >>>> laws. When it is pointed out that there are countries with strict gun
> >>>> laws AND high rates of violent crime, then they will throw other factors
> >>>> into the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Aren't these the shitholes Trump refers to?
> >>>>
> >>> What if they are? What they shows is that many factors dictate a country's violent crime rate. There is no evidence that strictness of gun laws is one of those factors.
> >>
> >> Certainly is.
> >>
> > You assumptions aren't evidence of anything.
>
> Assumptions, my opinion is based on the current science looking both the
> pro and con arguments in papers by scientists
>

Yet you seem incapable of articulating your own arguments.

[benj]

Well, Blowhard Trevor has SPOKEN. His "proof by assertion" settles ALL
questions of "climate change"...Not.

No scientist would EVER say that warming is "due" to CO2 in the
atmosphere. The MAJOR factor is water vapor. CO2 is a MINOR factor.
And even if there is debate as to how minor, one cannot say "due to"
implying that it's the ONLY cause. That is just a flat out lie and not
science. IT is not even reasonable speech.

The fact that you alarmist fraudsters are controlling media and even
websites and search engines doesn't mean that your censored "facts" are
true.

It's best to simply ignore all your lies.

[benj]

bigdog it's always the same. You can take their arguments and take them
apart with science bit by bit and throw them in their faces.
but in the very next breath they will act as if you said nothing at all
and repeat the same tired just disproven lies over again. It's the same
technique the gun grabbers use. But then these are largely the same
people, right? Trying to to hold a sane discussion with them is like
pissing into the wind.

[bigdog]

Climate alarmists and gun grabbers do seem to have a lot in common. Emotion trumps reason in their world. Factoids trump facts.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Well, duh. That point was never in dispute. We cannot control water,
vapour, Solar irradience, volcanism and natural releases of CO2. We CAN
control human releases of CO2, however. Not much point discussing stuff
which is beyond our control. There is a great deal of sense discussing
the factors that are under our control.

> And even if there is debate as to how minor, one cannot say "due to"
> implying that it's the ONLY cause.

**I NEVER implied that it was the ONLY cause. Not once, not ever. In
fact, I even included Solar radiation variations in the discussion.

That is just a flat out lie and not
> science. IT is not even reasonable speech.

**It would be a lie, IF I ever stated such a thing. I didn't.

>
> The fact that you alarmist fraudsters are controlling media and even
> websites and search engines doesn't mean that your censored "facts" are
> true.

**What "Censored facts"?

>
> It's best to simply ignore all your lies.

**Sure. You keep your head buried up your arse, if that makes you feel
better. The planet will continue warming anyway.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

If humans quit burning fossil fuels altogether, the planet would probably continue warming anyway. We are in a warming trend. BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG. Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity. That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD. Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature, which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit analysis is in order here. That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.

The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:

"During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."

https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html

Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:22:52 +1100, Trevor Wilson

LOL

I don't have to. YOU made the claim. YOU prove each and ever climate
scientist agrees.

You WON'T, of course, because you CAN'T.

We were done here a long time ago, you're just to stupid to understand
why.

[de chucka]

LOL

I'm not a dummy and I'm not worried. What's the matter? You can't make
your own arguments. All you can do is post links to other people's
arguments.

Yep I'm not a climate scientist
>

[de chucka]

Go for it,

[de chucka]

snip

> Climate alarmists and gun grabbers do seem to have a lot in common. Emotion trumps reason in their world. Factoids trump facts.
>

Surprisingly I am the one that supplies the peer reviewed scientific
papers and you produce rants

[bigdog]

Just a gullible fool.

[de chucka]

Sorry I'll follow the science while you follow your politics and
conspiracy theories, if that makes me gullible so be it

[Trevor Wilson]

**Absolutely! CO2 has a long life-time in the atmosphere. It will be
many years before that CO2 is extracted via natural processes. However,
there are other problems. Due to the fact that the planet is continuing
to warm, we will see more CO2 being outgassed from the oceans and more
methane being outgassed from permafrost regions. It may be appropriate
for humans to find ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

We are in a warming trend.

**Well, duh.

BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG.

**That is a massive over-simplification and fails miserably to expose
the real problem. The way that we judge GHGs is to work out the Solar
forcing factor of those GHGs. In that sense, the figures are:

Water vapour - 36 ~ 72%
CO2 - 9 ~ 26%
Methane - 4 ~ 9%
Ozone - 3 ~ 7%

As can be seen, two things stand out:

* CO2 has a disproportionately larger effect than water vapour, relative
to it's atmospheric concentration.
* Methane has a disproportionately larger effect than CO2, relative to
it's atmospheric concentration.

Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity.

**Another misdirection. If humans generated no CO2, then atmospheric CO2
concentration would remain relatively constant at about 280ppm. Since
the industrial revolution, humans have been adding to that base-line
level. The effect is cumulative. Natural processes do not remove the
extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Thus, we now have a level of almost
400ppm in the atmosphere.

That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In
the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees
Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD.

**The actual temperature rise over the past 150 years has been around
0.8 degrees C. And yes, that is a big fucking deal. You seem to be under
the delusion that 0.8 degrees C is the final figure. It isn't. Not only
is that figure continuing to rise, but it is an AVERAGE figure. Some
places will be warmer and some cooler. Here is a plot of the average
Summer temperatures in Australia:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0

And in Winter:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3D0

Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as
the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have
occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature,
which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are
supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit
analysis is in order here.

**I agree. And, if you perform a cost/benefit analysis, you will find
that burning fossil fuels is killing the planet for future generations.
You'll be fine, so I guess that's all that matters.

That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.

**By "alarmists", I assume you mean every climate scientist on the
planet. Remind me: What are your credentials that you have some kind of
secret information that none of the climate scientists know?

>
> The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:
>
> "During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."
>
> https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
>
> Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.

**You really don't read what I write, do you? I explained the reasons
for the little ice age. Go back and read what I wrote.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Just Wondering]

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

[bigdog]

> conspiracy theories, if that makes me gullible so be it.

A shame you can't learn to think for yourself.

[de chucka]

snip

>>>> I'm not a dummy and I'm not worried. What's the matter? You can't make
>>>> your own arguments. All you can do is post links to other people's
>>>> arguments.
>>>>
>>>> Yep I'm not a climate scientist
>>>
>>> Just a gullible fool.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry I'll follow the science while you follow your politics and
>> conspiracy theories, if that makes me gullible so be it.
>
> A shame you can't learn to think for yourself.

My thoughts are based on the printed peer reviewed literature and basic
science

[bigdog]

Let us know when you have worked that out.

>
> We are in a warming trend.
>
> **Well, duh.
>
>
> BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG.
>
> **That is a massive over-simplification and fails miserably to expose
> the real problem. The way that we judge GHGs is to work out the Solar
> forcing factor of those GHGs. In that sense, the figures are:
>
> Water vapour - 36 ~ 72%
> CO2 - 9 ~ 26%
> Methane - 4 ~ 9%
> Ozone - 3 ~ 7%
>
> As can be seen, two things stand out:
>
> * CO2 has a disproportionately larger effect than water vapour, relative
> to it's atmospheric concentration.
> * Methane has a disproportionately larger effect than CO2, relative to
> it's atmospheric concentration.
>

So it's a lot more complicated than more C02 leads to warmer temperatures.

>
> Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity.
>
> **Another misdirection. If humans generated no CO2, then atmospheric CO2
> concentration would remain relatively constant at about 280ppm. Since
> the industrial revolution, humans have been adding to that base-line
> level. The effect is cumulative. Natural processes do not remove the
> extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Thus, we now have a level of almost
> 400ppm in the atmosphere.
>
>
> That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In
> the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees
> Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD.
>
> **The actual temperature rise over the past 150 years has been around
> 0.8 degrees C. And yes, that is a big fucking deal. You seem to be under
> the delusion that 0.8 degrees C is the final figure. It isn't. Not only
> is that figure continuing to rise, but it is an AVERAGE figure. Some
> places will be warmer and some cooler. Here is a plot of the average
> Summer temperatures in Australia:
>

The earth has seen temperature swings far greater than 0.8C in the past and most of those came before humans even inhabited the planet. Life adjusts. Life goes on.

> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0
>
> And in Winter:
>
> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3D0
>
>
> Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as
> the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have
> occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature,
> which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are
> supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit
> analysis is in order here.
>
> **I agree. And, if you perform a cost/benefit analysis, you will find
> that burning fossil fuels is killing the planet for future generations.
> You'll be fine, so I guess that's all that matters.
>

BULLSHIT!!!

Let me rephrase that.

BULLSHIT!!!

>
> That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.
>
> **By "alarmists", I assume you mean every climate scientist on the
> planet.

You would make a more credible case if you would refrain from these wild exaggerations. It makes it very easy to just laugh you off.

> Remind me: What are your credentials that you have some kind of
> secret information that none of the climate scientists know?
>

My credentials are I am a thinking man who doesn't automatically accept whatever propaganda is fed to me. I am able to think critically and I have raised questions that I have yet to see satisfactory answers for. Until I do, I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.

>
> >
> > The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:
> >
> > "During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."
> >
> > https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
> >
> > Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.
>
> **You really don't read what I write, do you? I explained the reasons
> for the little ice age. Go back and read what I wrote.
>

Oh, I've read all the excuses you guys come up with to explain away inconvenient truths that don't fit your narrative (aka bullshit).

[bigdog]

...of the people you choose to believe.

[de chucka]

Nope I read it all to get a balanced view, OK I do tend to reject
Lott/Mary and Monkton but that is because they have been shown to be wrong

[Trevor Wilson]

**Exactly my point. It is easier to produce less CO2.

>>
>> We are in a warming trend.
>>
>> **Well, duh.
>>
>>
>> BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG.
>>
>> **That is a massive over-simplification and fails miserably to expose
>> the real problem. The way that we judge GHGs is to work out the Solar
>> forcing factor of those GHGs. In that sense, the figures are:
>>
>> Water vapour - 36 ~ 72%
>> CO2 - 9 ~ 26%
>> Methane - 4 ~ 9%
>> Ozone - 3 ~ 7%
>>
>> As can be seen, two things stand out:
>>
>> * CO2 has a disproportionately larger effect than water vapour, relative
>> to it's atmospheric concentration.
>> * Methane has a disproportionately larger effect than CO2, relative to
>> it's atmospheric concentration.
>>
> So it's a lot more complicated than more C02 leads to warmer temperatures.

**Where, precisely, did I make such a claim?

>>
>> Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity.
>>
>> **Another misdirection. If humans generated no CO2, then atmospheric CO2
>> concentration would remain relatively constant at about 280ppm. Since
>> the industrial revolution, humans have been adding to that base-line
>> level. The effect is cumulative. Natural processes do not remove the
>> extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Thus, we now have a level of almost
>> 400ppm in the atmosphere.
>>
>>
>> That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In
>> the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees
>> Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD.
>>
>> **The actual temperature rise over the past 150 years has been around
>> 0.8 degrees C. And yes, that is a big fucking deal. You seem to be under
>> the delusion that 0.8 degrees C is the final figure. It isn't. Not only
>> is that figure continuing to rise, but it is an AVERAGE figure. Some
>> places will be warmer and some cooler. Here is a plot of the average
>> Summer temperatures in Australia:
>>
> The earth has seen temperature swings far greater than 0.8C in the past and most of those came before humans even inhabited the planet. Life adjusts. Life goes on.

**So you keep blathering on about. Trouble is, humans have never had to
survive on a planet as hot as it is now and will become. Sure,
cockroaches might survive, but we and the plants and animals we eat, may
not.

>> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0
>>
>> And in Winter:
>>
>> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3D0
>>
>>
>> Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as
>> the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have
>> occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature,
>> which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are
>> supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit
>> analysis is in order here.
>>
>> **I agree. And, if you perform a cost/benefit analysis, you will find
>> that burning fossil fuels is killing the planet for future generations.
>> You'll be fine, so I guess that's all that matters.
>>
> BULLSHIT!!!
>
> Let me rephrase that.
>
> BULLSHIT!!!

**OK, then, prove it.

>>
>> That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.
>>
>> **By "alarmists", I assume you mean every climate scientist on the
>> planet.
>
> You would make a more credible case if you would refrain from these wild exaggerations. It makes it very easy to just laugh you off.

**What "exaggeration"? Let me remind you: YOU are the one labelling
every climate scientist on the planet, an "alarmist". If you wish to
carry on a logical, reasonable discussion, then YOU need to stop using
emotive, erroneous terms about the thousands of hard-working climate
scientists all over the planet.

>
>> Remind me: What are your credentials that you have some kind of
>> secret information that none of the climate scientists know?
>>
> My credentials are I am a thinking man who doesn't automatically accept whatever propaganda is fed to me. I am able to think critically and I have raised questions that I have yet to see satisfactory answers for. Until I do, I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.

**OK, so you know nothing about climate science. I get that. Why, then,
do you insist that you, alone, are correct and all the planet's climate
scientists are wrong? Remember: YOU just admitted that you have no idea
of climate science.

>>
>>>
>>> The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:
>>>
>>> "During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."
>>>
>>> https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
>>>
>>> Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.
>>
>> **You really don't read what I write, do you? I explained the reasons
>> for the little ice age. Go back and read what I wrote.
>>
> Oh, I've read all the excuses you guys come up with to explain away inconvenient truths that don't fit your narrative (aka bullshit).

**What "inconvenient truths"?



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[bigdog]

You said extract. Producing less isn't extracting.

> >>
> >> We are in a warming trend.
> >>
> >> **Well, duh.
> >>
> >>
> >> BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG.
> >>
> >> **That is a massive over-simplification and fails miserably to expose
> >> the real problem. The way that we judge GHGs is to work out the Solar
> >> forcing factor of those GHGs. In that sense, the figures are:
> >>
> >> Water vapour - 36 ~ 72%
> >> CO2 - 9 ~ 26%
> >> Methane - 4 ~ 9%
> >> Ozone - 3 ~ 7%
> >>
> >> As can be seen, two things stand out:
> >>
> >> * CO2 has a disproportionately larger effect than water vapour, relative
> >> to it's atmospheric concentration.
> >> * Methane has a disproportionately larger effect than CO2, relative to
> >> it's atmospheric concentration.
> >>
> > So it's a lot more complicated than more C02 leads to warmer temperatures.
>
> **Where, precisely, did I make such a claim?
>

Where, precisely did I claim you had?

>
> >>
> >> Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity.
> >>
> >> **Another misdirection. If humans generated no CO2, then atmospheric CO2
> >> concentration would remain relatively constant at about 280ppm. Since
> >> the industrial revolution, humans have been adding to that base-line
> >> level. The effect is cumulative. Natural processes do not remove the
> >> extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Thus, we now have a level of almost
> >> 400ppm in the atmosphere.
> >>
> >>
> >> That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In
> >> the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees
> >> Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD.
> >>
> >> **The actual temperature rise over the past 150 years has been around
> >> 0.8 degrees C. And yes, that is a big fucking deal. You seem to be under
> >> the delusion that 0.8 degrees C is the final figure. It isn't. Not only
> >> is that figure continuing to rise, but it is an AVERAGE figure. Some
> >> places will be warmer and some cooler. Here is a plot of the average
> >> Summer temperatures in Australia:
> >>
> > The earth has seen temperature swings far greater than 0.8C in the past and most of those came before humans even inhabited the planet. Life adjusts. Life goes on.
>
> **So you keep blathering on about. Trouble is, humans have never had to
> survive on a planet as hot as it is now and will become.

No, but they survived a bitter Ice Age which was far more inhospitable than a slight warming. It effected both growing seasons and where crops could be grown.

> Sure,
> cockroaches might survive, but we and the plants and animals we eat, may
> not.
>

I'd be far more concerned about the next Ice Age. During the last one, the earth's population has been estimated to be no more than 10 million. We now have 7.6 billion hungry mouths to feed and who knows how many it will be when the next Ice Age rolls around. If AGW can forestall the next Ice Age, that would be a good thing.

>
> >> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0
> >>
> >> And in Winter:
> >>
> >> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3D0
> >>
> >>
> >> Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as
> >> the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have
> >> occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature,
> >> which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are
> >> supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit
> >> analysis is in order here.
> >>
> >> **I agree. And, if you perform a cost/benefit analysis, you will find
> >> that burning fossil fuels is killing the planet for future generations.
> >> You'll be fine, so I guess that's all that matters.
> >>
> > BULLSHIT!!!
> >
> > Let me rephrase that.
> >
> > BULLSHIT!!!

> **OK, then, prove it.

You are the one who claimed burning fossil fuels is killing the planet. It is up to you to prove that. You assholes are never willing to accept the burden of proving your claims. You think you can blurt out any bullshit you want and it is a valid claim until somebody disproves it. If you can't prove what you say, there is no reason to take you seriously. And I don't. You're just another buffoon banging away at his keyboard acting as if he has some real expertise.

> >>
> >> That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.
> >>
> >> **By "alarmists", I assume you mean every climate scientist on the
> >> planet.
> >
> > You would make a more credible case if you would refrain from these wild exaggerations. It makes it very easy to just laugh you off.
>
> **What "exaggeration"? Let me remind you: YOU are the one labelling
> every climate scientist on the planet, an "alarmist". If you wish to
> carry on a logical, reasonable discussion, then YOU need to stop using
> emotive, erroneous terms about the thousands of hard-working climate
> scientists all over the planet.

You are the one claiming every climate scientist on the planet is on your side of this argument. I'd love to see you prove that buy I know you won't because you can't.

>
>
> >
> >> Remind me: What are your credentials that you have some kind of
> >> secret information that none of the climate scientists know?
> >>
> > My credentials are I am a thinking man who doesn't automatically accept whatever propaganda is fed to me. I am able to think critically and I have raised questions that I have yet to see satisfactory answers for. Until I do, I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.
>
> **OK, so you know nothing about climate science.

I don't pretend to. I do have a well tuned bullshit detector. I know when somebody is trying to bluster his way through a discussion. One of the telltale signs is when the sidestep the questions I ask.

> I get that. Why, then,
> do you insist that you, alone, are correct and all the planet's climate
> scientists are wrong? Remember: YOU just admitted that you have no idea
> of climate science.
>

I'm not the one making claims. I am the one calling on the people who make the claims to prove their case. Telling me I should quit asking questions and just accept what I am being told doesn't cut it.

> >>
> >>>
> >>> The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:
> >>>
> >>> "During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."
> >>>
> >>> https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
> >>>
> >>> Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.
> >>
> >> **You really don't read what I write, do you? I explained the reasons
> >> for the little ice age. Go back and read what I wrote.
> >>
> > Oh, I've read all the excuses you guys come up with to explain away inconvenient truths that don't fit your narrative (aka bullshit).
>
> **What "inconvenient truths"?
>

How about the earth cooling for about 40 years while CO2 levels were increasing.

[Trevor Wilson]

**I said:

"It may be appropriate for humans to find ways to extract CO2 from the
atmosphere."

>>>>

>>>> We are in a warming trend.
>>>>
>>>> **Well, duh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BFD. CO2 comprises about 3.6% of all GHG.
>>>>
>>>> **That is a massive over-simplification and fails miserably to expose
>>>> the real problem. The way that we judge GHGs is to work out the Solar
>>>> forcing factor of those GHGs. In that sense, the figures are:
>>>>
>>>> Water vapour - 36 ~ 72%
>>>> CO2 - 9 ~ 26%
>>>> Methane - 4 ~ 9%
>>>> Ozone - 3 ~ 7%
>>>>
>>>> As can be seen, two things stand out:
>>>>
>>>> * CO2 has a disproportionately larger effect than water vapour, relative
>>>> to it's atmospheric concentration.
>>>> * Methane has a disproportionately larger effect than CO2, relative to
>>>> it's atmospheric concentration.
>>>>
>>> So it's a lot more complicated than more C02 leads to warmer temperatures.
>>
>> **Where, precisely, did I make such a claim?
>>
> Where, precisely did I claim you had?

**You said:

"So it's a lot more complicated than more C02 leads to warmer temperatures."

Was that a statement or a question?

If it was a statement, then it is wrong.
If it was a question, then it doesn't relate to what I said.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Of that 3.6%, only about 5.25% is produced by human activity.
>>>>
>>>> **Another misdirection. If humans generated no CO2, then atmospheric CO2
>>>> concentration would remain relatively constant at about 280ppm. Since
>>>> the industrial revolution, humans have been adding to that base-line
>>>> level. The effect is cumulative. Natural processes do not remove the
>>>> extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Thus, we now have a level of almost
>>>> 400ppm in the atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That means humans 0.189% of GHG is produced by human activity. BFD. In
>>>> the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3 degrees
>>>> Celsius (.5 degree Fahrenheit). BFD.
>>>>
>>>> **The actual temperature rise over the past 150 years has been around
>>>> 0.8 degrees C. And yes, that is a big fucking deal. You seem to be under
>>>> the delusion that 0.8 degrees C is the final figure. It isn't. Not only
>>>> is that figure continuing to rise, but it is an AVERAGE figure. Some
>>>> places will be warmer and some cooler. Here is a plot of the average
>>>> Summer temperatures in Australia:
>>>>
>>> The earth has seen temperature swings far greater than 0.8C in the past and most of those came before humans even inhabited the planet. Life adjusts. Life goes on.
>>
>> **So you keep blathering on about. Trouble is, humans have never had to
>> survive on a planet as hot as it is now and will become.
>
> No, but they survived a bitter Ice Age which was far more inhospitable than a slight warming. It effected both growing seasons and where crops could be grown.

**How many humans died during this period? Approximately what percentage
of the total population died?

Additionally, the Little Ice Age ended. The warming period we are
experiencing may continue unabated. An average rise of 10 degrees C is
not an unreasonable expectation.

>
>> Sure,
>> cockroaches might survive, but we and the plants and animals we eat, may
>> not.
>>
> I'd be far more concerned about the next Ice Age.

**Why? You keep blathering on about ice ages, yet there is ZERO evidence
that such an event is in our near (or distant) future. Let me remind you
once more:

RISING temperatures do not indicate an impending ice age.
FALLING temperatures may indicate an impending ice age.

During the last one, the earth's population has been estimated to be
no more than 10 million. We now have 7.6 billion hungry mouths to feed
and who knows how many it will be when the next Ice Age rolls around. If
AGW can forestall the next Ice Age, that would be a good thing.

**Not if the cure is worse than the disease. Rising temperatures will
cause massive inundation and disruption and displacement to populations
all over the planet. Floridians will need someone else to live. As will
residents of NYC. And London. And Bangladesh. Etc. Where do you plan on
housing 300 million Bangladeshis?

>>
>>>> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0
>>>>
>>>> And in Winter:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Dtmean%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0608%26ave_yr%3D0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that we were coming out of an abnormally cool period known as
>>>> the Little Ice Age, it is likely some of that warming would have
>>>> occurred anyway. Because of that miniscule rise in global temperature,
>>>> which we don't even know how much is due to human activity, we are
>>>> supposed to do without the benefits of fossil fuels. A cost/benefit
>>>> analysis is in order here.
>>>>
>>>> **I agree. And, if you perform a cost/benefit analysis, you will find
>>>> that burning fossil fuels is killing the planet for future generations.
>>>> You'll be fine, so I guess that's all that matters.
>>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>>>
>>> Let me rephrase that.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT!!!
>
>> **OK, then, prove it.
>
> You are the one who claimed burning fossil fuels is killing the planet.

**The evidence is there for all to see.

It is up to you to prove that.

**Done.

You assholes are never willing to accept the burden of proving your
claims. You think you can blurt out any bullshit you want and it is a
valid claim until somebody disproves it. If you can't prove what you
say, there is no reason to take you seriously. And I don't. You're just
another buffoon banging away at his keyboard acting as if he has some
real expertise.

**I've submitted the proof. Your problem is your failure to understand
basic science. What YOU need to do, is recognise your considerable
intellectual limitations and listen to those who know more than you do.

>
>>>>
>>>> That is an equation the alarmists don't seem to have a grasp of.
>>>>
>>>> **By "alarmists", I assume you mean every climate scientist on the
>>>> planet.
>>>
>>> You would make a more credible case if you would refrain from these wild exaggerations. It makes it very easy to just laugh you off.
>>
>> **What "exaggeration"? Let me remind you: YOU are the one labelling
>> every climate scientist on the planet, an "alarmist". If you wish to
>> carry on a logical, reasonable discussion, then YOU need to stop using
>> emotive, erroneous terms about the thousands of hard-working climate
>> scientists all over the planet.
>
> You are the one claiming every climate scientist on the planet is on your side of this argument. I'd love to see you prove that buy I know you won't because you can't.

**Asked and answered.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Remind me: What are your credentials that you have some kind of
>>>> secret information that none of the climate scientists know?
>>>>
>>> My credentials are I am a thinking man who doesn't automatically accept whatever propaganda is fed to me. I am able to think critically and I have raised questions that I have yet to see satisfactory answers for. Until I do, I'm not going to drink the Kool-Aid.
>>
>> **OK, so you know nothing about climate science.
>
> I don't pretend to.

**That much is obvious. Which begs the question: Why do you insist that
you know more than all the world's climate scientists?

I do have a well tuned bullshit detector. I know when somebody is
trying to bluster his way through a discussion. One of the telltale
signs is when the sidestep the questions I ask.

**I sidestep nothing. I have answered every one of your questions. That
you cannot understand the answers is not my responsibility.

>
>
>> I get that. Why, then,
>> do you insist that you, alone, are correct and all the planet's climate
>> scientists are wrong? Remember: YOU just admitted that you have no idea
>> of climate science.
>>
> I'm not the one making claims.

**Oh yes, you are. Here are a handful of your insane claims:

"In the past century, global temperature has increase a whopping .3
degrees Celsius"

"A strong case has been made that it is temperature change which causes
rising CO2 levels as rising CO2 is a lagging indicator."

"Almost all the climate models from 20 years ago overshot the mark for
how much temperature change there would be. Science is very good at
explaining what has happened but the track record for predicting the
future has not been so good.

"So far you've managed to dodge every point I've made and hurled insults
rather than replied with substance."

"But I'm not too concerned because scientists have a very poor track
record of predicting the future."

"That's been the history of the planet. Climate changes. The face of the
globe changes. Humans adapt to the changes. I see no reason that won't
continue to happen."

"The current crop of climate scientists have almost all overshot the
mark as far as predicted temperature increase goes."

"I don't give a shit if global temperatures go up another degree during
the next 100 years. Somehow I think people will adjust."

"Second, computer models aren't science. They are guesswork. Assumptions
are plugged in and a predicted result comes out. The prediction is only
as good as the assumptions which usually aren't very good. Science
relies on real data, not assumptions."

"Humans have adapted to climate change in the past and will continue
to do so. Natural selection will lead to species that are better suited
to the changing environment. Climate change will lead to some
extinctions and that is also the natural order of things. It has been
happening for as long as there has been life on the planet."

I am the one calling on the people who make the claims to prove their
case. Telling me I should quit asking questions and just accept what I
am being told doesn't cut it.

**I have no problem with people asking questions. I have big problems
with people either ignoring the answers, or displaying a monumental
ignorance of science.

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The end of the Little Ice Age began came about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution which may or may not be coincidental. Maybe the climate alarmists would like us to return to those good old days. Look at what we are missing out on due to global warming:
>>>>>
>>>>> "During the Little Ice Age, average global temperatures were 1-1.5 degree Celsius (2-3 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than they are today. The cooler temperatures were caused by a combination of less solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. Cooling caused glaciers to advance and stunted tree growth. Livestock died, harvests failed, and humans suffered from famine and disease."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://windows2universe.org/?page=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were the days, my friend. Those were the days.
>>>>
>>>> **You really don't read what I write, do you? I explained the reasons
>>>> for the little ice age. Go back and read what I wrote.
>>>>
>>> Oh, I've read all the excuses you guys come up with to explain away inconvenient truths that don't fit your narrative (aka bullshit).
>>
>> **What "inconvenient truths"?
>>
> How about the earth cooling for about 40 years while CO2 levels were increasing.

**Asked and answered, you moron. Aerosols. It was not until the 1970s
that the US and other nations implemented pollution controls on
automobiles and industrial activities. This resulted in a sharp increase
in temperatures. It was shown, during the period after 9/11, that the
lack of jet trails over the US, resulted in a sharp increase in average
temperatures. As soon as planes resumed flying, temperatures fell.
Aerosol pollution was bad for people, but good for the planet.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au