Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

References...? Data...? Examples...? Anything....?

No. Nothing. Figures.

On arctic ice notice how he posts august 14th chart, were now sept 5th over half a month later. Your tacky attempt to hide what's going on has been seen through. Folks lets hope this is an aberration cause if its real then winter is coming early, hard and nasty.

Oh btw how can the arctic go into an early, massive freeze up with the temps up there at record levels???? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and its the greens constant falsification of information and never stopping the repeating of those lies. Simply go to climatedepot.com under 411 on the right you will find this post with a 6 min video on it plus graphs etc. The greens may be about to start panicking because their lies might be about to hit an Ice Wall.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

References...? Data...? Examples...? Anything....?

No. Nothing. Figures.

Do you even know what carbon credits are?

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Oh btw how can the arctic go into an early, massive freeze up with the temps up there at record levels????

Its not you nitwit and you have no credible data that it is. Just your stupid propagada website.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

On arctic ice notice how he posts august 14th chart, were now sept 5th over half a month later.

From August 31st...

Record-Low Arctic Sea Ice Is the 'New Normal,' NASA Says

From September 1st...

NASA Video Shows The Severity Of The Arctic Sea Ice Melt

From today...



https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

You have been clowned with science.

^
Well that was easy enough.

Originally Posted by MrG

Well that was easy enough.

Its easy with all of these denialist morons. They are not very smart.

The falsifier simply posts graphs from green controlled sites, here is where you go to.
Arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere and the top right map is of arctic ice, covering every year going back 20 30 years. This is the Danish satellite website and now that the greens openly lie you all can see there panicking.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The falsifier simply posts graphs from green controlled sites

You really are a moron.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere and the top right map is of arctic ice, covering every year going back 20 30 years. This is the Danish satellite website and now that the greens openly lie you all can see there panicking.

Danish huh?

uiuc.edu is the University of Illinois you spastic. Right on the site you listed it states;

"Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA, NSIDC, U. Bremen"

Now scroll up to the image I posted above. Where did it originate?

University of Bremen.

The same source that your website gets its data.

Why are these denialists so stupid?

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pulvarien

The falsifier simply posts graphs from green controlled sites

You really are a moron.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere and the top right map is of arctic ice, covering every year going back 20 30 years. This is the Danish satellite website and now that the greens openly lie you all can see there panicking.

Danish huh?

uiuc.edu is the University of Illinois you spastic. Right on the site you listed it states;

"Snow and ice data provided by the National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA, NSIDC, U. Bremen"

Now scroll up to the image I posted above. Where did it originate?

University of Bremen.

The same source that your website gets its data.

Why are these denialists so stupid?

The poorly educated.

Trump loves them.

IF you go to the link I provided and clik on it you will see the ice coverage maps in the arctic are totally opposite what these greenshills have provided and now its totally refrozen. Their desperation is transparent, the arctic has refrozen weeks or is it months ahead of schedule which totally puts the lie to their statements. These maps have been updated daily for years and if you believe them your in for some nasty shocks.

If his map showing no ice in the arctic is right then where are the stories showing the British sailboat circumventing the arctic to show that it is truly ice free. There aren't any because the ice that isn't there stopped it just as I posted earlier. And if that ice stopped it then why isn't it being shown on his maps? The greens fibbing gets curiouser and curiouser, desperation.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

If his map showing no ice in the arctic is right then where are the stories showing the British sailboat circumventing the arctic to show that it is truly ice free.

How about a luxury cruise liner?

In Warmer Climate, A Luxury Cruise Sets Sail Through Northwest Passage


It has 13 decks, eight restaurants, a casino and a spa. Staterooms start at about $20,000 and run as high as $120,000.

And it's about to journey through the Northwest Passage.




A map detailing the Northwest Passage route where the Crystal Serenity cruise ship will travel between Alaska and New York City.

Crystal Cruises

The Crystal Serenity is the largest cruise ship to navigate from Alaska to New York City, by way of the Arctic Ocean. And as climate change opens up the top of the world, it may be just the first taste of what's to come.

Sitting in one of those pricey staterooms, passenger Moira Somers says that for most of the people onboard, the ship is as much a destination as the Arctic.
"When you start your cruise ... and you see the ship, it's goosebump stuff," she says.

Somers and her husband live in Victoria, British Columbia, and they are regular cruisers. But this time is different.


"Maybe we're not so sure what we're letting ourselves in for?" she says. "But there's so much, we've read so much, we've prepared ourselves, and we know it's a big thing."


Until about a decade ago, the Northwest Passage could be reliably navigated only by ships with icebreaking capabilities — even in the summer. But a warming Arctic has meant increasingly ice-free summers.


And while smaller cruise ships have visited the region for years, the Crystal Serenity, with more than 1,600 guests and crew, is by far the biggest. It's a dry run for large-scale tourism in a region that hasn't seen anything quite like it.
The man in charge, Capt. Birger Vorland, is not concerned.


Vorland has spent 38 years at sea. Vorland, who is originally from Norway, says the Northwest Passage has special meaning.


"My countryman, Roald Amundsen, did the first transit here between 1903 and 1906," Vorland says. "We're going to do it in 32 days and in a lot more comfort."


Standing on the navigation bridge, Vorland ticks off the special preparations for the trip: systems to detect ice, two Canadian ice pilots to assist him, an escort ship in case he runs into trouble.


"We have crossed all the t's, dotted all the i's," he says. "Nobody has ever planned a cruise as diligently and as detailed as Crystal Cruises has done for this particular voyage."


As the ship gets ready to leave Seward, Alaska, there's an emergency drill. In the casino, guests wearing life jackets gather around a sign that reads, "Lifeboat 6."
Despite Vorland's assurances, plenty of people are worried about what happens if this scenario plays out in real life.


"There's absolutely no capacity to respond to accidents," says Elena Agarkova, who tracks shipping for the World Wildlife Fund conservation group.

She says there's very little search and rescue infrastructure in the region — a major concern for authorities. Some of the communities it is visiting have populations smaller than the ship itself.




Agarkova points out the question isn't just whether the Crystal Serenity is ready for the Arctic, but if the Arctic is ready for the Crystal Serenity.


"The main reason why this ship is able to go up to Northwest Passage is climate change — the melting of the Arctic ice, which is threatening the very wildlife that this cruise ship is promising to its passengers," Agarkova says.


That tension isn't lost on passenger Somers.


"One kind of feels — I won't say guilty, but you're taking advantage of what is happening," she says.


Somers hopes the cruise is drawing attention to climate change. But she has more immediate goals, too.


"My big dream is to see a polar bear," she says.
The Crystal Serenity is scheduled to arrive in New York City on Sept. 16.


In Warmer Climate, A Luxury Cruise Sets Sail Through Northwest Passage : NPR


Another excellent National Geographic article about it here;


https://www.britannica.com/biography/Roald-Amundsen


The cruise ships itinerary;


Voyage Detail


As of right know it appears to be crossing the Davis Strait.

^ If my map is fake then I would imagine that ship is stuck in an ice field right now according to you.


Climatedepot

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

References...? Data...? Examples...? Anything....?

No. Nothing. Figures.

What are you looking for, a lecture on third world governments.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

References...? Data...? Examples...? Anything....?

No. Nothing. Figures.

What are you looking for, a lecture on third world governments.

No, some actual FACTS you old fool.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

References...? Data...? Examples...? Anything....?

No. Nothing. Figures.

What are you looking for, a lecture on third world governments.

No, some actual FACTS you old fool.

Maybe for once you and mister g string could employ some common sense.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by nisakiman

current 'scientific consensus' (which is actually nothing of the sort, as there are many climatologists who disagree)

Why don't you name all these climatologists who disagree? I challenge you to do it. I dare you.

Another science denier attempted to do it on this thread and failed epically.

I await your response.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.

A majority of earth and climate scientists are convinced by the evidence that humans are significantly contributing to global warming.[1][2]
This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies.

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.[6]
These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;[7] the consensus has strengthened over time.[8][9]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[10] the Oregon Petition,[11] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[12] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[13][14][15]

For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report's three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Few of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature; most are from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

NB: Only individuals who have their own Wikipedia article may be included in the list.

Contents
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][21]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[43][44]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[45][46][47]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[48][49]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[50][51]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[52][53]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[54]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[55][56][57][58]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[59]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[60][61]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[62][63]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[64][65]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[66][67]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[68][69]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[70]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[71]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[72][73]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[74][75][76]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[77][78][79]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[80][81]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[82][83]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[84][85]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[86][87]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[88][89]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[90][91]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[92][93]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[94][95]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[96][97]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[98][99]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[100][101]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[102][103]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[104][105]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[106][107]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[108][109]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[110][111][112]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[113][114]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[115][116]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[117][118][119][120]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[121][122]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[123][124]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[125][126]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[127][128]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[129][130]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[131][132]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[133][134]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[135][136]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[137][138]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[139][140][141]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[142][143]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[144][145]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[146][147]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[148][149]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[150][151]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[152][153][154]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [155][156]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[157][158]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[159][160]
Deceased scientists

This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[161]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[162]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[163][164]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[165][166]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[167][168][169]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[170]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[162][171]

Wikipedia › wiki › List_of_scientists_op...

What a mess you posted. Why try to cling to science? You are a creationist denier so piss off
Snubbles:
Remember this comment on a recent red over the above post. My question is,why do you continually drag these threads of topic, then blame me after I respond to your attacks.

You clown that post was already address and discounted. Why don't you help your buddy pulvarian get out of the mess he made for himself. He and probably you as well seem to think the arctic is frozen solid but we have a god damned cruise ship steaming through it right now.

You clowns excel at making yourselves look stupid.

Now why don't you answer Harry's question and provided some credible evidence to back up your absurd claim that scientific organizations are being paid off with carbon credits. We are waiting..

Originally Posted by bsnub

You clown that post was already address and discounted. Why don't you help your buddy pulvarian get out of the mess he made for himself. He and probably you as well seem to think the arctic is frozen solid but we have a god damned cruise ship steaming through it right now.

You clowns excel at making yourselves look stupid.

Now why don't you answer Harry's question and provided some credible evidence to back up your absurd claim that scientific organizations are being paid off with carbon credits. We are waiting..

I see that went right over your head, the post about the comment that came with the red was addressing the fact trying to dismiss my posts relevancy by throwing in the creationist remark, which obviously will draw a response from me drags these threads of point,and when I do respond you try to blame.

Denialists really are the new Flat Earthers.

I wonder if there is a correlation between belief in Creationism and climate change denial. I've a sneaking suspicion that there is.

^^ I am just going to assume at this point you have no way of proving the shit you post. You make absurd claims and then can not back them up. What a complete waste of time you are. Typical denialist.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I wonder if there is a correlation between belief in Creationism and climate change denial. I've a sneaking suspicion that there is.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I was or saying scientific organizations are being paid of with carbon credits

Could you possibly say that again. In English this time.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I was saying if you look at the list you might recognize a few third world countries, if you cared to check it out third world countries sell carbon credits, of course they have an interest in promoting carbon based global warming don't be such an idiot.

Kinda missed the entire point of the carbon credit/trading system there but never mind, to be expected, however where is your actual proof for either of those claims...

Today on the site that cannot be named the lead article is about NOAA manipulating data falsely in relation to the big storm that just hit Louisiana. Later in the article Obama announces that he is renaming Noaa to now be called the Bureau of Manipulation. This article basically says that the greens who have been put in charge of NOAA, the EPA, and NASA's weather dept simply falsify information in order to prove global warming. AAANNNNDDDDD the hard core greens on this site simply quote it over and over in order to prove their points, and then they congratulate each other on how dumb they make deniers look.

WEEEEEELLLL ive got news for you, in Nov obammination will be out and so will the hard core greens in the govt. And there will be a beeeggg investigation on the lines of RICO on what has gone on and all your friends are going to be in trouble, beeegggg trouble. And then you all can protest how your friends have unjustly lost their jobs, their pensions, their legal govt status organizations, some their freedom. The game will be up and the sun will shine on science again, and the greens will be revealed as the the new pravada.

Climatedepot.com for the win.