Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

And there's more....

Oh, and no surprise to find out the Strong has been a guest of the Koch Brothers' Heartland Institute.

Every single one of these Climate Deniers is on the fossil fuel payroll.

How can people be so dumb as to ignore it?

Even by the exceedingly low standards of Australia’s climate skeptic community, your report is dire. You direct me to Appendix 13. It is littered with errors of all kinds: a mish-mash of muddled conjecture, impossible leaps of logic, fundamental misunderstandings of the scientific method, misread and misquoted research that has been poorly cited, internal contradictions, confused dates, spelling mistakes, and strangled grammar. It is, in all respects, a dud.

I am not going to comply with your demand that I ‘‘identify, specify and justify’’ all the errors in your report. There are too many. However, this should not be read as a reluctance on my part to address your complaints. You will recall that, many months ago, you asked me to provide you with some empirical evidence of human-induced climate change, and I immediately sent you a series of peer-reviewed papers that did just that.

You responded, a month later, after lengthy consultation with your science advisor Tim Ball (not ‘‘Tim Tall’’, as you call him in your report). You advanced an unpublished and frankly bizarre theory about underwater volcanoes. Apparently these hidden volcanoes conveniently rumbled to life at just the right rate to mimic both the rise and isotopic signature of human-generated atmospheric CO2. With theories like this, it is not difficult to see why even other climate skeptics have distanced themselves from your work.

Your report tries to allege that there are factual errors in my reporting. If you honestly believe this, there is a fairly simple way to deal with it: request a correction from the newspaper. Your requests will be independently considered on their merits by people other than me. It is remarkable that you allege thousands of errors, spanning a period of several years, yet have not sought to address them in this straightforward, transparent way.

You demand I declare my ‘‘personal financial interests in advocating the claim that human CO2 should be cut’’. First, I’m not advocating anything in particular, apart from fact-based reporting. Second, I have no financial interest in any industry related to emissions cuts. Nor have I worked for coal companies, as you have.

As I’ve made clear in earlier replies to your many emails, I don’t mind a civil discussion about environment reporting or climate change. But until you start to ground your opinions in fact, I will continue to regard your correspondence as amusing spam.

I'm glad you posted that Brian Cox video too
Have you ever seen one of his tv shows ..I wish i had his air miles points..


The carbon footprint of Prof Brian Cox as he seeks to understand the mysteries of the universe



But it looks like even Cox admits climate changes benefits..
Change is good , it drives evolution

he (Cox) lined up several skulls of antique varieties of human in order of increasing brain size, and then posited climate change as the driver for each observed increase in size

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...w-of-evolution

Well done blue, you've managed to conflate two separate issues and show that you understand neither in the process.

The denialists on here lack even a fundamental understanding of science don't they. And they're all a bit thick. The two are related.

At least we're dealing with thickies and not the insane...

An Irish MP has claimed the Biblical story about Noah’s Ark supports his view that climate change is not being caused by humans because “God above is in charge of the weather”.

Noah's Ark story is a 'fact' that disproves climate change, says Irish MP | Europe | News | The Independent

Did you notice the size of the beach area in that video? It looks larger then I remember back in 74 when I first saw it. Does that mean the ocean actually receded?

As to relocating 1 tiny village in the whole world, omg 1 tiny village out of the whole world after more then 30 years of global warming crisis. What will be next? The whole east coast of the US I bet. Maybe that 1 village was badly placed out of all the 7 billion plus people in the world? Hmmm could that be a possibility?

The world is made up of tectonic plates some rising some sinking, the german Baltic coast is sinking, their land area is shrinking, the winner here is the plate Sweden is on which is rising on top of it, so if you own land on the south coast of Sweden it grows every year.

Oh no ill say it in advance all this has been debunked it can only be MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!! Mankind is guilty, mankind must be punished, mankind must be made subservient to greenkhmer policies.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Did you notice the size of the beach area in that video? It looks larger then I remember back in 74 when I first saw it. Does that mean the ocean actually receded?

As to relocating 1 tiny village in the whole world, omg 1 tiny village out of the whole world after more then 30 years of global warming crisis. What will be next? The whole east coast of the US I bet. Maybe that 1 village was badly placed out of all the 7 billion plus people in the world? Hmmm could that be a possibility?

The world is made up of tectonic plates some rising some sinking, the german Baltic coast is sinking, their land area is shrinking, the winner here is the plate Sweden is on which is rising on top of it, so if you own land on the south coast of Sweden it grows every year.

Oh no ill say it in advance all this has been debunked it can only be MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!! Mankind is guilty, mankind must be punished, mankind must be made subservient to greenkhmer policies.

Fuck me, look, it managed to dribble several paragraphs of gibberish without mentioning the shitty climate depot once!

The denialists on here lack even a fundamental understanding of science don't they. And they're all a bit thick. The two are related.

...

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Did you notice the size of the beach area in that video? It looks larger then I remember back in 74 when I first saw it. Does that mean the ocean actually receded?

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Did you notice the size of the beach area in that video? It looks larger then I remember back in 74 when I first saw it. Does that mean the ocean actually receded?

Again, you really should f off.

The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe’s merry band, writing:

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe’s claim that Theon was Hansen’s supervisor is completely untrue:

Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…

Read the last bit closely. Being “in effect” Hansen’s supervisor is here contrasted with being “in reality” Hansen’s supervisor–being the guy who gives Hansen his annual performance appraisal, in other words–which, frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.

Gavin Schmidt writes:

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

And Joe Romm finds some more misrepresentations in Inhofe’s press release:

There's more
So who is John S Theon? ? Deltoid

Newbies should review the thread before posting their poor attempts at BS.
It would the rest of us time save themselves from looking the fool.

Every year, the cap of frozen seawater floating on top of the Arctic Ocean and its neighboring seas melts during the spring and summer and grows back in the fall and winter months, reaching its maximum yearly extent between February and April. On March 24, Arctic sea ice extent peaked at 5.607 million square miles (14.52 million square kilometers), a new record low winter maximum extent in the satellite record that started in 1979. It is slightly smaller than the previous record low maximum extent of 5.612 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers) that occurred last year. The 13 smallest maximum extents on the satellite record have happened in the last 13 years.

2016 Arctic Sea Ice Wintertime Extent Hits Another Record Low | NASA

When are the smart science deniers going to start posting? Oh wait there are none.

Originally Posted by MrG

The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe’s merry band, writing:

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe’s claim that Theon was Hansen’s supervisor is completely untrue:

Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…

Read the last bit closely. Being “in effect” Hansen’s supervisor is here contrasted with being “in reality” Hansen’s supervisor–being the guy who gives Hansen his annual performance appraisal, in other words–which, frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.

Gavin Schmidt writes:

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

And Joe Romm finds some more misrepresentations in Inhofe’s press release:

There's more
So who is John S Theon? ? Deltoid

Newbies should review the thread before posting their poor attempts at BS.
It would the rest of us time save themselves from looking the fool.

Another one bites the dust. Its always the same old shit repeated ad nauseum. The same articles, the same thing over and over. Its all been discredited and debunked time and time again in this thread. Yet they keep reposting the same shit.

Smart climate depot poster referring all who wonder what is happening to an article on climate depot. Article on the right under 411, the city of twente the Netherlands temperature dropped to 0 degrees at night, historically the coldest there in all its recorded history, all while all around it its the warmest in the recorded history of the world.

Don't ask me how this happened, it must of been some rare air flow from the arctic that made its way unnoticed to Holland and stopped dead in twente and then got measured.

Or else maybe something else is going on? Like falsified temperatures from noaa and nasa weather depts. since obammination handed them over to the greenkhmer who weaponized them in order to push their extreme left wing policies and scare everyone into voting for them this election.

Oh let me say it for you, pulparien F U.

^ You are a moron.

People need to know the truth, and the truth is there are so many holes in the argument for global warming that you can drive mack trucks through it. Its swiss cheese science and an embarrassment. Its based on the greens reputation they earned in the 70s and 80s when they did great things for the world, and then they got taken over bye the extreme left wingers. The greens learned back then that they could lie and lie and no one would hold them accountable for it.

Welll sorreeeeeeee but I'm holding the dishonest watermelongreens accountable. Left wing media is complicit in the free ride you get in the west. How does it feel with the light shone on your propaganda.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

People need to know the truth, and the truth is there are so many holes in the argument for global warming that you can drive mack trucks through it.

Can you provide some "credible" sources to back that claim up? I thought not.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

How does it feel with the light shone on your propaganda.

Who has done that and what is this propaganda you are talking about? I am not the one that quotes from a debunked science denial website that is backed by the Koch brothers and big oil that is you. You spew all this conspiracy nonsense and can not even come close to backing any of its up. You have nothing.

Funny how science drifts in and out of fashion, like the tides.

"Crustal stability, hydraulic action of oceans and the moon's gravitational effect".

Please discuss with reference to changing sea levels.

Har,har.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

People need to know the truth

And they're not going to getting it from your lame-arsed selection of Exxon Mobil puff sites then, are they dickhead?

Snowed in Wyoming yesterday.

^ And it means absolutely nothing other than you are completely clueless when it comes to climate change. You should post about something you understand like your adult diapers.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Snowed in Wyoming yesterday.

Wyoming gets as much as 200 inches of snow a year in places.

Do you think climate change means it just stops overnight?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Wyoming gets as much as 200 inches of snow a year in places.

Not to mention that most of it is over 5000+ feet above sea level. Tends to snow a lot in a place like that in fact last time I drove through it was a September and guess what it was snowing.

Lets be quick to point out though that throughout most of the rest of the country it has been a record hot summer.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Wyoming gets as much as 200 inches of snow a year in places.

Not to mention that most of it is over 5000+ feet above sea level. Tends to snow a lot in a place like that in fact last time I drove through it was a September and guess what it was snowing.

Lets be quick to point out though that throughout most of the rest of the country it has been a record hot summer.

So 97% of the scientific community are in agreement that we are facing a global environmental crisis.

So why aren't the United Nations, the leaders of the civilized world and the USA federal goverment in particular doing something to counteract and stem the damage being done to the planet by the petro/plastic world economies?
Why aren't more zero emmission mandates being proposed instead of being repealed?
Why isn't petrol and plastic rationing being proposed?
Why aren't renewable resources like bamboo, hemp, cotton taking the place of petro/plastic products?

These are questions precious few are asking or even aware of.

The media isn't asking them becuase they are owned.
Governments aren't asking them because they are owned.
The education system isn't asking because they are owned.
Most people aren't asking because they too are owned by a petro/plastic banking cabal bent on greed and global domination.

It is time for people to start asking these uncomfortable and inconveneint questions, regardless if it means petrol rationing, zero emmission mandates, and a few less hamburgers. No more fat subsidies for the meat industry which is also raping the planet.