Last Thread on Climate Change

[Team Sergeant]

No more left-wing threads on climate change. This issue is beyond stupid. Feel free to argue on facebook and twitter not here. I've read enough.



Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’
By: Marc Morano

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'


AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

cont:
Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...#ixzz3s2kWpdC2

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'


Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...#ixzz3s2kMIUOl

[SF-TX]

But, but, but, but...President Obama said climate change was settled.

"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," said President Obama last night in his State of the Union Address."But the debate is settled," he added emphatically. "Climate change is a fact."

Source

[Paslode]

This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.

[Divemaster]

This article must be from the Onion. I've heard over and over that ALL scientists are in agreement about the climate issue. And that's a good thing because global warming/cooling/change is going to make me rich.

I'm going to clear cut some rain forest, in Costa Rica I think, then guilt trip libs into paying me to plant a tree in their name to not only offset their carbon footprint but also to save the rain forest.

So let's sweep these dissenting opinions under the rug, um-kay?

[Box]

Bernie sanders is going to need a new strategy for dealing with ISIS if it is decided that he can n longer blame their behavior on climate change...

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Paslode

This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.

Yes sir. Exactly.

The $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011’s inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../30/377086.htm

[mark46th]

Like TS said, climate change is too stupid to comment on...

Yes, I'm from the Mid-West, I end sentences with prepositions...

[Divemaster]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Like TS said, climate change is too stupid to comment on...

Yes, I'm from the Mid-West, I end sentences with prepositions...

I never met a preposition I didn't want to end with.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Paslode

This Climate stuff has always been about lining the pockets of a few.

The main thing that fires up libs about climate change is the fact that it was brought about by white hetero Christian capitalistic males of European origin. If there were no climate change to blame on this class, it would be necessary to invent it.

[Red Flag 1]

Mr gore will not like this one bit .

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

A team of experts (or anyone) promoting a position that runs counter to a scientific consensus doesn't reverse that consensus, no matter how experienced and authoritative those few individuals are.


The review result of 11,944 climate abstracts published over a 20 year time span in peer reviewed scientific literature:


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

"Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011, this study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades."

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...8/2/024024/pdf


The issue is currently well settled. This should be the last climate change thread, indeed, IMO.

The reports came in raving about the success of autologous stem cell transplants for breast cancer - everyone wanted to jump on the band wagon and report their success. That is, until we ,as a medical community, let the data mature and critically looked at it....

[PSM]

All of this nonsense was started "Billions and Billions" of years ago by Carl Sagan. (Well, OK, 35 years ago in his Cosmos TV program.) Or, at least, that's when he began popularizing it. As far back as the '60s, he speculated that the temperatures on Venus were much higher than thought at the time. This was confirmed by the Mariner probes. He eventually blamed "Greenhouse Gasses" for the runaway overheating of Venus. The "Global Cooling" and "Nuclear Winter" crowd switched to warming after Sagan's TV show became so popular.

Here's a good essay on Sagan's contribution to what became a fraud:

The Original Sin of Global Warming

Pat

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by PSM

All of this nonsense was started "Billions and Billions" of years ago by Carl Sagan. (Well, OK, 35 years ago in his Cosmos TV program.) Or, at least, that's when he began popularizing it. As far back as the '60s, he speculated that the temperatures on Venus were much higher than thought at the time. This was confirmed by the Mariner probes. He eventually blamed "Greenhouse Gasses" for the runaway overheating of Venus. The "Global Cooling" and "Nuclear Winter" crowd switched to warming after Sagan's TV show became so popular.

Here's a good essay on Sagan's contribution to what became a fraud:

The Original Sin of Global Warming

Pat

It's gone back and forth between "warming" and "cooling" since I was a kid and typewriters were just getting popular.
It's lib baloney.
PS bandwith should not be wasted on the subject.

[Pete]

If you have to go back 70 - 80 years and lower recorded temps to make this years data look higher - plus disregard the satellite data - you're cooking the books.

Oh, by the way, isn't this the year the Arctic was supposed to be free of ice?

The asshats keep making these dire predictions and when they don't come true - they just come up with new ones.

The cave entrances to the famous French prehistoric cave paintings are a couple of hundred feet below sea level. And folks are worried about a couple of inches?

[Tree Potato]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

This is not a good rationale for rejecting an overwhelming (to say the least) scientific consensus based upon a review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies performed over two decades.

Do you really believe that the development of scientific agreement on such a scale is a matter of bandwagon jumping?

There is ample self selection going on to skew the statistics drastically; I say this as a published atmospheric scientist who has seen it first hand. Many, many, of my peers don't buy the "consensus" but don't bother attempting to counter it because it's wasted effort and they have families to feed. Studies that don't support the desired result of validating anthropogenic global warming, climate change, or whatever label you choose, are simply not approved for funding and die off before any research is done. Follow the money.

Further, students who entered atmospheric science programs in recent years tend to be drawn to the field due to an interest in validating global warming...the proverbial self licking ice cream cone.

At this point AGW theory is better described as a religion than as a science. Scientists should welcome skepticism because it refines what we know; the AGW crowd fears and despises any critical thinking. Anyone who dares question the "consensus" is deemed a heretic and is then ostracized from the major grant sources. Those who "believe" in AGW are groomed and allowed to compete with other believers for the more prestigious pots of grant money.

A century from now scientists will look back on this period of time and use it as a case study of how political activism can contaminate basic scientific methods.