I highlighted one of the unhinged pieces by the LA Times editorial board on climate change yesterday. Here’s the other
Editorial: Climate change is already here. 2020 could be your last chance to stop an apocalypse
The world is drifting steadily toward a climate catastrophe. For many of us, that’s been clear for a few years or maybe a decade or even a few decades.
But others have known that a reckoning was coming for much longer. A Swedish scientist first calculated in 1896 that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to warmer global temperatures. By the 1930s, scientists were measuring the increase, and in the late 1960s, they had documented the impact of melting ice in Antarctica. By 1977, Exxon-Mobil had recognized its own role in the warming of the ocean, the polar ice melt and the rising sea level.
What caused the previous Holocene warm periods, some of which were much warmer than today? Why is sea rise exactly average, when it should be much higher during a warm period? Why have there been numerous pauses, and even a slight cooling period, during this Modern Warm Period? Why are most areas of Antarctica not warming? Really, nothing else they offer further in the article proves anthropogenic causation, just that there has been slight warming since 1850.
Anyhow, it’s a good thing that this is all about science, not politics
For three years, Americans have been living under the willfully blind, anti-scientific, business-coddling rule of President Trump, who has stubbornly chosen climate denial over rationality. We now have an opportunity to resoundingly reject his policies by voting him out of office, along with congressional Republicans who enable him. There are plenty of reasons to fight for Trump’s defeat in November 2020, but his deeply irresponsible climate policies — including moving to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, roll back Barack Obama’s emission limits on coal-fired plants, rescind rules governing methane emissions and relax national fuel emission standards — are among the strongest.
Nope, no politics.
All that burning of carbon fuels needs to end; yet unless policies and politics change dramatically, it won’t end. Even in this time of heightened clarity, two-thirds of new passenger vehicles bought in the U.S. last year were gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs. Those SUVs will be on the road an average of eight years, and the pickups for more than 13 years, as the time to address the climate problem slips away. Blame for this falls not just on consumers, but also on the manufacturers and the government, which has done too little to disincentivize the driving of gas-powered cars.
See, in Warmist World, it’s the government’s job to tell you how to live your life.
Fighting the rise in temperature and sea levels will be tough. Our democracy doesn’t encourage politicians to take bold stances; our economic system doesn’t encourage companies to sacrifice profits for the common good. And we humans are understandably disinclined to live differently or to make sacrifices. But we must stop dawdling and forge ahead if we are to protect ourselves and our planet.
Damned democracy!
I’ve said before, I will move to an electric vehicle when they travel 500 to 600 miles on a single charge, carry at least carry 5 passengers AND be fully recharged in less than 15 minutes. Until then, they are no replacement for my gas powered vehicle.
Nighthawk: I’ve said before, I will move to an electric vehicle when they travel 500 to 600 miles on a single charge, carry at least carry 5 passengers AND be fully recharged in less than 15 minutes.
The vast majority of driving does not require that level of capacity. Most driving consists of commutes of less than an hour for a person or two. The problem is the occasional use for longer trips with the family without having two vehicles. Technology is quickly addressing this issue.
Regardless, the global vehicle fleet is moving to electric. Those countries that have the appropriate technology will be best positioned for the export market. The consumer market in Asia is vast and still largely untapped. Will they buy American, or will they buy Chinese?
Since the vast majority of Asia IS Chinese, I’m betting they will buy Chinese no matter what we do. Just like the Soviets bought Lada.
I’m guessing that because of high protective tariffs the Japanese have imposed on imported cars, that the Japanese consumer will buy Japanese because the price for American made vehicles will be prohibitively expensive, as they are now due to tariffs, etc.
But it’s like, totally unfair for the USA to put up tariffs in retaliation or something.
William Teach: What caused the previous Holocene warm periods
Variations in Earth’s orbit, which cause changes in solar radiation received per latitude and season. These variations do not account for the current warming trend, however.
William Teach: Why is sea rise exactly average, when it should be much higher during a warm period?
Sea level rise lags surface temperature as it takes time for the oceans to warm and the ice to melt, which is why equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS ≈ 2-4°C per doubling of CO2) is larger than the transient climate response (TCR ≈ 1-2°C per doubling of CO2).
William Teach: Why have there been numerous pauses, and even a slight cooling period, during this Modern Warm Period?
Greenhouse warming is not the only factor involved in surface temperature. The oceans act as a thermal capacitor, and continued to warm during the period when the rise in surface temperature slowed. Since then, surface temperatures have returned to trend.
William Teach: Why are most areas of Antarctica not warming?
That is incorrect.
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication (2009!!!), it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.
The kiddiez are again linking to misleading outdated information.
What must y’all be so dishonest?
Lolgf
Z,
The hoax of climate change has been established. We understand that an old professor developed the concept, we understand that 97 scientist agree that something is happening, we even understand that radiation is absorbed supposedly by CO2 and that CO2 vibrates.
But taking all that into account, it was a hoax. Quit relying on the research of your predecessors and do a little investigation of your own, read a book or several books, that is something your generation refuses to do. In fact, research how you have been lied to by our elite and what was their motive.
If you persist with the big lie, then tell us how taxes and world communism with help. For that matter tell us about the pollution characteristics of electric cars and batteries (fossil fuels are far cleaner than the so called green alternatives).
So, if 2/3 of the vehicles sold in the US last year were “gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs,†doesn’t that indicate that those vehicles are what American consumers want?
I’vet said it many times before: the left are pro-choice on exactly one thing.
But hey, if the only chance to stop climate change is to defeat President Trump in 2020, does that mean if he wins that the warmunists will just STFU, because there’s nothing that can be done?
Dana: So, if 2/3 of the vehicles sold in the US last year were “gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs,†doesn’t that indicate that those vehicles are what American consumers want?
Sure, but the technological wheel is turning. That’s why all major automakers are making the move to smart and electric cars.
Dana: because there’s nothing that can be done?
Anthropogenic global warming is cumulative. Meaning there is always a worse outcome. Some climate and ecological damage is already baked in, but that is no excuse for inaction.
More tendentious talking points from the kiddiez.
Lolgf
So, you are arguing that the so-called ‘tipping points’ are meaningless?
If the automakers “are making the move to smart and electric cars,” but those aren’t what consumers want, it might not be too smart a move.
Ford has already given up on all cars, other than the Mustang, in favor of SUVs, crossovers and trucks, because that is what sells. General Motors isn’t far behind. Who knows, maybe that’s short-sighted on their part, but they are doing what the market tells them consumers want.
American consumers really, really, really want to fight
global warmingclimate change . . . as long as somebody else has to pay for it and they don’t have to alter their own lifestyles.Zachriel said: “Sure, but the technological wheel is turning. That’s why all major automakers are making the move to smart and electric cars.”
Of course the technological wheel is turning it’s always turning. It’s part of the “Invisible Hand” of capitalism. But I don’t think the “all major automakers are making the move” smart and electric cars. I think they’re testing the waters and seeing what develops. I still know only two people who have owned electric cars and they both dumped them in about a year. One guy took a huge hit on his Tesla. He couldn’t recover 20% of what he payed in 9 months. That’s sad. But the car companies are really trying to be the first to build the dependable pick-up truck. That will be a corporate home run. But they still need batteries that can take you farther than the grocery store and back. All good things in time. It will come but changing our entire way of life and driving our nation into Trillions more of debt won’t make it come any faster. It will however ruin the economy of the people who will be the customers. Not a good idea.
But the battery is the problem. When it reaches its end of life, what do you do with it and the necessary elements are rare and mostly found in places were folks get a kick out of killing or in the US but not available due to green efforts.
Could 2020 be the last chance for the LA Times newspaper to keep it’s head above water
david7134: But taking all that into account, it was a hoax.
Not sure what part you think is a hoax. If you increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth’s surface will warm.
Dana: So, you are arguing that the so-called ‘tipping points’ are meaningless?
More than likely, the effects of global warming will be expressed chaotically. Many changes will be gradual, some will be impactful, and there is the possibility of a sudden catastrophic change, possibly following a power law distribution as with many complex networks.
Dana: If the automakers “are making the move to smart and electric cars,†but those aren’t what consumers want, it might not be too smart a move.
People driving gasoline powered vehicles aren’t paying for their dumping of carbon. Corporations reasonably consider that this is expected to change, either through taxes or regulation.
Kye: But they still need batteries that can take you farther than the grocery store and back.
Modern electric cars have a range of over 200 miles.
david7134: When {the battery} reaches its end of life, what do you do with it and the necessary elements are rare
Certainly, that’s an issue when scaling up the technology, so new solutions will have to be found, including recycling any rare metals.
“If you Increase the earth’s greenhouse gasses the earth will warm.†Not really. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1173768630875697153?s=21
Scientists for the last century disagree with your opinion. Your link is a tweet.
So now the wife beater refutes the scientific data.
Lolgfy sissybitch
You say it as if it were all scientists and it most certainly isn’t. Some scientists may have said it, but most of them were nuts.
More to the point, your “scientists” have been proven to be the liars they are. Their methodology and data (especially the data) have been proven to be fraudulent.
The public knows better, so you whip the old dead horse.
Wrong again. The sources are at the bottom
Z,
Humans do not produce green house gases to the extent that a trace gas will have any influence at all. Science is in on the subject, go read about it, you need to. Then giving up our way of life will not influence the climate.
But what is worse you are strongly advocating the use of batteries or any other substance produced by the “green energy” without knowing the consequence. That makes anything you say worthless.
david,
The evidence begs to differ. To the extent that science is “in” on the subject, greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Jeff,
Even your 97 scientist are backing out. You need to refresh your data.
But you do make your living by taking crap drugs and making them look good and I have to say you are good at that type of lying and confabulation.
david,
Can you support your claim that climate scientists are “backing out”?
What makes you think you have any idea of how I make a living?
First, the evidence is lying.
Second, the science is never in (you don’t seem to grasp the concept) and the founder of this nonsense refused to defend it.
You lose.
Again.
You ignorant fool, it was your equally ignorant friend, david, who typed:
“Science is in on the subject, go read about it, you need to.”
“Modern electric cars have a range of over 200 miles.”
Which is nothing. It means you can only venture 100 miles from home if you want to return without charging to be safe. It means they can’t be used as cabs or Ubers without taking chances. Can’t be used as police or emergency vehicles because their ability to perform is so limited. But they can safely be used by rich elitist city women to run to shopping and such so I guess that’s something.
BTW, the neighbor who lost 80% on his Tesla in 9 months was seen by us towed three times before he finally said NO More! He’s a rich guy (also has a Rolls Royce Phantom and a Porsche Cayenne) so the Tesla was just a virtue signal for Huntingdon Valley CC but he can’t afford to be stuck so the car had to go.
Zachriel wrote:
The standard range Tesla Model 3 has a stated range of 220 miles. As it happens, my darling bride (of 40 years, 3 months and 30 days) and I went on vacation last week — our esteemed host was good enough to cross-post articles on my site while we were gone — a drive of 576 miles to Kure Beach, North Carolina. Had we been driving the least expensive Tesla available, we’d have had to stop twice to recharge the batteries . . . at roughly 1½ hours per recharging, on a drive that took ten hours.
That recharging time assumes 220 volts; the only way to dramatically shorten it would be to have charging stations that run on 440 three-phase, and as a man who has run concrete plants with 440 three-phase motors to run central mix drums, I can tell you that the last thing you want to see is untrained people messing with 440.
Licensed industrial sparktricians exercise extreme caution when it comes to 440.
Despite what the Democrats who would ban all fossil fueled vehicles by 2030 say, electric vehicles are simply not a mature technology and are wholly inadequate for anything other than local traffic.
Fortunately you didn’t have to try to outrun a hurricane.
The hurricane wasn’t going to hit Alabama. tRump lied.
Dana: electric vehicles are simply not a mature technology
No, but they are maturing quickly. Solutions for the range and charging problems are well within technological reach.
Dana: and are wholly inadequate for anything other than local traffic.
Of course, the vast majority of driving is commuting and trips to the store. The problem is for those who also use their cars for road trips, but that is usually more occasional. In any case, the technology is rapidly evolving.
Those countries that have the technology will export to those who don’t.
The future will continue to exhibit global supply chains, so Americans may design the smarts, Japan the chips, Vietnam the computer assembly, China assemble the cars, etc.
“..and there is the possibility of a sudden catastrophic change….â€. Except there absolutely no proof of any dire effects, only computer assumptions. A prediction from a computer is not evidence
“Last chance to stop the apocalypse…†Zero proof of an “apocalypseâ€, but that doesn’t matter to them
We dodged a bullet-the “apocalypse†was supposed to happen by the yr 2000 (to be continued..). Mother Nature must not have gotten the message
https://twitter.com/sylviad32911201/status/1161515055248224256?s=21
I am 70 and can not even count the number of times we have had a crisis or been on the brink.
You ignorant fool, it was your equally ignorant friend, david, who typed:
“Science is in on the subject, go read about it, you need to.â€
Then he’s wrong on that point.
Anyone who buys and peddles this nonsense, however, is the real ignorant fool.
I love how mad you get at me, calling me names and the like. It shows I’m getting under your skin, perpetually calling out your lies and proving them to be as worthless as you are.
form
My reference to the science is all in was a quote from many of jeff’s rants, clearly he does not like it back in his court.
Also, he lumped us together to demonize both, he does have good skills, that is what he does for a living with drug promotion.
david,
I did not say the “science is in”, you did. Please don’t attribute your errors to others.
As I’ve explained many times, scientific theories are never proven, and can always be falsified by further study. So the science is never “in”. As supportive data is accumulated, and no falsifying evidence is generated, it becomes unreasonable to consider the theory a hoax.
Infrared radiation from the Earth is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 and re-radiated up, down and sideways. This has been known for over a century. Without this phenomenon the Earth would be ice covered. As atmospheric CO2 increases, so does the heat retention of Earth. But this is not the only phenomenon that affects the warming and cooling of the Earth.
For example, the source of gravity is unproven, yet it’s unreasonable to consider the theory “untrue”.
This is not to say, that theories should not be modified if new evidence becomes available.
The weasel tries to weasel, that’s what weasels do.
scientific theories are never proven, and can always be falsified by further study.
No, that’s all a lie. To be accepted any theory must undergo evaluation, including a proof that the conclusion reached was based on evidence and sound logic.
And theories may be repudiated by further discoveries, but only you would call them falsified.
As for IR, try again. CO2 is a heavy gas and falls to earth.
For example, the source of gravity is unproven, yet it’s unreasonable to consider the theory “untrueâ€.
Comedy gold.
Try this one on for size the closer objects are to each other, the stronger their gravitational pull is. Earth’s gravity comes from all its mass.
PS david, I had a feeling that was the case, so I tread lightly.
But with Global Warming, er Climate Change, (that’s what it’s call this year), the issue is considered settled with any evidence that disproves the theory thrown out as false.
That’s NOT how science is done.
But is IS how hoaxes are propagated to destroy the west and transfer wealth and freedom to the elite, who most certainly will consider what little you DO have to be totally too much and take a large share to pay for your “sin” so they can fix the weather.
Enjoy you short, primitive, hard, filthy life without any modern conveniences because, when they’re done with you, you will be too sick and starving to worry much about the weather.
Remember at best, we can only mitigate about 0.5 Celsius from what it would be. Can anyone actually feel that?? Is it worth destroying the greatest civilization and wealth building engine in history because some greedy, lazy losers don’t think it’s fair???
I guess so.
You calling something a lie, doesn’t make it so. By all means, point out any lie and let’s discuss.
Little sissybitch claimed to have joined the Army in 1971.
Discuss wife beater…
Sure. You’re mistaken.
Not according to your comments posted here on or around October 12, 2016.
Anyone can look them up.
Do you wish to amend your statement?
Lolgfy little sissybitch
Sure. You’re lying.
Jeffery says:
October 17, 2016 at 9:49 pm
Army. You?
Bwaha. Lolgfy little sissybitch
And?
He beats his wife, too?
Maybe not, but all the data proving it’s a lie does.
Point out a lie? Global bull has been exposed as a put up job that’s so corrupt, even one of its founders couldn’t go into court to defend it.
That good for starters?
You’re mistaken. Can you reveal the data showing that global warming is a “put up job”, whatever that means? Thanks.
You asked for it.
You, of all people, ought to know I have a ton of stuff I can link in to show what a liar you are.
There’s this, the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK and there’s this human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures and, of course, this they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
And you link to right-wing/”skeptic” blogs.
Would you like to select just one of the scientific papers they “discuss” for us to all to discuss?
Maybe, but you denouncing something increases the likelihood it’s true.
Can you support your claim that climate scientists are “backing out�
Heard the same myself a while ago although trying to find a news item is tough because, like everything the Lefties do, they try to drown out any dissent.
But, since the bunny suit throws out almost all his claims without any real support, we’ll call this one a work in progress until the data is found.
And I don’t doubt it will because most people see all the right (ie wrong) people are for it.
What makes you think you have any idea of how I make a living?
You or your cartoon characters are here 24/7, making idiots of yourselves
What makes you think I was asking you anything?
Why would I care to whom you were asking it?
It’s out there for all to see and shooting you down constantly is baskets of fun.
Sure. You’re mistaken.
Somehow, I really doubt that.
Jl: “If you Increase the earth’s greenhouse gasses the earth will warm.†Not really.
Caeteris paribus.
formwiz: Their methodology and data (especially the data) have been proven to be fraudulent.
The basic physics is well-established. The warming trend has been confirmed by independent scientists using independent methodologies.
david7134: Humans do not produce green house gases to the extent that a trace gas will have any influence at all.
That is incorrect. Most of the gases that make up the atmosphere do not interact with infrared; so, even though carbon dioxide is only a small portion of the atmosphere, it represents about 20% of the greenhouse effect.
Kye: Which is nothing.
Quite the contrary. It meets your stated standard of taking “you farther than the grocery store and back.” For most people, two hundred miles is sufficient for the commute to work and a stop at the grocery on the way home.
Jl: Except there absolutely no proof of any dire effects, only computer assumptions.
Given anthropogenic warming of 2-4°C, there is little doubt of deleterious effects on agriculture, sea levels, and ecosystems.
Jl: I am 70 and can not even count the number of times we have had a crisis or been on the brink.
Makes you wonder why people bother to ring the fire alarm. The town has never burned down.
{The last comment should be attributed to david7134.}
Except that all those “crises” and all those times we were on the brink were FALSE ALARMS. When idiots scare the bejewels out of us with a false fire alarm they’re arrested and shown the error of their ways. When global cultists keep sounding phony lying “alarms” they get more grant money from our taxes.
By: Onar Ã…mFebruary 20, 2019, https://www.libertynation.com/the-hockey-stick-graph-and-other-notable-frauds/
How often have you read a headline like “New Study Shows That Coffee May Cause Cancerâ€? The problem with such studies is that many are wrong. When other researchers try to replicate the same findings in a subsequent study, the relationship disappears. This is known as the replication crisis in science. It first received widespread attention in 2005 when Dr. John Ioannidis published a paper provocatively titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.â€
“The most famous case of such a biased finding was a study published in 1999 by Dr. Michael Mann. It showed 900 years of flat temperature followed by 100 years of rapid warming. Its shape quickly led it to be nicknamed the Hockey Stick Graph, and it played a key role in the 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report.
It is perhaps the most important graph in the history of science, because it was instrumental in scaring the living daylights out of politicians. Until that study, the climate skeptics were on par with the global-warming alarmists. The science debate was still raging, and no definite winner had been declared. After politicians saw that graph, they were convinced that humans were destroying the climate. Without it, the Paris Climate Agreement and the Green New Deal would be unthinkable.
The problem is that it was a bogus study, constructed in much the same manner as the hypothetical luck journal of lottery winners. Mann had the equivalent of millions of lottery tickets at his disposal, and so he was guaranteed to find whatever result he was looking for.
In 2006, the result was finally settled when highly qualified statisticians led by Dr. Edward Wegman produced a report for Congress showing that Mann’s method could reproduce a graph of any desired shape. It was junk science.”
Trump 2020 Stop the lying, phony false climate alarms!
Long on the snark, short on the facts.
Same old merry-go-round, kiddiez.
Lolgf
“Given warming of 2-4C, there is little doubt of the effects on ag., sea levels, ecosystems.†There is much doubt, in that the sensitivity of CO2 doubling is not known, and there’s no proof temps will rise by that much. Again you’re assuming things that haven’t happened will happen. Things that haven’t happened leave much doubt. Add to that, the earth has been as warm or warmer in the recent past and much warmer in the geological past
Over history, no CO2-temp correlation, as shown
Kye: Except that all those “crises†and all those times we were on the brink were FALSE ALARMS.
Most were not, but you weren’t specific.
Kye: This is known as the replication crisis in science.
Yes, it’s most common in the human sciences, because, well, humans aren’t guinea pigs. Your argument is of the kind that because science is hard and sometimes wrong, it should be rejected. Published studies are just the first step in the scientific process, and despite the inherent problems of discovery, scientific progress continues to be made.
Kye: It is perhaps the most important graph in the history of science, because it was instrumental in scaring the living daylights out of politicians.
Multiple studies have confirmed Mann’s basic findings.
And multiple studies have failed to, therefore something is not right. Mann himself refused to produce his notes or show his work. What does that tell you? It’s been proven a fraud and for you to defend it shows a lack of seriousness in your beliefs. Global warming exists. So does global cooling. The extent to which each is attributable to human activity is the question and a fudged or even mistaken graph is neither proof not reliable.
If you want skeptics to even begin to understand your MMGW theories you need to start presenting logical provable data, duplicatable by scientific method, in layman’s language.
It would also help if you all would stop calling reasoned skepticism “denial” when it is not and stop calling people who have reasonable questions about why the entire proposition is full of charlatans like Al Gore and Hippocrates like Leonardo DiCaprio. These people are not trying to scientifically reason others into agreement they are trying to bully them politically. Much like everything else the left proposes from gun control to telling Christians how to worship. Everything is force and requires new laws and strict enforcement lest free thinkers get away from The Borg.
Kye is correct here.
When one side has to resort to lying, data manipulation, name calling, bullying and destroying people’s career’s if someone produces different analysis, while at the same time refusing to show their own work, wreaks of a hoax.
Low information talking point cut and paste keyboard warriors don’t care because they actually think that they’ll be better off under Cuban style socialism than they are now.
Examples of data manipulation abound….https://notrickszone.com/2017/04/06/scientists-reveal-how-man-made-global-warming-is-created-via-data-manipulation-dismissing-the-sun/
Pierre Gosselin pimping the fossil fuel industry’s paid hack, Willie Soon.
And they’re a crock, too.
It’s all a lie Zach. If you want to continue being lead by fools that’s up to you. I choose not to.
https://youtu.be/mKbDfP5DitA
Kye: It’s all a lie
We stated that new studies have confirmed Mann’s basic findings. Here’s a breakdown.
Bwaha! Another meaningless graph with lots and lots of squiggly lines with lots of different colors.
Color me convinced.
Lolgf kiddiez
Sure. You’re lying.
Get Teach’s OK, and post the quote.
He won’t, and we know why.
formwiz: There’s this, the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK
So we might look to independent observations. Please note that measurements of surface temperature and satellite observations of the lower atmosphere show very similar trends.
Surface, HadCRUT4: 0.177 °C/decade
Lower atmosphere, UAHv5.6: 0.155 °C/decade
Kye: And multiple studies have failed to
Actually, virtually all major studies confirm the basic trends. See PAGES2k Consortium, A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era, Nature GeoScience 2017.
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-019-0400-0/MediaObjects/41561_2019_400_Fig1_HTML.png
Kye: Mann himself refused to produce his notes or show his work.
Data is readily available for independent analysis. Methods are normally provided, but feel free to collect your own data, or apply your own methods, then submit your results.
Junk science in. Junk science out.
Lolgf
And the child speaks.
I must apologize to Jeff and Z. I decided to look up the concentration of carbonic acid in sea waters. I got a ton of information from Google. Pulling the various articles, it was obvious that the concentration has not been obtained, or at least reported. But that does not stop the various writers from pushing the concept of trace gases causing increase acidity. The propaganda and non-scientific conclusions, use of correlation, absence of real proofs, and zero concern for other elements to be a factor. The acidity is a concern for dropping pH from 8.2 to 8.1 over 100 years.
The number of articles spanning the wide variety of publication clearly has a central source that is directing the propaganda. This sounds like conspiracy, but we now know from Hillary’s emails and other similar revelations that conspiracy is real. Clearly Z and Jeff either have a political purpose or are lacking in mental ability to determine the truth.
It’s a conspiracy!! Do you reckon that George Soros is behind it?
Why have all the world’s scientific organizations, every major religion, many major corporations, all governments except ours, nearly all climate scientists and a majority of the world’s citizens been suckered by this hoax that only right-wing Americans can see?
david,
Do you understand that the Earth is warming?
Do you understand that atmospheric CO2 is increasing?
Do you understand that the increased CO2 is from humans burning fossil fuels?
Do you understand that atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared wavelengths of radiation?
“How can we predict global average temperature change when we don’t even know what the global average temperature is?â€
Discuss.
Lolgf
You can bet Dr Evil puts up the money for it.
Why have all the world’s scientific organizations, every major religion, many major corporations, all governments except ours, nearly all climate scientists and a majority of the world’s citizens been suckered by this hoax that only right-wing Americans can see?
Well, we are smarter than the Left. But it’s not just American Conservatives, most Americans don’t buy it.
The adoption of socialism by most of the world means socialists have infiltrated most of its institutions. What advances socialism is what they push.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Thank you for proudly admitting that you don’t understand even the most basic facts.
Sorry, but institutional “positions†on a subject is not evidence that it’s true. Speaking of that, did just the Board of Directors vote on the matter, or did everyone? Did, say, just 51% agreeing on the matter constitute a “yes, this institution agrees on the matter� How was the question worded? Was it simply “do you believe in AGW� Answering yes to that could mean many things-I believe in it but only to the extent of UHI, or I believe but AGW only contributes a very small amount to the heat rise, or it could mean I believe it’s the cause of all heat rise, ect. You mean you don’t know the answers to those questions? Then you know nothing.
Do you understand that all that is irrelevant in the fact the issue isn’t if those things are happening or not, but rather the effect of those things if they’re happening? “It’s warming-see, we’re right!†means nothing.
First, “skeptics” said it wasn’t warming. Then, “skeptics” admitted it was warming but was “all natural”. Now, “skeptics” admit that it’s warming and humans are contributing but warming will have no effect!
Hurricanes and droughts and floods, oh my!
Bahamians and Houstonians were unavailable for comment.
And you link to right-wing/â€skeptic†blogs.
As opposed to you linking (every blue moon) to Left-wing drone blogs? At least I do back up what I say.
Would you like to select just one of the scientific papers they “discuss†for us to all to discuss?
I gave you 3. Start anywhere you like, but, since you’re so ignorant of what science is (the source of gravity is unproven, scientific theories are never proven), it’s no different than discussing it with a 2 year old.
Love when they do that, which is all the time. “You link to skeptic blogs!†Well, you link to alarmist blogs…â€That’s a site or a study funded by Big Oil!†As opposed to a site or study funded by governments, which have infinitely bigger pockets than any fossil fuel company? Got it
You complain that we don’t link to support our evidence, now you complain we link to left-wing blogs. Which is it? Do you consider NOAA, NASA, IPCC and NSIDC left-wing blogs?
By all means, point out any time we use flawed or biased citations.
Jeff,
Don’t know about temp as corrupted data. Even if temp up, means nothing.
CO2 increasing, so? If you look at data, CO2 increases after warming temp, which is logical.
No association between trace gas and temp or climate change. No logic with association. Correlation rarely means causation.
Absolutely no association between humans and CO2 rise. Jap study demo mostly cloud cover and very minor role of humans.
Infrared issue could be tested, but you don’t and again no meat there, if you took quantitative analysis you would know numerous substances can absorb along a single spectrum.
Really, you can not think for yourself and have others tell you what to think, hence your reference to oh so impressive organizations, most on government pay. Remember the cholesterol correlation I told you about, it is breaking down just as the Climate hoax.
The the clincher is that all this can easily be solved by high taxes world communism and wealth distribution with the US acting unilateral and no action on the real polluters India and China.
Hard on the heels of bunny suit suddenly finding religion, we have the Peacock asking all those climate believers to confess their ecological sins.
Do they have to do 5 Hail Gores and 10 Our Gaias?
Tell me again it isn’t a cult.
Too funny; too, too funny.
formwiz: Pulling the various articles, it was obvious that the concentration has not been obtained, or at least reported.
Globally, there has been about a 26% increase in oceanic H+ since the industrial age began.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/co2_time_series_aloha_06-11-2019.jpg
Jl: institutional “positions†on a subject is not evidence that it’s true.
It depends. There are a number of factors that go into evaluating an appeal to authority, but medical doctors will usually be more knowledgeable about medicine than non-medical doctors; physicists more knowledgeable about physics, etc. And how many people have actually counted the number of stars in the Milky Way? On the other hand, evidence always trumps an appeal to authority, but even evaluating the evidence may require a certain amount of knowledge.
Sorry. Having difficulties with attributions. The first comment should have been attributed to david7134.
It dependsâ€. No, it would only matter if the position were correct all the time, which they obviously haven’t been. Most institutions believed a low fat, high carb diet was the way to go. Most doctors believed ulcers were caused by food and or stress ect, Obviously many more examples. Bottom line, the number of people or institutions agreeing on something is irrelevant in science, in that it would still take only one person with the proper data to contradict a theory or hypothesis.
Jl: No, it would only matter if the position were correct all the time, which they obviously haven’t been.
If the claim was that because a oncologist said you had cancer, you therefore must have cancer, then you would be right. But the claim is that an oncologist is more likely to be right about your cancer diagnosis than someone who is not an oncologist. Hence, appeal to authority is evidence (given certain conditions), though not conclusive evidence. Indeed, everyone relies on authority; parents, teachers, doctors, plumbers, scientists, pizza makers; otherwise it would be almost impossible to navigate the modern world.
Z,
That is a totally incorrect statement.
Over the years, a small sampling of what was “believed inâ€. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
Nope. If it’s true, it’s true whether only one person believes in it or all believe in it.
david7134: That is a totally incorrect statement.
Are you saying an oncologist doesn’t know more about cancer than, say, your bartender?
Jl: Over the years, a small sampling of what was “believed inâ€.
If the claim was that experts are always right, then you might have a point. The claim is that an expert speaking in a consensus in his field is more likely to be correct than a non-expert.
Z,
And what is your point, though I don’t believe the statement.
Not to gang up on the bunny suit (but why not?), here’s Fox with a compendium of all those climate cataclysms that never climaxed.
On top of all the manipulation, NASA admits the models they use to “predict†the supposed dire effects are very much lacking on the effects of cloud cover. In fact, they almost admit the models are useless in climate predictions. https://twitter.com/stormsignalsa/status/1170297687335460869?s=21
Jeff,
You ask if I believe in a conspiracy of Soros doing this. Let me just say that Soros just spent 930,000 dollars in my parish to elect a DA. Yes, I believe anything.
Good for Soros!
Do you object to concerned citizens spending money on political issues?
We object to someone who wants to destroy this country so he can avenge his beloved Fuhrer.
Jeff,
Very childish answer. And Soros is not a citizen.
Sorry, dual citizenship, US and Hungary, although I believe Hungary would like him back there for a long talk.
Got it, but really don’t care. He needs to be in jail with Hillary and Obama. If you could see what he spent $930000 on you would be amazed. It has me troubled as to their motives.
david,
Do Clinton, Obama and Soros deserve trials or are they so obviously guilty that tRump can proceed to sentencing?
Can you remind us what crimes they’ve committed?
And “50 million climate refugees†by the the year 2000..
“P. Gosselin pimping the fossil fuel industry’s paid hack, Soonâ€. And that was Elwood P. Dowd not refuting a thing presented on the papers.
A good compilation of failed environmental predictions: https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Wrong-Again-50-Years-of-Failed-Eco-pocalyptic-Predictions-Competitive-Enterprise-Institute.pdf
Not to change the subject (although the bunny suit does any time he’s caught in a lie), but have we seen the pic of Baby Trudeau in blackface?
Scratch a Lefty, find a racist.
PoorJ- as said, numerous examples from a variety of authors. (Let us know if these are “fossil fuel shills). https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/
Jl: https://notrickszone.com/2017/01/30/robust-evidence-noaa-temperature-data-hopelessly-corrupted-by-warming-bias-manipulation/
So we might look to independent observations. Please note that measurements of surface temperature and satellite observations of the lower atmosphere show very similar trends.
Surface, HadCRUT4: 0.177 °C/decade
Lower atmosphere, UAHv5.6: 0.155 °C/decade
*** ELWOOD:
Do Clinton, Obama, and Soros deserve trials or are they so obviously guilty that tRump can proceed to sentencing?
Can you remind us what crimes they’ve committed?***
The same question can be asked of Trump, Kavanaugh and most other republicans.
It seems the left has tried and convicted them both. We all know that the reason this is happening is that the left is desperate to preserve Obama’s fake legacy. When in reality they are starting to realize the guy was more of a republican than a progressive as he basks in a multimillion-dollar fortune, telling ALL OF YOU GUYS to stop consuming, stop spending so much. When is enough, enough?
HAHAHAHAHAHA…….. Defending politicians is a fruitless effort. Trump is a businessman who is not ashamed of getting rich. It’s funny watching all those RICH LEFTIES trying to tell the rest of us being poor is okay because they are going to FIX THAT.
Actually, there is a list of serious crimes that tRump has alleged to have committed, including obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations (paying inamoratas to keep quiet about his extramarital dalliances). Note that tRump in Individual One in the crime that sent Michael Cohen to prison. Even Mr. Mueller admitted that the DOJ opinion that a sitting President can’t be indicted protected tRump.
Kavanaugh’s alleged crimes were not thoroughly investigated by the FBI, thanks to the tRump and his DOJ. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. He got away with his harassment just as tRump did.
Anyway, what crimes have Obama, Clinton and Soros committed that would lead tRump minions like david to chant, “Lock them up!”
obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations (paying inamoratas to keep quiet about his extramarital dalliances)
Little problem of evidence. Mule Ears said there was none, Stormy’s case was thrown out, so, once again, serious has a different definition in ToonTown.
Even Mr. Mueller admitted that the DOJ opinion that a sitting President can’t be indicted protected tRump.
Excuse not to file the case.
what crimes have Obama, Clinton and Soros committed that would lead tRump minions like david to chant, “Lock them up!â€
F&F, Benghazi, Whitewater, Sex Slave Island, private email accounts, rigging voting machines.
That should do for starters.
Not to worry another ginned up GOTCHA whistleblower is testifying as we speak about trump doing nefarious deeds over the telephone with a1000 people listening…….LOLOLOLOLOL.
Comical. The left has had a plan since Trump was elected. Throw shit at him long enough until the American people get tired of the it and vote him out to end the lunacy by the left.
Bill Maher On MSNBC SLAMS Far Left As “Cancer,†Poll Shows Voters MORE Like Trump Than Democrats
A Poll from USC backs up many of these claims in a way, showing that the average voter is closer to Trump on Policy than they are to ANY Democrats.
If the Democrats want to push far left they will certainly keep losing support and as Bill maher suggests many people will vote Trump simply because he appears to be strong.
I Bing, yahoo and google polls and all the polls show trump in the 20 percent range and every democrat on stage trouncing Trump in the general election.
Poll after poll has Trump defeated by 538-0.
Yet Huffington post: Is The Democratic Party Getting More Extreme? The Public Doesn’t Think So.
The party’s self-described liberals are growing in rank, but a new poll finds no evidence that people see the party as becoming more radical.
OH GAWD. Yet when you look deeply at the poll, they are polling DEMOCRATS not the PUBLIC.
Insanity as the left is setting themselves up once again to lose and this time they just might start a civil war because of how much they have been lied to by their own people.
I note bunny suit, having been thoroughly humiliated on the climate thing, has changed the subject.
Kell Sir Prize.
You are mistaken, again. Declaring victory doesn’t make it so!
Despite your embarrassing victory dances, the Earth continues to warm from the CO2 that you, I and everyone pumps into the atmosphere.
Jeffery says:
October 17, 2016 at 8:21 pm
Maybe little guy can tell us how manly he was when he signed up to serve.
Actually I wasn’t manly at all when I signed up with the Army. Like so many teens I was afraid. But then I didn’t criticize those like Senator McCain, as Trump did.
Lolgf loser
And? What’s your point?
Well a real man would apologize for calling other people liars for pointing out the truth and stop lying himself.
But we all know you didn’t “sign up” and that’s too much for a little sissybitch who lies all the time to admit.
Lolgfy loser.
Game. Set. And match.
Well played.
LilBish is lying.
Jeff,
That is a lie.
Then why change the subject if you’re winning?
And you’re not.
CO2 is fine; the only point is the one on your head.
Why change the subject after I’ve humiliated you and jl and dave?
Anyway, david changed the subject to Soros, drowningpuppies changed the subject to the Army, YOU changed the subject to Trudeau.
What Michael Cohen knew: 7 things to keep in mind as he testifies publicly about Trump
Social Sharing
Ex-Trump lawyer knows where the ‘bodies are buried.’ It appears he’s ready to show and tell
Matt Kwong · CBC News · Posted: Feb 26, 2019 6:18 PM ET | Last Updated: February 27
OMG Michael Cohen knows where the bodies are. He testified. It was such a bomb on campaign violations even the Democrats ignored it.
There are NO campaign violations. It is like saying Trump can’t pay the rent because it would be a loan. Just like he paid off a couple of hookers to STFU. We didn’t elect the pope. We elected someone to get Sheet done.
No sorry. No campaign finance violations there either.
NEXT?
Neither of tRump’s mistresses were “hookers”.
tRump paid them to keep quiet so that the information wouldn’t hurt his chances for election.
We didn’t elect the pope, we elected a lying, grifting man-whore.
Look everyone,
Jeff said something stupid and false to get attention. He lost in the Climate Religion and now tries to say something about the best president we have had. He has no idea of what he is going on about.