Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

[bold]Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is[/bold]

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.

(please see the link for the three numbers, and a discussion of each one... it's interesting, informative, and sobering)

by Anonymousreply 55212/15/2013

I am concerned about the size of my AC bill.

by Anonymousreply 107/21/2012

I wonder - if things get very bad, where to go? The Canadian Rockies? Yuck.

by Anonymousreply 207/21/2012

no where, we are doomed

by Anonymousreply 307/21/2012

I know it's long, but I strongly suggest reading the entire article. It really is eye-opening in many ways.

by Anonymousreply 407/21/2012

Holmes' Adult Finer profile:

by Anonymousreply 607/21/2012

Sorry, meant to post that in the shooting thread.

by Anonymousreply 707/21/2012

i thought i'd be dead by the time global warming really fucked things up. bummer- looks like i'll have the fun of dealing with it after all.

by Anonymousreply 807/21/2012

that's what i meant, r9- we are already dealing with it, and it's going to get much, much, worse.

by Anonymousreply 1007/21/2012


by Anonymousreply 1107/21/2012

WTF is wrong with conservatives?

They REFUSE to accept this. No matter what new information comes out, no matter the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community, they decided a while ago that they would never, ever believe this. It's always "but, Al Gore uses a billion light bulbs!"

They REFUSE to acknowledge that, yes, actually, successful business owners have used publicly funded infrastructure.

They REFUSE to acknowledge that when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the "arms" mentioned were single shot muskets that took at least five seconds for a trained person to reload.

I am talking about actual arguments I have been having with conservatives. They can't say, "well, yes that may be true, but it doesn't matter." They just flat out do not believe any of it.

by Anonymousreply 1207/21/2012

R12, this article explained it, as did Al Gore in a quote he used in "An Inconvenient Truth" from Upton Sinclair:

[quote]"It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

There is too much money involved. And conservatives are too self-centered and greedy. If they acknowledge the truth, they lose money (or perceive they will, anyway).

by Anonymousreply 1307/21/2012

The facts are that there is nothing we can do about it. China's co2 output is now 3 times as the US and Europe's COMBINED. Factor in the cyclical solar flares, and we are fucked.

by Anonymousreply 1407/21/2012

R14, did you read the entire article? Just curious.

by Anonymousreply 1507/21/2012

It's a very well-written article, that too many people won't read or understand.

by Anonymousreply 1607/21/2012

Time Magazine already covered this.

by Anonymousreply 1707/21/2012

It's OK. Allah, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or Hubbard will save us and mend the planet, but things gotta get hotter as the fire is being stoked up to burn all the sinners. Overpopulation will be fixed too.

by Anonymousreply 1807/21/2012

Im afraid to open my electric bill this month.

by Anonymousreply 1907/21/2012

R12 - Most conservatives no longer deny that global warming exists - the evidence is just too conclusive for them to deny - they now deny that human behavior is the cause and instead claim that it's part of the earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. Of course, this is rubbish because the earth has never warmed at the rate it is occurring now, but most people really don't care since there is no material consequences for them as long as they deny the problem: even though you spend more on AC now, you spend less on gas in the winter. If you acknowledge the problem, however, there are serious consequences - having to use public transit instead of your car, living in a smaller house with a smaller lot, consuming less while paying more. I can definitely understand why people prefer to ignore it.

by Anonymousreply 2007/21/2012

R20, a lot still deny it.

by Anonymousreply 2107/22/2012

It doesn't matter. It's too late to do anything about it. We will just have to ride it out.

by Anonymousreply 2207/22/2012

Sunday morning bump

by Anonymousreply 2307/22/2012

"WTF is wrong with conservatives?"

Sociopaths, in bed with the oil corps, who think they'll be gone before any real crisis sets in. The fact that their offspring may suffer is unimportant.

by Anonymousreply 2407/22/2012

I think that if we all crank up our air conditioners and open the windows maybe the planet will cool down a little, no?

by Anonymousreply 2507/22/2012

Or if we put a GIANT ice cube in the ocean!

by Anonymousreply 2607/22/2012

Ice cubes are already falling into the ocean, that's part of the problem, R26.

by Anonymousreply 2707/22/2012

I'm not talking about polar ice caps, those are far too small, I mean the world's biggest ice cube made in the world's biggest freezer. Then we'll just leave the freezer door open to cool the earth down even more! This is big picture thinking!

by Anonymousreply 2807/22/2012

There are just TOO MANY people on the planet.

Mother nature is doing what she does best, restoring the balance.

The planet is an bio system, just like your body. When you get a virus that overwhelms you, your body fights back, well planet earth is fighting back.

by Anonymousreply 2907/22/2012

Great article. Well worth reading the whole piece.

The article is depressing and alarming, but it should not be in the least bit surprising or shocking to anyone who has been paying a modicum of attention to this issue over the past twenty or more years.

People are largely apathetic about this because (1) it has not really affected them in any meaningful way; and (2) the fuel industry and its supporters (Republicans) have muddied the debate about the reality of climate change with silly nonsense about Al Gore's weight.

In addition, people have been lulled into a false sense of doing something good for the environment by engaging in modest efforts at recycling -- none of which will have any meaningful effect in light of the massive use of carbon fuels here in the U.S. and in places like China and India.

Even if you dutifully put your cans, plastics, and newspapers out for the recycling truck, you can completely offset any good you are doing by driving around in an SUV or buying cheaply made disposable crap from Walmart and Target. The more junk that we consume only fuels the system for producing more and more goods, using more and more energy to create, ship, and sell them.

But, the devastating effects of global climate change may wake people up from their stupor. Maybe. It is a pity, however, what is going to have to happen before that occurs.

Right now, it feels like we are in the opening sequences of a very horrifying science fiction movie.

by Anonymousreply 3007/22/2012

No, R25.

by Anonymousreply 3107/22/2012

Buy land in Vermont now, it will be beach front property soon.

by Anonymousreply 3207/22/2012

[quote] I mean the world's biggest ice cube made in the world's biggest freezer.

proof of how stupid most people are.

You do realize, dumb-dumb, that the Antarctic ice shelves are FAR bigger than any possible freezer could ever be? you didn't? well, please just go back to your sandbox and play and let the adults continue discussing important things.

by Anonymousreply 3307/22/2012

Idiots like R32 don't seem to realize that if/when sea levels rise, all beaches will disappear. The new coastlines will be beachless and disasters. Beaches build up over tens of thousands of years.

by Anonymousreply 3407/22/2012

R33 is too retarded to recognize obvious sarcasm.

by Anonymousreply 3507/22/2012

Lighten up R34, it was said in sarcastic humor.

by Anonymousreply 3607/22/2012

Ugh, relax, R33.

R28 was trying to be funny.

Making light of a horrible situation that most of us are too terrified to actually think about.

Which, of course, is precisely the problem.

by Anonymousreply 3707/22/2012

This explains the solution

by Anonymousreply 3807/22/2012

Monday morning bump... an article everyone should read (it's not THAT long, stop whining and read it)

by Anonymousreply 3907/23/2012

Except the air is already degraded from when you were a child R40. See all those people with oxygen tanks? That's your future.

by Anonymousreply 4107/23/2012

R42? That's called a distraction. An irrelevency. Missing the point.

by Anonymousreply 4407/23/2012

I totally believe in global warming, but it's pretty easy to forget about in San Francisco. Gotta love the irony of a place that conservatives loathe remaining blissfully cool year-round, while the "heartland" scorches.

by Anonymousreply 4507/23/2012

...or the fact that in the city where you feel it the least, you probably have the most believers in the reality of it.

by Anonymousreply 4607/23/2012

R40, you're an idiot, a moron, and living proof that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

But cling to your ignorance, little boy. It's apparently all you've got.

by Anonymousreply 4707/24/2012

[quote]"There are just TOO MANY people on the planet."

this will unfortunately correct itself.

by Anonymousreply 4807/24/2012

Yeah, we're fucked. As the article points out the only way out is if the fossil fuel companies leave the oil in the ground already, and we know they're unlikely to leave that $ on the table.

Also, it's not just conservatives/Republicans. Though Dems acknowledge global warming, they're, as usual, pussies who refuse to do anything about it.

It's interesting that the majority of Americans according to that poll actually do believe and do want the government to do something about it.

by Anonymousreply 4907/24/2012

Jesus Saves! Jesus Saves!

by Anonymousreply 5007/24/2012

R40...I hate to say anythin but the ocean levels have risen and the polar icecapes are melting and our weather does seem to be much more unpredictable...causing one expensive desaster after another. R40, you aren't very bright, are you?

by Anonymousreply 5107/24/2012

I guess I am more concerned about the impending economic collapse of the world. It effects me more directly. The earth will survive while I am still alive, but I really worry about not having money.

by Anonymousreply 5207/24/2012


by Anonymousreply 5307/29/2012

The US is the only total denier of this all, the only one.

by Anonymousreply 5407/29/2012

If you never actually read the full article linked in the OP... you really, really should.

by Anonymousreply 5509/24/2012

Actually, we are doomed. You see we've lived in a period of extremely low volcanic activity that won't continue. Once that kicks in, it's all over. We won't need to worry about climate though, the fact is we won't be able to BREATHE. Already oxygen in the atmosphere has fallen as much as 15% in some places. In the future we will have to make do with about 40% of the breathable air we have now. Most people will die once they reach 60.

by Anonymousreply 5609/24/2012

Not so R54. China also. But the solution is easy and obvious. Nationalize the oil and natural gas companies. Their profits would be enough to pay off the national debt and consumption and production could be easily controlled and eliminated.

by Anonymousreply 5709/24/2012

bump for a must-read article

by Anonymousreply 5810/17/2012

Everone should read this.

by Anonymousreply 5910/21/2012

George Carlin on global warming.

by Anonymousreply 6011/17/2012

We'd better hurry up and live like we're dying!!!

by Anonymousreply 6111/17/2012

More people should read this

by Anonymousreply 6211/24/2012

2012, the new hottest year on record.

by Anonymousreply 6312/14/2012

We had a drought here in Kansas. Another few summers like the last one, and I guess it's going to be the Dust Bowl again. I do remember in the early 90s there was a drought in the state, and I saw a large dust cloud off in the distance a few times.

by Anonymousreply 6412/14/2012


by Anonymousreply 6501/26/2013

Maybe all those damn Asian countries should stop polluting the air so damn much, which is helping ruin the atmosphere.

by Anonymousreply 6601/26/2013

Well, it's not as if the planet has experienced heating and cooling cycles in its past or anything.


It's incredibly arrogant to think that humans are immune to extinction. The planet itself will just go on spinning until the sun explodes and collapses. We won't be missed.

by Anonymousreply 6701/26/2013

R67, was there a point to that?

Because you sound like a real idiot if you think any of that needed to be said. It's like you're responding to an argument nobody is making.

by Anonymousreply 6801/26/2013

Read it and weep.

by Anonymousreply 6903/19/2013


by Anonymousreply 7003/19/2013

Oh please, R66. Could you be any more stereotypically American? Guess who is responsible for the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere?

by Anonymousreply 7103/19/2013

indeed, but China recently pulled ahead as far as CO2 emissions

by Anonymousreply 7203/19/2013

And most people in the U.S. won't believe it until those who live on a hill wake up one morning discover they now live on waterfront property.

by Anonymousreply 7303/19/2013

Anyone remember an episode of Oprah where she had on some scientist who had come up with a solution to repair the Ozone layer? It had something to do with using a regular Garden hose and using it to send up... some sort of gas. All I remember was that the logic behind it was that whenever a volcano erupts, it emits this gas and it has positive effects on the Ozone and this process could easily be replicated?

Whatever happened to that?

by Anonymousreply 7403/19/2013


by Anonymousreply 7504/16/2013

They're running the documentary "Chasing Ice" on National Geographic HD channel... it's amazing. Read this, then watch that. Then get everyone you know to read this, and watch that.

by Anonymousreply 7604/21/2013

Between global warming and The Big One on the San Andreas fault, I can't wait until Victorville has ocean front property.

by Anonymousreply 7704/21/2013

I wonder if there is anyone alive who can see this entire issue clearly and will write about it for the history.

Not me. I can't write. But you start with Rachel and the young people who read her and the ones who read Ayn, J.D. or Jack and show how they got into the schools, destroyed the minds of three generations of children, forming the four pillars of our current nutcase civilization.

Ironically, the pillar of Envirofundies have some truth behind their case. Humanity IS at last a big enough shitload to start having a permanent effect on the climate. Thankfully, a supervolcano will render the entire issue moot. In the meantime, let them be.

by Anonymousreply 7804/21/2013

What the fuck are you talking about R78?

by Anonymousreply 7904/21/2013

This is a must-read

by Anonymousreply 8005/18/2013

The planet earth will survive just fine.

The human race is only a microscopic part of earth species history. There will be another intelligent species. This has all happened before.

Go back 65 million years for total species collapse (the planet is 4.5 Billion years old already) The human race has only been here for 50 thousand years. The dinosaurs lasted 180 Million years. We are just a flash in the pan.

by Anonymousreply 8105/20/2013

Bumping a little reality for the deniers...

by Anonymousreply 8205/31/2013

As the heat-wave rages across the south west (108 in Austin yesterday, 120 in Arizona), it seems timely to bump this for anyone who hasn't read it yet.

It's worth the read.

by Anonymousreply 8306/30/2013

r40, the correct term is Climate Change.

I live in New Mexico and we're in the midst of a massive drought. Over 90% of the state is in extreme drought conditions which the worst level of drought.

We have had water restrictions for a number of years. I've given up on my garden since I can't throw enough water on it to keep it from frying.

I was out on the road and went through a town a few weeks ago that has completely run out of water. Had stopped to get gas and use the restroom and their restroom was closed due to the situation. The mayor of another town just announced that his town was on the verge of running out of water.

A few more years of drought like this and we'll see these towns abandoned

This month has felt more like August than June. Too hot to do anything.

Meanwhile, everything north of us is on fire.

The hottest and driest parts of the country are going to be the first to go.

by Anonymousreply 8406/30/2013

If the scorching temps in Death Valley are tying the record set in 1913, what accounted for such dreadful heat in 1913? It couldn't have been Climate Change or Global Warming a hundred years ago, so why do we have to believe that man-made carbon emissions are the cause of similar conditions today?

by Anonymousreply 8506/30/2013

R85, your ignorance doesn't change the facts. That you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't real. Get that through your fucking head.

by Anonymousreply 8606/30/2013

R86, asking questions is part of scientific method.

by Anonymousreply 8707/01/2013

As floods decimate Colorado and New Mexico, and new record highs are set, and weird weather patterns become the norm, and huge fractions of states burn... the article in the OP is worth reading and re-reading, and spreading around again.

by Anonymousreply 8809/14/2013

I love this stuff.

by Anonymousreply 8909/14/2013

plus, fukushima

by Anonymousreply 9009/14/2013

[all posts by flame bait troll #11 removed (violent racist homophobic right-wing misogynist), ISP notified with full text of all posts.]

by Anonymousreply 9109/14/2013

The lack of hurricanes is further proof that global warming is a hoax.

Alternating floods and wildfires suggest otherwise, denialist dipshit.

by Anonymousreply 9209/14/2013

Not a hoax. It's all over for humanity, and most of you are just too dumb to realize it.

by Anonymousreply 9409/18/2013

The Institute for Public Affairs is a "free market" think tank in Melbourne, Australia funded by .... ExxonMobil among others.

by Anonymousreply 9509/18/2013

Fukushima will end us soon enough

by Anonymousreply 9609/18/2013

someone will invent satellites with filters to grab all the carbon then crush it into diamonds.

by Anonymousreply 9709/18/2013

Turning[/bold] off[/bold] the[/bold] bold[/bold] tag[/bold].

by Anonymousreply 10009/19/2013

My do Global Warming deniers continue to post already debunked bullshit, over and over, as if it hasn't already been explained and thoroughly debunked?

by Anonymousreply 10209/19/2013

No matter what the topic is, R102, no one takes seriously anyone who uses the word "debunked."

I just "debunked" you. See how convincing that is?

by Anonymousreply 10309/19/2013

R103, posting more lies, based on zero logic or reason, and probably not even understanding the word 'debunked' or what it means.

by Anonymousreply 10409/19/2013

I live in Colorado, and I am seriously scared after all of this flooding. I have never seen anything like it in my life. We just had the largest fire in the history of the state in June, and now we have a 1000 year flood not even three months later. No fucking explanation for this but climate change.

by Anonymousreply 10509/19/2013

I think you mean 'denialists' faith.

They're the ones making shit up, rather than relying on observation and scientific facts.

by Anonymousreply 10709/19/2013

How so?

by Anonymousreply 11009/19/2013

R109, like all denialists, continues to assert things without basis in reality, in order to cling to their bizarre belief that they somehow know more than 98% of all scientists on the planet who actually study this stuff for a living.

by Anonymousreply 11109/19/2013

(the other 2% of scientists being on the pay-roll of the coal or oil industries)

by Anonymousreply 11209/20/2013

What a load of bullshit, R113.

(rolling eyes)

You guys will grasp at ANY straw to try and deny the obvious.

There has been no pause. Arctic sea ice is NOT bouncing back. Global warming IS real.

Get over your ignorant selves. You do NOT know more than 99% of all global climate scientists (and that other 1%? On the payroll of fossil fuel corporations).

Seriously, I don't think you read the article in the OP. If you did, you'd be embarrassed to post your denial crap here.

by Anonymousreply 11409/23/2013

R115, you do realize that being ever so slightly more than the RECORD LOW is not any sign that Global Warming is a hoax, right?

What is with you fucking morons anyway? You take a statistic you don't understand, completely out of context, and then insist it proves that reality isn't happening.

Fuck you, idiot.

by Anonymousreply 11609/23/2013

R115, a sucker for spin and propaganda.

[bold]Sorry, Arctic sea ice isn’t really ‘recovering’[/bold]

Over the past few decades, the sharp decline of summer sea ice in the Arctic has been one of the clearest signs that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly.

So it's time to check in with the sea ice again now that we've reached the end of the 2013 summer melt season. Here's a chart from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) showing the extent of sea ice in the Arctic this year (red line) — that is, the area of ocean with at least 15 percent ice:

(see link for graph)

A few things jump out. The ice extent for 2013 hit a low of 5.099 million square kilometers on Sept. 13. That was the sixth-lowest minimum on record and about 23 percent below the long-term average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

But there was still a lot more Arctic ice this year than there was in 2012, when the sea ice extent shrunk to just 3.413 million square kilometers, the lowest minimum by far since satellite measurements began. So what happened? Has the Arctic started to recover, as the Daily Mail recently suggested? Not exactly. Here's why.

[bold]Short term variation vs. long-term trends[/bold]

The Met Office in Britain recently pointed out that there are all sorts of reasons why sea ice extent can bounce around from year to year:

-- temperatures naturally vary from one year to the next;

-- the amount of cloud can affect the amount of surface melting;

-- summer storms can also break up ice, which can accelerate the melting process;

-- settled conditions can be more conducive to ice forming;

-- winds may act to spread out the ice or push it together.

Those variables can help explain why sea ice didn't decline in 2013 as much as it did last year: “In 2012 we saw a record low which was likely to have been influenced by a storm which swept through the region in summer, but this year’s weather conditions appear to have been less conducive to ice loss," noted Ann Keen, a sea ice scientist at the Met Office.

Since things can vary a fair bit year to year, the Met Office advises looking at longer-term trends. And those are easy to see. There was less Arctic ice, on average, in the 2000s than there was in the 1990s. And there was less ice, on average, in the 1990s than there was in the 1980s.

Clearly the ice is disappearing. Since 1979, Arctic sea-ice extent has been shrinking by about 4 percent per decade, with summer lows getting about 11 percent smaller each decade. And the volume of Arctic sea ice — which is trickier to measure — also keeps tumbling downward:

(see graph at link)

Looked at this way, 2013 doesn't really look like a recovery.

by Anonymousreply 11709/23/2013

118 didn't read the article in the OP, *OR* the article linked in R117.

And your idiotic "follow the money" thing is hilarious, because if you actually DID follow the money, it'd lead you to notice that *all* of the denialism is heavily funded by the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel corporations.

by Anonymousreply 11909/23/2013

Keep arguing about global warming while Fukushima pollutes the whole planet with radiation

by Anonymousreply 12009/23/2013

There is no hiatus in global warming. It is accelerating. Of course there will be localized cooling.

by Anonymousreply 12109/23/2013

The motivations of Global Warming/Climate-Change denialists puzzle me.

Basically, they're just regurgitating Koch Brothers/Big Oil talking points verbatim. They have no real arguments.

And seriously, what is their goal?

Why are they against more efficient energy use, cleaner air and water, more domestic jobs, less dependence on foreign nations, less war over energy resources, etc.?

Are they really so concerned that hugely profitable fossil fuel industries continue to be able to rip off customers, pollute our land, air, and water at tax-payer expense, and maintain an unsustainable status-quo?

Seriously, what is their motivation? What do they GET out of denying the obvious?

There isn't a farmer alive that isn't aware of climate change. They see it in the world around them. Yet these morons continue to deny the consistent evidence gathered from ALL branches of science, and somehow think it's a giant conspiracy by these same scientists across all the world's nations to extort more grant money? Huh??

What the fuck is their problem??

by Anonymousreply 12209/24/2013

[quote]What the fuck is their problem??


Like the violently projecting idiot said, "follow the money".

by Anonymousreply 12309/24/2013

But if you follow the money, you find it's the global warming denialists that are bought and paid for, lying their asses off to preserve the corporate profits of the fossil fuel industry.

There is no "money" to follow to support manufacturing a non-existent global warming hoax.

by Anonymousreply 12409/24/2013

"Global Warming" is just an excuse for the government (i.e. the 1% - BOTH PARTIES YOU DUMB FUCKS) to implement cap & trade and tax the middle and poor classes into fucking oblivion. 1 or 2 degrees over a hundred years, and not even reliably proven - fuck you. Maybe this will help you followers.

by Anonymousreply 12509/24/2013

In the southeast...record cool. Arctic ice increases. Global warming is a bunch of left wing horse shit. OP, you ride the bus or walk and the the rest of us the fuck alone. Man cannot control weather. Go bitch at India, China and North Korea. They won't sign an environment treaty and they are the wolds biggest polluters.

by Anonymousreply 12609/24/2013

R125, you're fucking dreaming.

It's the 1% that is FIGHTING global warming, because their current scenario is too profitable.

What is with morons who apply exactly the OPPOSITE motivations to groups that they so obviously have?

And the notion that both parties represent the 1% is even more obviously and laughably false.

Seriously, how warped is your perception that you believe the bullshit that idiots like R125 peddle?

Your post, R125, only exposes your utter ignorance (you don't understand the significance of two degrees (Celsius, not Fahrenheit) GLOBAL AVERAGE means for starters, and you think "it's not reliably proven" when it actually is).

The only "hoax" that exists is the denialism being pushed on you by the Koch brothers (i.e. the REAL 1%).

Scientists are not trying to scam you.

by Anonymousreply 12709/24/2013

DEBUNKED! Hypothetical nonsense. Algore's (1% BTW) hockey stick graph was bullshit. Still is. Just environmental extremist whackos manipulating data for their own purposes. People are waking up to this hoax, finally.

by Anonymousreply 12909/24/2013

No, R129, sorry.

Most of those supposed "debunkings" have been endlessly debunked by actual scientists and actual data.

You can nitpick this or that, but it doesn't change the over-arching facts. And just because some bought-and-paid-for think-tank says something is wrong, doesn't mean it's wrong.

WHY is it so important to you that this stuff be wrong? Seriously, ask yourself what it is you're really fighting for, and fighting against? Why are you so dead-set on ignoring reality and burying your head in the sand, and how have you managed to convince yourself that every scientist that isn't paid by Big Oil is wrong, and only those tiny fractions of scientists funded by Big Oil are right?

by Anonymousreply 13009/24/2013

R28. YES we can control pollution, NOT GLOBAL WARMING! I did read R117 you douche.

by Anonymousreply 13109/24/2013

R131, with your every post you just confirm how much of a raging idiot you are. You should probably stop while you're behind.

by Anonymousreply 13209/24/2013

On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

The report, which cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, also found that "no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments" and no convincing case can be made that "a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling." The U.N.'s panel is scheduled to release its next report next month.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as "an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." Unlike the "United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution," NIPCC "has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency" and is "wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations."

According to the study's authors, "the hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes up short not merely of 'full scientific certainty' but of reasonable certainty or even plausibility. The weight of evidence now leans heavily against the theory."

by Anonymousreply 13409/24/2013

[quote]On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.

And the other 10,000 international scientists looked at them and their industry ties, and just shook their heads.

by Anonymousreply 13509/24/2013

R136, I again refer you back to R117... it sucks that that ridiculously ignorant talking point has so much traction with those who (inexplicably) have such a vested interest in denying the reality of climate change.

by Anonymousreply 13709/24/2013

Simple answer R130 - Cap and Trade. I don't like attempted hoaxes designed to raise taxes and the cost of goods for NO OTHER REASON than to enrich the top tier of investors in the scam, to the severe detriment of the middle class and poor. Give away BILLIONS of tax dollars to FAILED companies like Solyndra and Amonix so their execs can buy yachts and ski chalets? It is a money scam. THAT is my answer to your question.

You're clearly "all in" on this (blinders). Read the contra-evidence sometime. Watch a documentary other than Algore's sometime.

For instance, did you know that most of the climate stations in the US are located within the heat envelopes of major cities? Of course those areas are getting hotter - they have things call engines which produce localized heat... As the cities grow, so would number of engines, ergo - more heat. On and on.

The books are cooked on this scam.

by Anonymousreply 13909/24/2013

Global Warming/Climate-Change denialists are the perfect example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

They have no grasp of the bigger picture, they fixate on a tiny data-point, cherry-picked to support whatever axe they want to grind, completely oblivious to the forest for their obsession with their one tiny tree.

Scientific illiteracy is a huge problem in this country, and it's always those who are MOST scientifically illiterate that seem to be the harshest critics of scientific findings. Because they just don't "get it".

by Anonymousreply 14009/24/2013

R138, why do you think that changes anything?

Do you think GLOBAL AVERAGES only take into account one pole or the other? Really?

by Anonymousreply 14109/24/2013

[quote]Simple answer [R130] - Cap and Trade.

Cap and Trade is the right-wing, conservative, "free market" solution, originally proposed by Republicans and free-market types before they realized there was more money (in the short term anyway) in denying what they used to accept as reality.

[quote] I don't like attempted hoaxes designed to raise taxes and the cost of goods for NO OTHER REASON than to enrich the top tier of investors in the scam, to the severe detriment of the middle class and poor.

Well... global warming/climate-change isn't a hoax (attempted or otherwise). And the rise in taxes would be used to subsidize renewable energy in order to boot-strap it up to competitiveness with established fossil fuel industries. It's a short-term cost that will literally avoid far larger long-term costs. It's short sighted to save a penny now if saving that penny will cost you two dollars down the road, right? And three, there is no scam, and peak-oil and fossil fuel pollutants negatively affect the middle-class and poor far more than the wealthy already.

[quote]Give away BILLIONS of tax dollars to FAILED companies like Solyndra and Amonix so their execs can buy yachts and ski chalets?

This is just ignorant parroting of propaganda. Yes, there were some failures in the investments, but they were a tiny minority. There will always be failures when investing in new technologies. Seriously, this is just a STUPID and IGNORANT objection. This is fueled by spin and propaganda, not reality or factual analysis.

[quote]THAT is my answer to your question.

And I've pointed out it's not an answer. It just tells me you've been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, and are either gullible or ignorant. It's a weird fetish to deny the reality of climate change because you don't like one or two proposed solutions to it.

It's also annoying and obnoxious that you think that actually factoring in the REAL COSTS of fossil fuels (i.e. all the health problems, pollution, environmental degredation, etc) into the form of taxes rather than just having taxpayer funded cleanup and other "bailouts" is a BAD thing. There are long term costs that aren't being borne by the industry itself or by the actual users of the dirty energy. You blithely ignore that.

Never mind the costs of rising seas... we need to fund planning NOW to mitigate disasters LATER.

[quote]You're clearly "all in" on this (blinders).

No, you've got it backwards. You're clearly "all in" on the denialism, with your blinders firmly in place, and being reinforced by right-wing talking points and dirty-fuel corporate brainwashing.

I'm all in with SCIENCE, this is true. Science is verified. Fact checked. Constantly questioned and tested. And it's consistent across ALL DISCIPLINES of Science, and all measures, and survives all tests... and even the most wild predictions of the consequences have so far proven if anything to be too conservative. Yet your head is still in the sand about it. YOU have the blinders, dude, not me.

[quote]For instance, did you know that most of the climate stations in the US are located within the heat envelopes of major cities?

Did you know this talking point was debunked YEARS ago?

[quote]The books are cooked on this scam.

The only cooked books are the propaganda, spin, and outright lies you're gullibly buying into, all funded by the fossil fuel industry. Seriously, follow the money... your side LOVES to say that, but never actually seems to DO it. Global warming denialism is nearly all funded by the Koch Brothers (same guys who fund the Tea Party).

It's a scam all right... a corporate scam to convince gullible rubes like you by spinning half-truths and lies into a story that helps them continue to enrich themselves at YOUR expense. And you're helping them.

by Anonymousreply 14409/24/2013

R142, you're projecting. In fact, your own quote applies to YOU not me:

[quote]No data or observed reality will sway him from his warmist religion.

Just change 'warmist' to 'denialist'.

Because I'm not the one believing in religion. I'm believing in fact, in science, in hard data, gathered independently from tens of thousands of scientist in dozens of professional fields across hundreds of countries. Your belief is that these people are all in a cabal, a giant conspiracy, that are somehow out to get YOU and YOUR MONEY. Which is of course just ridiculous.

If facts come to light that refute global warming, then I will refute it. But the reality is that nearly all the data confirms it.

YOU are the one taking everything on faith, and gullibly buying into the lies being spun by the fossil-fuel industry and special interests.

by Anonymousreply 14509/24/2013

I guess this is the part that annoys me the most:

"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television."

So true.

And more insight can be found at the link, where the Popular Science website talks about why it turned off comments on its articles:

by Anonymousreply 14609/24/2013

I prefer to refer to climate change deniers as "flat-earthers". Nuclear-powered, absolutely impermeable ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 14709/24/2013




oil industry shill





by Anonymousreply 14909/25/2013

The solution is to not buy anything made in China, since they are the global warmers. Who is with me? I try to buy USA only all the time, even if it's more expensive.

by Anonymousreply 15009/25/2013

Global Average Surface Air Temperature By Decade:

by Anonymousreply 15109/26/2013

Change in heat content in upper 2000 meters (6500 feet) of world’s oceans:

by Anonymousreply 15209/26/2013

[bold]Ocean Warming, Sea Level Rise And Polar Ice Melt Speed Up, Surface Warming To Follow[/bold]

“Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms,” as we reported back in March. And “Greenland Ice Melt Up Nearly Five-Fold Since Mid-1990s, Antarctica’s Ice Loss Up 50% In Past Decade,” as we reported last November. Another study that month found “sea level rising 60% faster than projected.”

And yet much of the media believes climate change isn’t what gets measured and reported by scientists, but is somehow a dialectic or a debate between scientists and deniers. So while 2010 was the hottest year on record and the 2000s the hottest decade on record, we are subject to nonsensically framed stories like this one from CBS, headlined “Controversy over U.N. report on climate change as warming appears to slow.”

The drama-driven junkies of the MSM apparently think that the most newsworthy thing in the once-every-several-years literature review by hundreds of the world’s leading scientists is that people who make a living denying climate science … wait for it … deny climate science. That CBS story actually begins, “Climatologists and climate-change deniers agree on at least one thing this week: everyone is awaiting the landmark U.N. report on climate change that will be presented at next week’s meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” Stop the presses! No, please, stop the damn presses already if you are an editor or reporter who thinks deniers deserve equal billing with scientists.

Because the media keeps making the same faux pas about the faux pause, scientists and science writers have had to debunk it repeatedly. Anyone in the media who insists on buying into the false dialectic MUST read the new piece at Real Climate by climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf, the Mother Jones piece by Chris Mooney, this piece by Tamino, and almost anything at Skeptical Science (such as this or this). Also, Peter Sinclair has a great video on this.

(more at the link)

by Anonymousreply 15309/26/2013

From the link in 152:

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

•Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.

•As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.

•Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.

•The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

For more on the myth of a low climate sensitivity (or the myth that climate sensitivity is the same as projected future warming), see this post. In reality, the best science says that the Earth’s actual sensitivity to carbon pollution is probably on the high side.

The bottom line is provided by Rahmstorf at RealClimate:

[bold]The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming….

The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.[/bold]

Warming of the whole globe (as opposed to the thin surface layer) has sped up. When the rate of surface warming returns to the trendline, I wonder if the media will report that global warming has accelerated.

by Anonymousreply 15409/26/2013

[quote]The Oceans ate my Global Warming!

Wow. Such brilliant wit, flying in the face of peer-reviewed scientific reality. Now shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.

by Anonymousreply 15609/26/2013

R157 & R158 are really suffering from delusion, and tin-hat conspiracy theorism.

by Anonymousreply 15909/26/2013

Sad, really. Clearly hasn't the mental capacity to do anything but cut and paste ExxonMobil propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 16009/26/2013

The persistent ignoring of scientists' findings is typical of the short sightedness of so many people. The world will not end due to global warming, but a viable way of life for our race may. We have to think a few generations into the future.

from an article at link

How fast this will come about, we do not know. All we can say is that it will take no longer than 2,000 years. Thus the 2.3 metres per degree of warming are not for this century. They need to be considered as our sea level commitment – the sea level rise that cannot be avoided after we have elevated global temperatures to a certain level.

Ben Strauss of Climate Central has considered the different possible future pathways that society might take and computed which US cities are at risk in the long-term. He poses the question as to what year, if we continue with greenhouse emissions at current rates, we will have caused an inevitable sea level rise that puts certain cities at risk.

According to his analysis, within the next few years Miami in Florida will be committed to eventually lie below sea level, while our future actions can still decide on whether we want to one day give up cities such as Virginia Beach, Sacramento, Boston, Jacksonville or New York City.

This is a decision society has to take for future generations. We will need to adapt to climate change in any case, but some things we will not be able to adapt to. Society needs to decide whether we want to give up, for example, the Tower of London, or to put the breaks on climate change so that we don’t have to.

by Anonymousreply 16109/26/2013

R158 (and multiple other posts) = fucking sockpuppet/troll.

Get a real job, you cunt!

by Anonymousreply 16309/26/2013

[bold]The Climate Change Denial Machine Is Going Up to 11[/bold]

As I predicted, with the advent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report due tomorrow, the noise machine is out in full force.

Still, when I saw that James Delingpole had written yet another climate change denial piece for The Telegraph, I dithered. After all, in my opinion Delingpole is one of the noisiest of the deniers, saying whatever he can no matter how provocative, presumably to get a rise out of his readers. You can read all about his shenanigans at DeSmogBlog.

But The Telegraph is widely read, and Delingpole’s wrongness is the usual kind of stuff that will make the rounds of the deny-o-sphere, so I’ll stick my head in to the maelstrom momentarily.

The real meat of his column starts with this:

[quote]At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

Actually, no. They didn’t predict “runaway” warming, they use models of the atmosphere checked against real measurements to make predictions of future temperatures. The warming predicted was steady and unsettling, but hardly “runaway”. Delingpole’s use of the term is a strawman.

(lots more debunking at the link)

by Anonymousreply 16409/27/2013

Go play in a hurricane, R162.

by Anonymousreply 16509/27/2013

In other news, scientists have found no conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer.

by Anonymousreply 16709/27/2013

It was slightly cooler this summer where I live. The A/C was ran less this year than the previous years that I can remember.

by Anonymousreply 16809/27/2013

That's it! I'm moving to Yonkers.

by Anonymousreply 16909/27/2013

So many claims of faith. So little proof. Global Warming has been sounding like religion for a while now. Even before we had proof the numbers have been cooked. Remember that scandal?

by Anonymousreply 17009/27/2013

You have AC?

by Anonymousreply 17109/27/2013

There was no scandal R170. It is a figment of your imagination.

by Anonymousreply 17209/27/2013

"Global warming" has been known for quite some now as "Climate change."

Unusually cold weather - climate change. Unusually hot weather - climate change. Too much rain - climate change. Too little rain - climate change. Nothing happening - climate change.

Glad to see the end of this scam and more people waking up to it. So many taxpayers' dollars over so many years have been wasted on this giant con enriching the 1 per cent.

Spend the money fighting poverty and providing free health care. That's what I'd like to see.

by Anonymousreply 17309/27/2013

Thank you R162. Nailed it.

by Anonymousreply 17409/27/2013

R166 just linked to Fox News as some sort of proof? Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 17509/27/2013

R173, Climate Change isn't a scam, you idiot.

Funny how all the deniers are completely ignoring how their propaganda and half-truths and spin and lies are utterly debunked in article after article posted here and elsewhere...

Perhaps people should go back and read the article linked in R164 again (or for the first time since I think many of you didn't bother).

by Anonymousreply 17609/27/2013

I have ZERO faith in anything the U.N. does. If you do - then you're a stooge of the highest order. A perfect mark. For me to have any confidence whatsoever that the climate scientists aren't in the pockets of the politicians, and trumping up their charts, graphs, and statistics (ala, the totally debunked hockey stick graph), there would need to be a NON-Governmental, OBJECTIVE, "double-blind study" type of group guiding the discussion. Based on all the controversy and backpedaling today, no way I'm going to become an anthropogenic theory cultist. It's just too expensive to sign off on without real proof.

by Anonymousreply 17809/27/2013

No, R179, you don't believe in human-caused global warming because you're an uneducated idiot who makes bold claims out of ignorance and based on a failure to even comprehend the topic you're pontificating on.

by Anonymousreply 18109/27/2013

[bold]IPCC Report: Humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of global warming[/bold]

Our climate is changing, no doubt about it. The festering controversy we're in has been about whether humans have anything to do with it. A comprehensive report by a UN-sponsored climate panel may now finally put the issue to rest — and we're most certainly to blame.

by Anonymousreply 18209/27/2013

R185 - Don't get me started on solar activity and the fact that a warming climate based on such CAUSES more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (trees, the soil). Ergo, the correlation does exist, but the interpretation is exactly BACKWARDS...

by Anonymousreply 18509/27/2013

R186 is completely moronic.

It's not backwards. It's a reinforcing spiral.

Man dumps megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere (along with methane and other greenhouse gasses), which causes the Earth to warm... which causes more evaporation (more H2O) as well as more methane (melting permafrost) which causes MORE warming...

And yes, R185, they do factor in cloud albedo (more moisture = more clouds, which helps counter-act warming to a degree), but it's being outpaced by loss of sea ice (more water absorbs more heat instead of reflecting it away as ice does).

What is it with you retards who cherry pick one or two data points, then take them COMPLETELY out of context, and think that somehow PROVES that you are right, and tens of thousands of professional scientists with a lot more knowledge and IQ points than you are all somehow wrong?

What arrogance!

by Anonymousreply 18609/27/2013

R186 also believes that Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons were shipped to Syria. A truly simple soul.

by Anonymousreply 18709/27/2013

Why can't they just build a giant air conditioning unit on the moon and point it at the earth to keep it cool?

by Anonymousreply 18909/27/2013

Oh, the old methane chestnut. It is to jest.

by Anonymousreply 19109/27/2013

The biggest threat from global warming is that viruses, bacteria, insects will all thrive, and they evolve faster than people and can easily wipe us out.

by Anonymousreply 19709/27/2013

[quote]Global Warming is stopping.

...except for the fact that it's not, as described in several links in detail above that you obviously haven't bothered to read.

In fact, it's the fact that the climate SHOULD be cooling, but is in fact WARMING, that is one of the clinching facts that humans are causing it (or at least exacerbating it).

by Anonymousreply 19909/27/2013

R199, you understand the concept of warming causing the tropics to expand, allowing all sorts of things (insects, diseases, etc.) to migrate into areas where they never existed before, right?

by Anonymousreply 20009/27/2013

R202? That's already been addressed and debunked. I refer you back to the link in post R153.

by Anonymousreply 20209/27/2013

R202 - Nothing new. Algore's "hockey stick" fear-graph glossed over about 600 YEARS of data that didn't suit his objective.

by Anonymousreply 20309/27/2013

(rolling eyes at R204)

by Anonymousreply 20409/27/2013

Freepers, freepers and more freepers.

by Anonymousreply 20509/27/2013

[quote]"eye rolling" is what 14-year-old girls do when they're frustrated.

Since you seem incapable of reason, shame or a rational discussion, there's not much to be done with your incessant spam bullshit, now is there?

by Anonymousreply 20709/27/2013


You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.

If you're dead set on your belief that it's a scam, and cherry-pick "facts" to support that believe while ignoring all the ACTUAL facts that disprove it... there's really no point in doing anything beyond rolling eyes at you.

There can be no legitimate debate with those who have abandoned reason, logic, and facts.

by Anonymousreply 20809/27/2013

UN says with a "95% certainty" that manmade pollution is to blame for climate change. Which I guess is precisely why the flat-earth troll keeps posting obviously fake bullshit over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over over & over & over & over & over.

by Anonymousreply 20909/27/2013

[quote]They won't let science get in the way of their pre-determined conclusions.

In this case, you pathetic trolling idiot child, science agrees with the UN conclusions.

Did you have a point to make, or are you just resorting to random jargon spew at this point?

by Anonymousreply 21109/27/2013

In your fucking dreams, R213.

by Anonymousreply 21309/27/2013

[quote]They won't let science get in the way of their pre-determined conclusions.

Except real scientists with no connection to the UN in any way came to the exact same conclusions.

by Anonymousreply 21409/27/2013

Meanwhile, back here on planet Earth: most rational, sane human beings realize that the climate is changing, very fast, and something has to be done immediately.

Which is precisely why idiot children like R211 keep pumping out tons upon tons of bullshit in an effort to obfuscate the issue.

Sad, really. Because in the end, nothing will get done, as we render the Earth uninhabitable.

by Anonymousreply 21509/27/2013

I'm not talking about the UN's goals, you pathetic child. I'm talking about the simple reality of climate change. Now shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.

by Anonymousreply 21709/27/2013

R217, you need to do YOUR homework. You're so fixated on bashing and denying that you're ignoring reality (and for the third time, the allegedly 'flat' numbers you refer to are anything but, and that talking point was debunked up above, in links you clearly haven't yet read, by scientists having nothing to do with the UN).

by Anonymousreply 21909/27/2013

[quote]Everyone is doesn't believe is on the payroll of big oil

Oh dear.

But yeah, follow the money... all the "Denialism" is being pushed by "think tanks" and "scientists" back by fossil fuel money.

If you can't see that, you're blind and ignorant.

Global warming isn't a "religion"... denialism is (i.e. unsupported by facts, but believed fervently by its followers regardless).

by Anonymousreply 22109/27/2013

[quote]No "real" scientist believes this.

Oh, dear God.

Go read a book that a real scientist wrote. Hell, read anything on the climate that wasn't funded by the Heritage foundation, Rupert Murdoch or ExxonMobil.

99.9% of all peer-reviewed scientists are in agreement as to what's happening to the planet. CO2 levels are continuously rising. These increased levels are acidifying the oceans. The permafrost is melting, releasing methane into the atmosphere, which is an intensely efficient greenhouse gas. At a certain point, left unchecked it turns into a runaway heating cycle.

Increased desertification, increased severe weather, rising sea levels. At some point in a runaway warming cycle, the food chain collapses; at another point methane begins to replace oxygen in the atmosphere. The Earth loses its ability to sustain animal and plant life. Fossil records reinforce the science of what happens when the planet heats up - the last time, everything died off except bacteria.

If I'm wrong, we wind up with increased wind and solar power. If you're wrong, the planet loses its ability to sustain life.

So enough with the corporatist horseshit, okay? It's beyond pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 22209/27/2013

Exactly, R223.

by Anonymousreply 22309/27/2013

The "Evangelical Human Created Global Warmists" are seeing the foundation of their faith shattered by the IPCC.

The fact that the world is COLDER than it was 16 years ago and that the models their PRIESTS (not scientists) used were fundamentally flawed...well, that's like asking a Catholic to say that Mary was a whore. They will never believe it, no matter how much evidence.

by Anonymousreply 22409/27/2013

We WISH there was global warming.

Since 1998 the planet is cooling, and a new Ice Age would destroy us.

The article at the link shows how the world is cooling.

by Anonymousreply 22509/28/2013

One AGAIN, R227 (what, are you guys fucking illiterate morons??), that ignorant talking point was debunked and explained already, up above.

I refer you YET AGAIN, to the article linked in post R153.

Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Or read. Or educate themselves.

And R226 is just fucking wrong.

by Anonymousreply 22709/28/2013

[bold]Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown[/bold]

The message from the IPCC report is familiar and shattering: it’s as bad as we thought it was

Already, a thousand blogs and columns insist the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report is a rabid concoction of scare stories whose purpose is to destroy the global economy. But it is, in reality, highly conservative.

Reaching agreement among hundreds of authors and reviewers ensures that only the statements which are hardest to dispute are allowed to pass. Even when the scientists have agreed, the report must be tempered in another forge, as politicians question anything they find disagreeable: the new report received 1,855 comments from 32 governments, and the arguments raged through the night before launch.

In other words, it’s perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history.

There are no radical departures in this report from the previous assessment, published in 2007; just more evidence demonstrating the extent of global temperature rises, the melting of ice sheets and sea ice, the retreat of the glaciers, the rising and acidification of the oceans and the changes in weather patterns. The message is familiar and shattering: “It’s as bad as we thought it was.”

What the report describes, in its dry, meticulous language, is the collapse of the benign climate in which humans evolved and have prospered, and the loss of the conditions upon which many other lifeforms depend. Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown.

This is a catastrophe we are capable of foreseeing but incapable of imagining. It’s a catastrophe we are singularly ill-equipped to prevent.

The IPCC’s reports attract denial in all its forms: from a quiet turning away – the response of most people – to shrill disavowal. Despite – or perhaps because of – their rigours, the IPCC’s reports attract a magnificent collection of conspiracy theories: the panel is trying to tax us back to the stone age or establish a Nazi/communist dictatorship in which we are herded into camps and forced to crochet our own bicycles. (And they call the scientists scaremongers …)

More at the link:

by Anonymousreply 22809/28/2013

The fact that the Earth was warmer by 10-15 degrees over the last 1000 years proves that mankind is NOT the primary cause of the current trend. No one was burning oil in Greenland in the 10th century.

Well, actually, the CURRENT TREND is global COOLING!

by Anonymousreply 22909/28/2013

R230, are you really that retarded?

by Anonymousreply 23009/28/2013


I love it. 15 years of zero warming equals bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 23109/28/2013

Except there hasn't been 15 years of zero warming, so...

(rolling eyes at the ignorant arrogance)

by Anonymousreply 23209/28/2013


The IPCC report says that temps are the same as in the 1998 survey.

The Earth hasn't warmed since then.

by Anonymousreply 23309/28/2013

Fukashima gonna warm us up!

by Anonymousreply 23409/28/2013

It's not clear what effect any rising seas would have on people who live far inland. Also, with rising temperatures, wouldn't that make more of Canada livable and thus allow North Americans to move north to more favorable climate?

by Anonymousreply 23509/28/2013

R234, are you going to make me point you to R153 YET AGAIN?

What the fuck is wrong with you? You can't read? You don't grasp concepts?

Seriously, what the FUCK is your problem and why is it SO important to you to try and argue against all the science, educated and intelligent scientists, and all the data... why do you think you're smarter, and more informed than the experts? What is in it for you?

Because it's just bizarre to witness your selective blindness, your inability to read and understand even rather simple scientific concepts and data, and the way you cherry-pick "factoids" completely out of context to "prove" your argument... it's sad and pathetic.

Please stop.

You're wrong. Accept it. Deal it. Get over it. You're not an expert, and you're parroting people who are paid to LIE to you, which makes you a gullible tool on top of it all.

by Anonymousreply 23609/28/2013

[quote]you're parroting people who are paid to LIE to you

I heartily applaud you, R237, however you've got to realise that this very troll you are arguing with is HIMSELF paid to lie to people like us about these issues. You will never convince him because he actually has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH. He's not being paid to think.

He and his kind are sitting at workstations posting these bullshit "talking points" all over the 'net at the behest of their employers. They don't have brains, only scripts.

by Anonymousreply 23709/29/2013

I'm not so interested in changing the mind of denialists, but in inoculating others that might be lurking against their lies, propaganda, and bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 23809/29/2013

So. Much. Stupid. Here.

What sort of educated person can sit here and possibly deny that our global climate is in peril? Jesus christ.

by Anonymousreply 23909/29/2013

I belive we are in serious trouble.

by Anonymousreply 24009/29/2013

[bold]Exposing The Money Behind Climate Change Denial[/bold]

Yesterday, I was doing some reading about who is funding the push behind discrediting that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. That was when I came across the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

According to SourceWatch, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is an “advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns.” Turns out they also “dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence that human induced greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change. They have a program for “challenging government regulations”, push property rights as a solution to environment problems, opposed US vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and spin for the drug industry.”

The Washington Post reports, not surprisingly, that Rand Paul was the keynote speaker at this year’s CEI’s Annual Dinner. Top donors for this dinner included the energy sector which “donated $110,000 to the event, the same amount given by conservative foundations (three of which are associated with the billionaires Charles and David Koch). But the biggest single donor is Google, which gave $50,000, and Facebook kicked in $25,000.”

(lots more at the link):

by Anonymousreply 24109/29/2013

There is enough CO2 in the air right now to affect seriously LARGE temperature increases. Like 20-30 degrees globally. Many of you will not survive.

by Anonymousreply 24209/29/2013


by Anonymousreply 24309/29/2013

Articles (like the one at the link) are why most people no longer believe in AGW.

Yawn- so over the last 50 years the world is ONE WHOLE DEGREE warmer!

When these religious fanatics can explain why the planet was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago (warm enough for the Greenland glaciers to recede) and how CO2 has doubled in 20 years while temps have risen one whole fucking degree...well, then you have science.

by Anonymousreply 24410/17/2013

That chicken must be awfully tired of getting fucked up the ass, R245.

by Anonymousreply 24510/17/2013

[quote]Articles (like the one at the link) are why most people no longer believe in AGW.

Why... because people are offended by factual presentations?


You're an idiot. An ignorant idiot. You have no concept of what it means for the *global average* temperature to be a full degree warmer, and how much energy that represents. Or that it's a Celsius degree, not a Fahrenheit degree, I'm betting (i.e. it's significantly more than the 'one degree' you're thinking of).

You wouldn't know science if it bit you on your fast, lazy ass.

by Anonymousreply 24610/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 24710/18/2013

Here's another argument... one that doesn't assume global warming is true. An argument for both skeptics and believers alike. Yeah, it's almost 10 minutes. But it's interesting and insightful and thoughtful.

by Anonymousreply 24810/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 24910/19/2013

The article at r242 needs its own post.

by Anonymousreply 25010/19/2013

The Webmaster likes to just close global warming threads, so I'm not feeling overly compelled to give it a thread of its own. I'm rather surprised this one, among all the other fallen threads, has remained open.

by Anonymousreply 25110/23/2013

You're so silly, R253. I bet you believe in unicorns too.

by Anonymousreply 25310/23/2013

Let's face it, it's way too late. We've already killed ourselves. It's over.

Greedy Corporations always win. But I'm pretty sure their extra money won't save from the mess they have created.

by Anonymousreply 25410/23/2013

Believe it or not, a lot of religious fanatics believe in Global Warming.

by Anonymousreply 25510/24/2013

A lot of religious fanatics believe in it and also don't care because they interpret the bible to mean that god gave them the planet so that they could use it up. And of course a lot of religious fanatics are actively trying to bring about the "end times", so they care even less because they're going to heaven with jesus! So fuck the rest of us.

by Anonymousreply 25610/24/2013

Yes, that's probably true, r257. Sometimes I like to pretend that they aren't all idiots.

by Anonymousreply 25710/24/2013

Anyway, it's obviously to late to turn it around. I believe that Obama realizes that. Realizes that corporations are fighting tooth and nail against change and he's got enough on his plate already, with Republican jerk-offs trying to overthrow our government on a daily basis he hasn't got time for what won't do any good.

Until America takes it's government away from corporations, we have no hope.

by Anonymousreply 25810/24/2013

R260, if you want any credibility, you should stop using the DailyMail as a source. It's like using FOX News as a source. It just makes people point and laugh at you.

The alleged "pause" was also explained up above... it ignores ocean warming. The total energy is still going up dramatically. And reality has actually outstripped even "liberal" models and projections. Every measure of reality is proving to be worse than predicted a few years before.

But, you know, keep on sticking your head in the sand, stewing in irrational denialism. Obviously you, and the partisan ideologic hacks at the DailyMail know more about climate than 10,000 climate scientists all over the world. (rolling eyes)

by Anonymousreply 26011/04/2013

And John Howard is an ignorant moron in this case. Hardly a literate scientist.

by Anonymousreply 26211/06/2013

Is it just me, or is the reply at 264 completely empty?

by Anonymousreply 26311/07/2013

Ridiculous R253. You can't compare one day in one year to one day in another year.

Anyway, I don't think it's true that there is that much ice coverage already this year.

by Anonymousreply 26411/07/2013

Frankly, I hope it comes soon, I wish the animals didn't have to suffer because of what we've done but there is no way around it.

by Anonymousreply 26511/07/2013

r265, it is empty. That was me. I wrote a message, thought better of it, and deleted it. I must have hit "back to threadlist" too soon or something.

by Anonymousreply 26611/07/2013

R268- now why don't you tell us what you were going to say? it is like you are leaving us hanging or keeping a secret.

by Anonymousreply 26711/07/2013

See this is the comparison. It turns out 2013 is a normal amount of sea ice in the Arctic, which had a cold summer, and 2012 is the lowest year on record. So that has all the conservabots saying "record sea ice formation" when in truth it's just a one-year return to normalcy and will likely be undone and then some next year.

by Anonymousreply 26811/07/2013

Not just a warm year, the warmest for which there is any record R271 and one of an increasing number of warm years.

by Anonymousreply 27011/08/2013

R273, how many times do you have to repeat the same shit, even though it's been explained and debunked MULTIPLE TIMES in this very thread alone?

Did you even READ the rest of this thread, or are you just here to spread your misinformation mindlessly?

by Anonymousreply 27211/08/2013

LOL, you hysterical MARYS

by Anonymousreply 27311/08/2013

[quote]Did you even READ the rest of this thread, or are you just here to spread your misinformation mindlessly?

You answered your own question, R274. You aren't talking to a real person who actually gives a shit. It's just the usual freeper trolls, paid to spread lies.

by Anonymousreply 27411/08/2013

I'm sure the people in the path of that mega typhoon are laughing right along with you R277/R278. Laugh it up genius.

by Anonymousreply 27711/08/2013

R277, a perfect example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

False equivalencies, and no knowledge of what was actually said, or why, or how it's different now.

(rolling eyes)

by Anonymousreply 27811/08/2013

To those idiots who think there was no warming in the last decade...:

[bold]Recent surface warming has probably been underestimated[/bold]

[italic]Filling in data gaps with satellites makes the last few years a little warmer.[/italic]

If you want to take someone’s temperature to see if they have a fever, you know where to put the thermometer. (Sorry, infants.) But where do you take the temperature of Earth’s climate? Inconveniently, the answer is “everywhere”—you need measurements covering the planet to properly calculate the global average surface temperature. That’s no big deal for Europe, where a local weather station is never far away, but it's much more of a problem for the North and South Poles where records are hard-won. A new analysis shows that how you deal with this problem makes a difference in what temperature you end up reading.

Building a global temperature dataset is a huge undertaking, because that’s only the half of it. Lots of careful corrections need to be made to the raw measurements to account for things like instrument changes, weather station placement, and even the time of day the station is checked.

One of the most commonly used datasets, dubbed “HadCRUT4” in its current incarnation, is maintained by the UK Met Office and researchers at the University of East Anglia. That dataset lacks temperature records over 16 percent of the globe, mostly parts of the Arctic, Antarctic, and Africa. Each group that manages one of these datasets faces this problem, but deals with it a little differently. In HadCRUT4, the gaps are simply dropped out of the calculated average; in NASA’s GISTEMP dataset, these holes are filled in by interpolating from the nearest measurements.

The new study by Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa evaluates a few different methods for dealing with these gaps, and shows that HadCRUT4 has probably been off by an important amount for over the last few years.

Cowtan and Way did what the people behind the big datasets do: left out the holes or filled them in using the nearest data. But they also developed a different technique that took advantage of satellite data. Satellites may seem like the obvious solution to the problem of maintaining thermometers in the middle of Antarctica, but they have their own problems. First, it’s tricky to measure the temperature of a specific, and very thin, layer of the atmosphere from orbit, since your instrument has to look through all of the rest of the atmosphere to do so. Second, the layer the satellites are monitoring extends much higher above the surface than our thermometers do.

Instead of merely copying satellite data and pasting it into the surface thermometer gaps, they used the satellite data to intelligently guide the filling of the holes with the closest surface measurements.

To test these three methods, the researchers artificially removed measurements across regions of the Earth and compared how close each method came to correctly calculating the global mean of the complete dataset. Just filling in with the nearest data (the NASA method) did a little better than leaving the gaps out (the HadCRUT4 method), but the method that used satellite data performed best.

Applying that method to the actual holes in the HadCRUT4 dataset yielded some interesting results, seen in the image below. Most notably, the abnormally warm El Niño year of 1998 becomes a little less extreme, and most of the last decade gets a little warmer. The difference in the last few years comes from the missing data in the Arctic, which is the fastest-warming region on Earth.

Together, those small changes (which are within the HadCRUT4 error bars) have a big impact on the calculated short-term warming trend. The trend for the period from around 1998 to present, which opponents of action on climate change frequently point to when arguing that climate scientists have got it all wrong, more than doubles to 0.12 °C per decade.

by Anonymousreply 27911/15/2013

To you idiot Freeper denialists: Do you have children? Are you related to children? Do you give any rat's ass about their futures? It's YOU, dumbasses, and your spawn and your spawn's spawn that are going to suffer, big-time. So deny all you want. To use one of your favorite Freeper quotes: WAKE UP!!!!!!!

I don't have children and I am glad. I wouldn't birth a baby into this world now for anything. My relatives are mostly Freeps, and their kids, learning well as Freeps-in-training, through the generations.

I feel sorrow for the animals, as mentioned upthread.

by Anonymousreply 28011/15/2013

[bold]Faux Pause: Media Ignore Study Finding Globe Is Warming Twice As Fast As Thought [/bold]

After hyping an alleged "pause" in global warming, mainstream media have entirely ignored a groundbreaking study finding that warming over the last 16 years has actually proceeded at the same rate as it has since 1951 with no "pause" compared to that time period.

The study, published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society by Dr. Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa, found that the average global surface temperature has warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius between 1997 and 2012 (see the bold "Global" line in the graph above) -- two and a half times the UK Met Office's estimate of 0.05°C (see "Met Office" line). According to the new estimate, over the last 16 years the globe has warmed at the same rate as it has since 1951.

Writing about the study at the scientific blog Real Climate, climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf concluded that the public debate about the "pause" has "become"completely baseless"and that any speed bump in warming is "not surprising" with natural variability:

[quote]The public debate about the alleged "warming pause" was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual - even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that's not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half.

An earlier Media Matters analysis found that mainstream media mentioned the alleged "pause" in nearly half of coverage of a major international climate report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, media have often been reluctant to cover data contradicting that narrative, including a study finding that heat may have been stored in the intermediate depths of the ocean, where warming has proceeded 15 times faster than in the past 10,000 years, rather than in the atmosphere.

As for claims that global warming has "stopped" or that global warming is "[o]ver," the study found with 94 percent probability that there has been some warming over the last 16 years. Dr. Cowtan wrote that "the hypothesis that warming has accelerated ... is four times as likely as the hypothesis that warming has stopped."

(more at the link)

by Anonymousreply 28111/18/2013

Without exception, the deniers get debunked and owned, again and again.

And yet they still persist in their delusional denial. Why? To what end? It's such a bizarre thing to me... this willful denial of obvious reality for no good reason I can fathom.

by Anonymousreply 28211/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 28311/18/2013

Storms are getting bigger and more destructive every year. We used to get a f4 tornado about every 20 years now it's a yearly occurrence.

by Anonymousreply 28511/19/2013

R286, just keep working your head farther up your ass like that... just keep working it...

by Anonymousreply 28611/19/2013

The Illinois tornado this week is the latest F5 tornado ever recorded. Ever.

Remember when tornado season used to be just in the spring?

Yeah, those days are long gone.

When "Once a century" storms happen every couple or three years, you gotta reset your notion of what normal is.

by Anonymousreply 28711/19/2013

(rolling eyes at the denialist at R290, who continues to ignore all current data, and keeps digging up debunked crap from the past)

by Anonymousreply 28911/19/2013

(Reuters) - China will eventually scrap family planning restrictions, a senior official said on Tuesday, days after the government announced it will allow millions of families to have two children.

China, with nearly 1.4 billion people, is the world's most populous country. The government says the policy of limiting families to one child, which covers 63 per cent of the population, has averted 400 million births since 1980.

But the policy is increasingly seen as harmful to the economy.

by Anonymousreply 29011/19/2013

R293 loves to flaunt his ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 29211/19/2013

Oh joy. The same idiot wingnut troll @R295 who's trumpeting Obamacare as a "disaster" is our climate change denialist.

I wonder how much he gets paid to shill on the internets.

by Anonymousreply 29411/20/2013

Here's the thing:

If denialists are wrong, then we have basically disaster... famine, disease, wars, deaths, all on massive scales, up and to the point of collapsing civilization.

If the AGW people are wrong, the worst thing that happens is we spend a little more to have cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier people, more sustainable energy sources, cleaner energy sources, more local/self-sufficient energy sources.

Seriously, when you look at it that way, why the fuck does anyone even give the denialist position a second thought? They're just nuts... defenders of the utterly broken status-quo.

by Anonymousreply 29511/20/2013

(rolling eyes at R298)

Keep grasping at those straws.

by Anonymousreply 29711/21/2013

I'm rolling eyes at R298, who is cherry-picking out of context in order to try and cling to a belief that is completely wrong and highly destructive.

I refer you to R297.

by Anonymousreply 29911/21/2013

Well, I'm terrified.

by Anonymousreply 30011/21/2013

[quote]UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol: "we're now learning that the climate problem may not be as bad as we thought"

Ah yes. Because when I want the straight truth on climate change, I ask a climate-change-denying economist.

*rolls eyes*

by Anonymousreply 30111/21/2013

You're all gonna need O2 concentrators and they require loads of energy.

by Anonymousreply 30211/23/2013

This explains why I don't understand the position of the deniers:

by Anonymousreply 30311/24/2013


This isn't Pascal's wager- the costs of reducing CO2 by a fraction will cost tens or hundreds of billions with no clear reward, but explicit costs. The majority of big polluters (China, India) aren't even trying.

A richer world (something that will happen) will be able to mitigate "climate change" better than a poorer world run by incompetent bureaucrats.

by Anonymousreply 30411/24/2013

And yet the outcome will be worse

by Anonymousreply 30511/24/2013

How, R307?

by Anonymousreply 30611/24/2013

More destruction on account of greater climate change

by Anonymousreply 30711/25/2013

More perspective on the delusional position of denialists:

by Anonymousreply 30811/25/2013

R312, the economy is only "stubbornly weak" because stubborn and obstructionist Republicans are making it so.

[quote]This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.

Again, all issues with conservatism & Republicanism. If their obstruction would end, the economy would roar back to life, unemployment would drop, social safety net costs would drop, median/mean income would rise, the deficit would drop like a stone, and all of the necessary mitigation steps required to deal with a changing climate would be more than affordable, it'd actually create new jobs and industries.

[quote]But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again

This isn't true at all, and in fact is the opposite of true. The denialists are the ones proven wrong time and time again. Also note the denialist are mostly the same people and funded by the same sources as those who denied cigarette smoking was dangerous to your health. Again, these people haven't been right about much of anything.

So you're wrong, fundamentally, factually, historically, and logically R312.

by Anonymousreply 31112/05/2013

A little backgroun on Michael Fumento, the idiot responsible for the kneejerk swill posted on R311/312:

[quote]Michael Fumento is a journalist and shameless corporate shill. He was embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mostly works on health and environmental issues denialism. Write down any public health or environmental issues you can think of on scraps of paper, pull one out of a hat, and there's a 99.9% chance Fumento has written some hit piece denying it or minimizing while crying "alarmism!" His first book-length excretion was published in the 1980s, called The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. (NB: Fumento does not deny the existence of AIDS, he merely claims that the AIDS epidemic is minimal and therefore requires no action.[1]) He has also denied any risk from DDT, global warming, second-hand smoke, SARS, swine flu, and the possibility of an avian flu pandemic. Scripps-Howard dropped him from syndication in 2006 after it was discovered that Monsanto had dumped a boatload of cash into the Hudson Institute, where Fumento was employed while he wrote numerous biotech columns and BioEvolution, essentially a book-length advertisement for Monsanto.[2] It was no surprise, either, when it was discovered that he was being bankrolled by Philip Morris as well through The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). He's been around the block in terms of the Beltway conservative and libertarian think tanks — he's been employed by the Hudson Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and Reason.

by Anonymousreply 31212/05/2013

[quote]If the AGW people are wrong, the worst thing that happens is we spend a little more to have cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier people, more sustainable energy sources, cleaner energy sources, more local/self-sufficient energy sources.

No, look at the radical difference in the quality of the air, water, food, soil, etc. in China or India when compared to West Europe or North America.

More money=better environment.

By WASTING hundreds of billions (when the cost of taxes, regulations, etc. are compiled) the loss of purchasing power results in lower standards of living for everyone.

by Anonymousreply 31312/05/2013

R315, that is the most bizarrely irrational and illogical line of so-called "reasoning" I've ever seen in my fucking life. Are you kidding me? That's not even reaching. That's not even making shit up. That's just plain old fucking stupid.

by Anonymousreply 31412/05/2013

Yes, Dr. Tol should be ignored- he has NO credentials!


Tol obtained an MSc in Econometrics and Oprations Research and a PhD in economics from the VU University Amsterdam in 1992 and 1997. In 1998, he contributed with some 19 other academics to a joint project of the United Nations Environment Programme at his home university.[1] Tol collaborated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[2]

He regularly participates in studies of the Energy Modeling Forum, is an editor of Energy Economics, associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy, and Integrated Assessment. IDEAS/RePEc ranks him among the top 250 economists in the world.[3]

Tol specialises in energy economics and environmental economics, with a particular interest in climate change, such as the economics of global warming. Previously, Tol was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute. Before that, Tol was the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change and director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and board member of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg. Tol was a board member of the International Max Planck Research Schools on Earth System Modeling and Maritime Affairs and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment.[2] From 1998-2008 he was an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and from 2010-2011 an adjunct professor at Trinity College, Dublin's Department of Economics.

by Anonymousreply 31512/05/2013


Please explain how exposing that wasting hundreds of billions on bullshit is bizarre.

by Anonymousreply 31612/05/2013

That you think anything is or would be 'wasted' or that you're "exposing" anything other than your ignorance and slavery to parroting propaganda you don't even understand is hilarious to me.

by Anonymousreply 31712/05/2013

Global warming hysterics at the BBC warned us in 2007 that by summer 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free. As with so many other doomsday predictions by warmists, the results turn out to be quite the opposite. The UK Daily Mail reports:

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year - an increase of 29 per cent. (snip) ...days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century - a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

In the United States, President Obama still plans to bypass Congress, which like the American people is highly skeptical of the discredited-by-events predictions, and use administrative regulations and executive orders to impose drastic and expensive carbon restrictions on the American economy. These will cost jobs and lower the standard of living particularly for lower income Americans, who can least afford the higher electricity, food, gasoline, and other prices that inevitably will result.

Global warming is the most expensive and widespread con job in the history of the world. There must be a terrible reckoning for the "scientists" and profiteers who have foisted this crackpot atrocity on the world.

by Anonymousreply 31812/05/2013

R320 continues to parrot nonsense that has been debunked or explained before (i.e. he's presenting spin, cherry-picked 'factoids' taking out of context, etc)

The "cooling" canard has been endlessly debunked as well.

by Anonymousreply 31912/05/2013


Every dollar wasted on stopping "global warming" is stolen from taxpayers.

The planet is the same temperature it was in 1998- even the ardent global warming fanatics now admit that- so all the money stolen from taxpayers to pay idiot priests...I mean "scientists" wasted.

Is that too complex for you?

by Anonymousreply 32012/05/2013

[quote]Every dollar wasted on stopping "global warming" is stolen from taxpayers.

An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You're an idiot, proving the adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"... you're obviously easily manipulated by people paid to manipulate gullible tools like you.

Sad, really.

by Anonymousreply 32112/05/2013

Remember that really scary “hockey stick” graph IPCC used to show that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations would send global temperatures soaring? And recall all the ballyhoo about CO2 levels reaching a 400 ppm record high? Yet last February even IPCC’s chairman Rajenda Pachuri has admitted that world temperature data has been flat for the past 17 years. And that was after the British media reported that the UK Met Office was projecting a 20-year standstill in global warming by 2017.

by Anonymousreply 32212/05/2013


Where does the money come to stop so-called "global warming" if it isn't money stolen from citizens to fund bullshit studies?

by Anonymousreply 32312/05/2013

R324 hasn't read the thread, as his "point" has been refuted and debunked above several times. Good lord, illiterate knee-jerk morons just love reposting the same old debunked crap again and again, don't they?

by Anonymousreply 32412/05/2013

How much does Exxon, Shell, BP, or the Koch brothers pay you to post here you bizarre denialist psycho R315/R318/R318/R320/R322/R324?

Just curious how much you're making spreading this shit...

by Anonymousreply 32512/05/2013


I'm not the one refusing to confront the facts, refusing to believe the science, and calling names like a third grader at people who actually know what's going on.

Do you disagree that global temperatures have been stable for 15 years?

Do you disagree that the ice sheets in the Arctic are growing each year?

Do you disagree that climate priests...I mean scientists...have been wrong for 20 years about their projections?

In 1990 they predicted that New York and much of the costal regions would be under a foot of water. Where is the mea culpa?

by Anonymousreply 32612/05/2013

Global warming alarmists are regularly prophesying about doomsday scenarios -- except they're doing it in newspapers and from the stages of swanky resorts where they've flown in their private jets. Unlike the old school soothsayers, the Al Gore's of the world have figured out how to turn doom-mongering into a multi-billion dollar industry.

As you read these global warming predictions, visions, prophecies, fantasies, whatever you want to call them, ask yourself a question: if this is based on science, why do we have these huge differences in scenarios and dates? It's almost as if these people are all just pulling numbers out of their hats and putting them out there instead of basing their projections on any sort of real scientific evidence.

1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. -- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. -- Maurizio Morabito

by Anonymousreply 32712/05/2013

[quote]I'm not the one refusing to confront the facts, refusing to believe the science

Actually yes you are. That describes you to a T. You're definitely ignoring the facts and science (corroborated across dozens of scientific disciplines and tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries). You're basically parroting fossil-fuel industry talking points.

And as for your questions, every one of them was dealt with and dismissed (or explained) above. Which is why I know you're just a troll.

And many of your assertions are just plain wrong ... or you're attributing one extremist making an offhand comment for "scientific consensus", which is one of the more brilliant methods of propaganda brainwashing that the right-wing uses. But however successful that strategy is on the ignorant and weak minded (like you), it's still a logical fallacy.

by Anonymousreply 32812/05/2013

R329, all three points you made are completely false. You make me laugh.

Interestingly, the Department of Defense considers climate change the biggest threat to national security that exists. That little fact doesn't jibe well with your propaganda though.

Again, how much is the Koch corporation paying you for this crap?

by Anonymousreply 32912/05/2013


When someone is so ignorant of science and then claims someone else is "ignoring the facts and science" it makes me laugh. It's a sad, pitying laugh, but a laugh.

Please post the first IPCC predictions.

Please post the subsequent revisions when none of them came true.

Please post how they predicted that the Arctic ice sheet would be gone by 2013, while reality laughed at them.

Please just post some of their predictions.

Oh, you're too scared to expose how ignorant you are?

Well, then let me do it for you.

When an organization is wrong- no, not wrong, but AMAZINGLY wrong for 20 years, most people become skeptics.

by Anonymousreply 33012/05/2013

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions. The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

by Anonymousreply 33112/05/2013

Already done above. That's what's so tedious about you trolls. You post these lame, cherry-picked assertions without backing and demand over and over again that others disprove them... even after they already have.

In reality, most predictions have actually turned out to be too conservative. But you don't know that because the only info you get is cherry-picked spin that ignores the reality of the real consensus at the time.

You wouldn't know actual science or real facts if they came up and bit you on the ass. You're engaging in propaganda, nothing more.

by Anonymousreply 33212/05/2013

The chart at the link compares IPCC predictions to reality, and shows how full of shit they are.

by Anonymousreply 33312/05/2013

[quote]Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.

Again, this is explained in links above... the deep oceans have warmed much faster. But you ignore this because it doesn't fit your narrative. You tell half the story and pretend it's the whole story. Hell, you don't even tell half of it. You aim to mislead, that is your goal, and you'll ignore anything that doesn't further that goal.

by Anonymousreply 33412/05/2013

You're quoting the daily mail, which shows how full of shit YOU are. Might as well quote free republic, or, or FOX News...

by Anonymousreply 33512/05/2013

From Wikipedia (for our resident denialist): Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change. A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made. In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 American scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring, only 5% disagreeing that human activity is a significant cause of global warming. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. But who needs science, hey?

by Anonymousreply 33612/05/2013

Denialists seem to believe that 97% of all scientists are "unscientific"... and know less about climate science than they do.

Which is just unbelievably arrogant.

by Anonymousreply 33712/05/2013

R338 R339-

General "Scientists" may believe it, but the scientists that actually study climatology and weather have become very vocal about their disagreement with the current pop-culture of "climate change aka man made global warming".

by Anonymousreply 33812/06/2013

[quote]General "Scientists" may believe it, but the scientists that actually study climatology and weather have become very vocal about their disagreement with the current pop-culture of "climate change aka man made global warming".

Oh honey, now you're getting climate scientists and weather girls mixed up. Really, you're just embarrassing yourself.

by Anonymousreply 33912/06/2013

ROLLING STONE! Whoa...who can stop this paragon of truth? If RS says it, it must be worse than I thought...after all, they are so restrained and measured.

SECOND LEAD STORY ROLLING STONES: Groovy hipsters the Doobie Brothers reunite--demand EZWide papers in concert rider. Hysteria ensues. You heard it hear first. BTW, some important dude died in Africa, we think. Anyway, Doobies rule! And forget about it, Grateful Dead rock excessively.

More breaking news. Jann Wenner announces fellow billionaires suck and are racist homophobes.

by Anonymousreply 34012/06/2013

Did you have an actual point to make, R342?

by Anonymousreply 34112/06/2013

R324 Please stop confusing folks with knowledge. It hurts puny brains. In further news, George Soros, David Brock and MediaMatters rejects Defense Department claims that global warming is the most important issue of our times. Brock reports, "Defense Department targeting larger share of taxpayer funds to consolidate power using Global Warming to raise its revenue and destroy middle class."

Meanwhile, Soros, owner of MediaMatters has reported in his last FEC filing that he's purchased 700,000 shares of Global Warming Inc from owner of issue, Al Gore.

Ah...who to believe? Scientists (flatline for 20 years) or our billionaire carbon traders? I'm thinking....

by Anonymousreply 34212/06/2013

Okay, since the "GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL" troll won't provide facts, here is the official arctic ice coverage for 2013. It has grown instead of shrinking, despite the shrieking of the global warming crowd.

If the world is getting warmer, why are global temperatures the same as they were in 1998, and why are the ice sheets getting bigger.

Unless you can answer those two simple questions, you're full of shit.

Bonus question- please answer why the world was 20-30 degrees warmer a few million years ago, and why it was 15-30 degrees colder 200 years ago, and why it was 10-15 degrees warmer just 800 years ago?

You've heard of "Washington Crossing the Potomac"--- well, it was FROZEN. please explain why it was so much hotter, and colder, over the last few thousand years.

by Anonymousreply 34312/06/2013


No, it only NEEDS to believe it is right.

None of the facts support global warming anymore, so it has to make hysterical statements to try to convince itself that it is right.

The fact that most people no longer worship at the altar of Global Warming scares it.

by Anonymousreply 34412/06/2013

Thank you, R345. Remember Dearest Leader's book: "Global warming science must be presented as a threat, a danger so great that we convince the American public to give us all their money to save them from themselves. We will then subjugate and destroy the middle class". Columbia University, Economics 322.

by Anonymousreply 34512/06/2013

Speaking of "full of shit"...every single "fact" you've quoted either comes from think-tank writers in the Daily Mail, or "scientists" (read: economists) on the Oil industry dole.

So pays you to spout this denialist horseshit over & over & over & over & over?

by Anonymousreply 34612/06/2013

Rolling Stone: Terrifying Amazing Wacky and Weird World of Global Warming. Show me the money, honey. Cashing in, checking out.

Table of Contents:

Terror of Weather: It's Raining, Bro! What's next? Snow???

Springsteen, the Brucester Weighs In On New Pope: "He's Pfat, Totally"

Jerry Garcia: Dead? Not? Take Our Poll and Vote!

Gyms: Infectious Diseases, Bicycle Seats and the Best Antibiotics

by Anonymousreply 34712/06/2013


It hurts me- really, REALLY hurts me- to disabuse the faithful of their beliefs. They worship the "global warming" prophets, and refuse to accept that those prophets are not only false, but dangerous and duplicitous.

They preach the evil of energy, but fly private planes, live in massive houses, employ hundreds of minions, eat food that was flown thousands of miles, wear clothes made by slaves in China...basically they are all hypocrites that want to force the "little people" to live by rules they flaunt with impunity.

Look at how many of the big Banksters have been put in jail after 2008. Oh, wait, the "GE3" were released today on a technicality. No Fannie or Freddie or Goldie even faced prosecution. Even Mozillo got away!

The BIG boys in industry, banking, insurance, energy--- they throw private parties and give millions to "PACs" and so they get a free pass, while the bottom 99.9% pays for it.

Our government is corrupt, evil, sclerotic and dangerous. It needs to be PEACEFULLY dismantled---but it still has dimwit acolytes like R316

It is also

R319, R321/23/26/27/30/31/34/36/37/39 and obviously has no idea about how government or politics or economics or science or rational thought works.

by Anonymousreply 34812/06/2013


The "Global Warming" snake oil salesmen are the danger.

You really need to take a look at what you're saying.

by Anonymousreply 34912/06/2013

How so?

by Anonymousreply 35012/06/2013

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

I'm a geophysicist and I can tell you for a fact there is NOT a consensus about anthropomorphic caused global warming, but there is certainly agreement that climate change is happening and has ALWAYS been happening.

The fact is we don't have enough information to make accurate predictions. The last round of alarmist predictions touted around 2000 by Al Gore (not a scientist) was that islands would already have disappeared and massive changes would have happened already. NONE OF IT HAPPENED.

Climate change is, to most, about political control of personal behavior more than it is about impacting the earth's climate, as if we really have the ability to drive the sun and earth's relationship and other major nature-driven events.

If you've drunk the Kool Aid, you won't be able to step back and look at all the erroneous projections abotu warming and cooling that have been made in the past 30-40 years.

The earth is a dynamic system, and the climate has constantly changed. There used to be palm trees at the North Pole, long before humans.

by Anonymousreply 35112/06/2013

Ayn Rand...Ron Paul...Obamacare... Benghazi...drones... DRONES!!

Oh, yeah, Global Warming is a lie.

Back to DRONES!!!

by Anonymousreply 35212/06/2013

No, R348-

All of the posts have been from newsmags, but all link to the scientific article that they are based on.

There has been no warming for 15 years. The IPCC even admits that in their latest paper. They also admit shock at the size of Arctic and Antarctic ice. They also apologize for misusing data and methods.

The IPCC admitted they were frauds without saying the actual word.

Please show ONE- just one single prediction- they made 15 years ago that has come true.

If you can show one single incident where their models and bullshit actually predicted future weather I will apologize.

Until then you are a moronic tool who is too stupid to post on Sesame Street, let alone Datalounge.

by Anonymousreply 35312/06/2013


Rolling Stone has been one of the only US media mags that has actually tried to expose the evils of Bush AND Obama, the evils of the big banks, the evils of our would make sense they expose the evil nature of the "global warming"--- I'm sorry, the "Global Climate Change" industry and the scandals and big corporotacracy-fascistic players behind the scam.

by Anonymousreply 35412/06/2013

Thank you R20, your enthusiam truly trumps reason. Wish your broad claims came from a more respected publication. Perhaps you can illuminate us scientist types with a citation? A quote? Something impartial?

Now I realize the faculty at MIT aren't nearly as smart as you and your minders at the asylum, or even Jann Wenner, but they say definitively there is no warming. But MIT doesn't publish at Rolling Stone and you aren't allowed out of your padded cell, so we're not likely to get this resolved.

BTW, Noam Chomsky is still on MIT faculty. I suggest you google earth our dear professor and take a Zullia gander at his estate. Zoom in. The foremost car is a vintage 280 Mercedes (Mecum recently auctioned one for $400,000. The car behind it is a 7 series BMW, M designation. There is adjacent next to the carriage house a Cadillac SUV and a MG/TC and a Ferrari behind the doors. His personal wealth is now estimated by the university to be over 190.000.000 dollars. Over a hundred million of his fortune was earned from his 22.5 of Al Gore network sold to Al Jazeera.

by Anonymousreply 35512/06/2013

Just smoke copious amounts of pot, R356.

by Anonymousreply 35612/06/2013

R356 Courageous indeed my friend. I agree. Where else would I have ever learned of Paul McCartney's wife: did you know his former spouse had a missing leg? Telling it like it is. Speaking truth to power. Really! I'm with you bro, my go-to pub for science too. Jann Wenner. Ecologist, Rock Man, Climatologist. Genius.

by Anonymousreply 35712/06/2013

Any climate researcher will admit that noone fully understands the way the multitude of factors that drive global temperatures work in their entirety. What 97% of research papers focussing on climate agree on, however, is that we're in a period of global warming and that human activity is driving that warming. Are they all wrong? Are they all in the pocket of some strange socialist cabal? For all your cries of global warming being a con job, you've done nothing to establish your credentials as being any more authoritative than 97% of the world's climate researchers, and you've done nothing to debunk their findings but throw up a couple of anomalous findings that bear little relation to the overall picture. Why would the world's scientific community try to con us? You seem to have very little understanding of how scientific research is conducted and published. Do you think scientists from around the world are secretly colluding to trick us? How and why would they? Do you think they've fabricated the record-breaking temperatures the US has been recording in the past five years?

by Anonymousreply 35812/06/2013

[quote]but the scientists that actually study climatology and weather have become very vocal about their disagreement with the current pop-culture of "climate change aka man made global warming".

Uh... no. Sorry. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

by Anonymousreply 35912/06/2013


Pointing out the multi-million dollar cars, houses and property of a man who preaches "radical income redistribution" and a destruction of the evil capitalists that made those cars and built that house...well, DUH!

Chomsky is a good (not great) linguist. He is also a good (not great) historian. He is a moron as far as economics.

Every week some new paper comes out exposing his weakness as a linguist, and I have no doubt he will be mocked by future generations of linguists as a charlatan and imbecile with a chip on his shoulder and an evil agenda in his brain.

If Noam really believed his bullshit he would be living in a shack, eating shoots and leaves (get it?) and giving all his salary to the homeless. His hypocrisy makes Al Gore look like Rosalind Russell.

by Anonymousreply 36012/06/2013

[quote]There has been no warming for 15 years.


[quote]The IPCC even admits that in their latest paper.

No they don't.

[quote]They also admit shock at the size of Arctic and Antarctic ice.

No, they don't, they actually explain it... and how it doesn't contradict AGW at all.

[quote]They also apologize for misusing data and methods


[quote]The IPCC admitted they were frauds without saying the actual word.

Not even close.

But you're pretty good at spinning, misrepresenting facts, and parroting propaganda, I'll give you that. Someone ignorant enough on the topic might actually even believe the bullshit you're peddling.

But really, you're working over time. Do the Koch brothers pay you time and a half or something?

by Anonymousreply 36112/06/2013


Please show ANY global warming in the data.

Yes, starting in the 1700s the world started warming, but in the 1100s it was warmer than today. You could farm in fucking Greenland!

In the last 113 years the data show ZERO real warming. A rise by 2C? Statistically insignificant when you look at the placement of thermometers near concrete and asphalt. The bigger worry is global cooling- which shows up when all of the "urban" therms are removed.

60 years ago the winters were MUCH worse. Snow fell in GEORGIA in the 1950s! Now the southeast is getting colder again, as is the whole world.

I worry more about a new "mini ice age" than global warming. When the world is warmer, crops produce more, Europe is more habitable, more rain falls--- in a cold era, glaciers cover New York and most of Europe!

by Anonymousreply 36212/06/2013


If you are going to be so obstinate and refuse to even look at the facts then I will quit replying to you.

Anyone who embraces ignorance isn't worth it.

by Anonymousreply 36312/06/2013

Here you go, r364: The Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74±0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13±0.03 °C per decade, versus 0.07±0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is very small, estimated to account for less than 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900.[28] Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Climate proxies show the temperature to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[29] The warming that is evident in the instrumental temperature record is consistent with a wide range of observations, as documented by many independent scientific groups.[30] Examples include sea level rise (water expands as it warms),[31] widespread melting of snow and ice,[32] increased heat content of the oceans,[30] increased humidity,[30] and the earlier timing of spring events,[33] e.g., the flowering of plants.[34] The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero.[30]

by Anonymousreply 36412/06/2013

There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

In a rebound from 2012′s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century. If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

by Anonymousreply 36512/06/2013

[quote]If you are going to be so obstinate and refuse to even look at the facts then I will quit replying to you. Anyone who embraces ignorance isn't worth it.

Right back at you.

You continue the conservative habit of accusing others of what you are in fact guilty of or what is actually true of yourself. It's pathological projection... an attribute of sociopaths the world over. And Republicans, Libertarians, & conservatives. But I'm being redundant.

As stated already, your points have been debunked already up-thread... the notion that there was any sort of "pause" in the warming has been proven to be bullshit... among other things.

Your willful ignorance blinds you to the debunking already posted.

by Anonymousreply 36612/06/2013

Here is a great paper about global warming published in 1979- it predicts that ALL coastal cities will be under at least 3M of water, and that the world will be 6C warmer.

Instead we are 1.2C warmer, and none of the coastal cities are under water since the poles have kept sea levels less than .1M higher than the 70s.

by Anonymousreply 36712/06/2013


Ohhhhhhhh, the world got ONE DEGREE warmer between 1900-1998.

But then it stopped.

Please explain why "global warming" stopped in 1998.

by Anonymousreply 36812/06/2013

For r369: Current sea-level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] This rise in sea levels around the world potentially affects human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands)[3] and the natural environment (e.g., marine ecosystems).[4] Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in).[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[8]

by Anonymousreply 36912/06/2013

Why do you expect me to explain something that didn't actually happen?

by Anonymousreply 37012/06/2013

No, R368-

Please show ANY real warming since 1998.

The IPCC reports show zero.

Quit whining like a bitch and show FACTS.

The world is the same temp today as it was 15 years ago, and no amount of bullshit or obfuscation will change that.

by Anonymousreply 37112/06/2013

R373, how any fucking times do I have to reference you to the previous posts that already contain all the information you keep demanding? Jesus Christ, it's so clear you haven't bothered to read the thread or any other posts. There are specific links that SPECIFICALLY address that SPECIFIC point.

Yet you keep demanding that info again and again.

Fuck you, you lazy troll. If you can't read the sources already provided in this very thread, then you're too stupid to bother with.

by Anonymousreply 37212/06/2013

This is too easy r373. I guess you get your news from FOx because it was widely reported in the past 6-8 weeks that there has been no pause or lull in global warming. For example...

“The planet is warming,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a reviewer for the IPCC report. “The warmth just isn’t being manifested at the surface.” The warming at the ocean’s surface layer may have slowed a bit, but ocean temperatures in aggregate have continued to rise unchecked during the so-called hiatus, according to the IPCC. That’s important because while the atmosphere accounts for just 1 percent of planetary heat, the oceans carry 93% of the stored energy from climate change (melting ice and warming continents make up the rest). In fact, there is mounting evidence that deeper regions of the ocean, down to 2000 meters, are absorbing heat faster than ever, Trenberth said in a phone call. His research shows the oceans began taking on significantly more heat at around the same time the surface warming began to slow in 1998. His widely cited work was published just after the cutoff to be included in the IPCC report.

by Anonymousreply 37312/06/2013

But, R371, can you explain why sea levels were much higher 1000 years ago?

Why Greenland was a lush paradise?

Or why the river Thames and Delaware froze over 270 years ago? Was that also man made climate change?

Until you can explain---

A) why it was much warmer 800-1100 years ago than it is today,


B) why it was so much colder 350-250 years ago

Then your bullshit is useless and unworthy of response.

Humans are a tiny, insignificant part of the biosphere. The sun (you know, that big yellow bright thing) is what warms us, and 99.9% of scientists think the solar cycles have some effect of global temperatures. But since they aren't climatologists their explanation of a heliocentric view of warming and cooling of the planet is dismissed.

I'm glad I'm smart enough to ignore fool like you and listen to the experts.

by Anonymousreply 37412/06/2013

R376 if you were actually listening to the experts, you'd know the actual answers to your questions (and which of your questions are deeply flawed).

by Anonymousreply 37512/06/2013



They are conjecture based on bad (really bad, religiously tinged pseudo-science) and have been disproven by 15 years of observation of REAL temps and weather.

If those links were real, they would explain the fact that the entire world- based on reports from hundreds of countries- is no warmer than it was in 1998.

Even the IPCC admits that global temps are the SAME AS THEY WERE IN 1998!!!

Jesus, get a clue!

by Anonymousreply 37612/06/2013

[quote]“The planet is warming,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a reviewer for the IPCC report. “The warmth just isn’t being manifested at the surface.”


So, the world is warming, but we can't see it because it is happening thousands of feet under the water.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds!

by Anonymousreply 37712/06/2013

r378, please meet r375.

by Anonymousreply 37812/06/2013

R378, yes, they do show something. They're more factually and scientifically based than any of the out of date stuff you've been throwing around.

Just because they don't confirm your chosen narrative, doesn't mean they show nothing. They show a lot. You're just willfully deaf to what they're telling you. Blind to what is right in front of your face.

Part of me doubts you even bothered to read the links (or even search for them). I mean, why would you? Becoming educated or actually exposing yourself to anything that contradicts your precious belief is not your goal here.

by Anonymousreply 37912/06/2013


And yet you offer nothing to back your bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 38012/06/2013

You need to hone your debating skills, denialist troll @ r378. The only thing you're persuading us of is your idiocy. You are unable to provide any citations for your bullshit and you refuse to acknowledge any facts that don't fit your Fox News view of the world, so arguing with you is utterly pointless. The saddest thing is, your stupidity isn't really as astounding as it should be - it's rather common unfortunately.

by Anonymousreply 38112/06/2013

I offer nothing? I've posted a dozen links and explanations in this thread. If you're too lazy to read the thread, that isn't my problem or my fault.

by Anonymousreply 38212/06/2013

[bold]NOW I FINALLY GET IT![bold]

The climate change denialist is our resident Libertarian Idiot Troll(TM)!

Now it all makes sense! You're batshit crazy, completely impervious to logic or reason, and live in an alternate universe.

So I don't have to follow this thread anymore. You'll just keep bumping this thread up every six months, posting the same lunatic horseshit over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over!

Now it all makes sense.

by Anonymousreply 38312/06/2013

[bold]whoops, forgot to close the [/bold] tag.

by Anonymousreply 38412/06/2013

[/bold]out, damn tag!

by Anonymousreply 38512/06/2013


Please explain why and how the planet was much warmer 1000 years ago, and much colder 250 years ago, and how AGW corrects for such global climate changes.

Oh, and why the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

by Anonymousreply 38612/06/2013


[quote]You've heard of "Washington Crossing the Potomac"--- well, it was FROZEN.

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 38712/06/2013

We caused the last ice age, and we're gonna cause the next.

by Anonymousreply 38812/06/2013

and yet...

U.S. Students Slide In Global Ranking On Math, Reading, Science

by Anonymousreply 38912/06/2013

So much for this thread.

by Anonymousreply 39012/06/2013

Heh. Funny stuff.

If any climate crap was true, Al Gore wouldn't be the point man.

And minor league East Anglia University (Who? What? Well, think Fredonia State, but without that school's modest academic pretensions) wouldn't be the center of dissemination and collection of data.

MIT and Cal Tech would be the climate alarmists.

Climate change, formerly known as 'weather'. TM

by Anonymousreply 39112/06/2013

GOOGLE private jets blow 100 million lbs CO2 into atmosphere with its government subsidized fuel Google execs have traveled millions of miles to playgrounds of the rich and famous Several trips on company jets were to Washington D.C. Planes are filled up with government-subsidized fuel and even get to park cheaply Company maintains a green image yet does not practice what it preaches

by Anonymousreply 39212/06/2013

When Google and Gore turn in their private jets, I'll worry, until then, it's all bullshit so rich can consolidate their power and subsidies while beggering us into submission. Did you notice Al's carbon footprint was published? You can power an entire town of 25,0000 people with his annual carbon footprint! His response? He'd like to outlaw air travel entirely for us 'little people', while he flies around for free warning us that Climate Change is coming. Oh, and his travel is necessary, but not ours.

by Anonymousreply 39312/06/2013

Google has never pretended to be a global warming activist company. They are right-wing shits just like you. Please do keep attacking them.

Gore is "point man" for global warming? You think their is a conspiracy? No, conspiracy is how you and the right operate, a criminal conspiracy. If the left really operated that way, we would have a socialist full-employment economy. Instead we have a dysfunctional economy that mirrors your personal neuroses and paranoia.

by Anonymousreply 39412/06/2013

R396 Thank you for outing yourself, socialism forever! Google claims to be green, green, green. So next time, OP, use Google as your header. Or Gore. It's far worse to be a hypocrite on green issues.

Climate change, formerly known as weather. TM

by Anonymousreply 39512/06/2013

The people who deny climate change are the same people who claimed cigarettes are not addictive.

Just saying...

by Anonymousreply 39612/06/2013

Socialism is not the bugaboo word you can use to scare people anymore. It is beyond dispute that people in socialist countries like Sweden and Finland live better than people in the USA. Your model has failed, because it was based on stupidity and ideological nonsense, not reality or evidence.

by Anonymousreply 39712/06/2013

[quote]Your model has failed, because it was based on stupidity and ideological nonsense, not reality or evidence.

Reality has a well know liberal bias.

by Anonymousreply 39812/06/2013

Canada Environment minister Leona Aglukkaq posts photo of dead polar bear on Twitter

Leona Aglukkaq defended the polar bear hunt after adding the caption “Enjoy!!” to a photo of a freshly killed bear.

by Anonymousreply 40112/06/2013

That "study" was not from German scientists. It is from a German "think tank" financially supported by CFACT, which derives its funding from the Scaife family and Exxon-Mobil and is run by a former staffer of James Imhofe (R-Oklahoma).

Of the professors, one is Carl Otto Weiss, a visiting professor of BUSINESS at UNC, not a "scientist"

And the other, the spokesman for the German think tank Prof. Ludecke is a retired physicist who has maintained that the sun's activity is causing global warming rather than the composition of the atmosphere.

Of course solar astronomy is not in his area of expertise.

by Anonymousreply 40312/06/2013

[quote]Please explain why and how the planet was much warmer 1000 years ago, and much colder 250 years ago, and how AGW corrects for such global climate changes.

It wasn't. Research based on concrete evidence, say, tree rings and ice core samples, say quite the opposite - the planet is steadly getting hotter. See NASA link below. (say something nasty against NASA and I'll smack to you to Singapore and back)

Oh, and why the world hasn't warmed since 1998.

Again, bullshit. All evidence not funded by ExxonMobil says otherwise.

Must be nice to live in an alternate universe where the truth can just be wished away by corporate think tanks.

by Anonymousreply 40412/06/2013

The climate is getting colder! Listen to me! I have a Doctorate! In Renaissance Art History!

by Anonymousreply 40512/06/2013

And you can spout all the horseshit you like about the climate getting colder - real evidence, evidence not massaged by wingnut think tanks and the oil/gas industry - says otherwise.

by Anonymousreply 40612/06/2013

R408 Keep in mind, many of these people are the same ones who insisted Terri Schivio had a fully functioning brain. When the autopsy came out and said not true, they dismissed as meaningless. Facts are meaningless when it comes to Regressives.

by Anonymousreply 40712/06/2013

[quote]Melting glaciers have revealed.... actual human settlements!

Bullshit. Provide a link with proof to this crazy ass claim or be branded a liar.

by Anonymousreply 40912/06/2013

Tree stumps are not human settlements. Finding artifacts in a glacier is not the same as finding an human settlement.

Conclusion? You are liar. Nothing you can say will be considered valid because you have been exposed as a liar.

by Anonymousreply 41212/06/2013

[quote]None of those things are "concrete evidence", they are all proxy's subject to much debate.

They are the [bold]ONLY MOTHERFUCKING CONCRETE EVIDENCE WE HAVE[/bold] of the temperature of the planet 1,000 years ago, you brainless fucking twat.

They [bold]DIDN'T KEEP TEMPERATURE RECORDS[/bold] until the 18th Century.

Jesus, you're a persistent idiot.

by Anonymousreply 41312/06/2013

Libertarians are more impervious to logic and reason than born-again Christians. And that's saying something.

by Anonymousreply 41412/06/2013

Love how the thread was destroyed by the google and gore posting. just killed you. defense? google never said it was green. ruins the entire op and global warming hoax folks, doesn't it? so, ergo for you morons, since so-called deniers never said they were green, they can't be attacked. boom, like 'dat. so, stfu. the naysayers here aren't believers so they cannot be required to believe either. damn,'s a bitch, ain't it?

by Anonymousreply 41512/06/2013


[quote]Tree stumps are not human settlements. Finding artifacts in a glacier is not the same as finding an human settlement.

The links show that they have found bone tools, fire pits and human bones as the glacier retreated.

Are you really that brainwashed?

by Anonymousreply 41612/06/2013

R417, logic is not your strong suit.

by Anonymousreply 41712/07/2013

[quote][R417], logic is not your strong suit.

Oh come on now. He's making a perfectly cogent argument.

Al Gore flies on jet planes, Google isn't green, and global warming deniers never said they were green, so the whole thing is a hoax.

BOOM! Logic, yo.

by Anonymousreply 41812/07/2013

The Pew Poll does not reflect the public buying into climate change denialism. It just means everything else has gone to hell so it is relatively less important in the hierarchy of issues. If you don't know how you're going to eat next year, the weather ten years from now is not a giant concern.

by Anonymousreply 41912/07/2013

The people that deny that people were living in areas currently covered by glaciers are the worst of the anti-science imbeciles.

They embrace AGW bullshit, but deny anything that proves them wrong.

by Anonymousreply 42012/08/2013

Snow=storms=moving masses of (relatively) warm air

by Anonymousreply 42112/08/2013

R422 doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

by Anonymousreply 42212/08/2013


Are you denying that people used to live in parts of Greenland that were covered in ice?

by Anonymousreply 42312/08/2013

Antarctica used to be a warm area, that doesn't have any bearing on this case.

The ruins of major human civilizations are underwater right now because during glacial ages the sea levels were much lower.

by Anonymousreply 42412/09/2013

R-427 You know that is caused by global warming don't you?

by Anonymousreply 42712/09/2013

For the Libertarian Idiot Hydrocarbon Fetishist Troll:

[quote]Don't believe every quote you read on the internet. -- Abraham Lincoln

by Anonymousreply 42812/09/2013

What did Shanghai look like in 1913, r430?

We don't know what it looks like today because it is concealed by air pollution.

by Anonymousreply 43012/10/2013

R430 You are confusing weather with climate.

by Anonymousreply 43212/10/2013

R432 Consider it done

R434 No need to single out a single storm. The proof is found elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 43412/10/2013

He's confusing ExxonMobil press releases with reality, more like it.

by Anonymousreply 43512/10/2013

Keep fucking that chicken, Libertarian Idiot Troll.

by Anonymousreply 43712/10/2013

R437 Seeing how you have already been caught telling lies, can you explain why you expect us to believe anything you post?

by Anonymousreply 43812/10/2013

Again R440, it needs to be asked. Why should we believe you when you have already been caught telling lies?

by Anonymousreply 44012/10/2013

R403, aka the idiot libertarian denialist troll, confuses ignorant US Population opinion, with the informed scientific opinion that has 97% of them convinced that not only is climate change/warming real, but significantly influenced by human behavior.

But of course, our ignorant libertarian troll is arrogant enough to believe he knows more about science than 97% of all scientists.

by Anonymousreply 44112/10/2013

[quote]Exactly ONE station measuring the entire arctic region?

You lie.

by Anonymousreply 44212/10/2013

Get the facts, Jack

by Anonymousreply 44312/10/2013

R442 I dont know if I would say the troll is ignorant, but they most certainly are dishonest. I can deal with ignorant people because most of them cant help it. But liars are a totally different matter.

by Anonymousreply 44412/10/2013

R445 Using your logic, you must despise President Obama.

by Anonymousreply 44512/10/2013

[quote][R442] I dont know if I would say the troll is ignorant, but they most certainly are dishonest. I can deal with ignorant people because most of them cant help it. But liars are a totally different matter.

Please keep in mind that this is a Libertarian we're talking about, so most of his opinions are coming to us from the Andromeda galaxy.

by Anonymousreply 44612/10/2013

ok 446 finally outed himself...he's a Koch plant.

by Anonymousreply 44712/10/2013

[quote]so most of his opinions are coming to us from the Andromeda galaxy.

I think they are actually coming from a black hole.

And by black hole I mean their ass.

by Anonymousreply 44812/10/2013

R450 For the third time, why do you expect us to believe anything from you when you have been caught telling so many lies? Why is it so hard for you to answer that question?

by Anonymousreply 45012/10/2013

Maybe he is bisexual.

by Anonymousreply 45112/10/2013

R453 For the 4th time. Why should we believe you when you have been caught telling so many lies?

by Anonymousreply 45312/10/2013

R449 Were you referring to our First Tranny, Michelle??

by Anonymousreply 45512/10/2013

And what about [bold]SNOW[/bold]??? Huh??? You ever wonder why the climate Nazis call it "global warming" when it's [bold]SNOWING[/bold] outside???

by Anonymousreply 45612/10/2013


by Anonymousreply 45712/12/2013

Warmists inevitably resort to ad hominen sneering since reality is not conforming with their "settled science" predictions.

The whole "oh my god, we're all going to die unless we control everyone's behavior" was overreaching from the get-go.

by Anonymousreply 45912/12/2013

And denialists consistently assert things that aren't even remotely true, using carefully cherry-picked factoids and half-truths to support their deceptions, without any real care about reality. They have their agenda, and anything that doesn't conform to their agenda is ignored or dismissed. They always seem to think they're better at climate science than actual climate scientists, and that they alone see the 'facts' that apparently all the rest of science is somehow blind to. Such arrogance.

by Anonymousreply 46012/12/2013

This Libertarian fuckwit really isn't going to let this horseshit go, is he?

by Anonymousreply 46212/12/2013

[quote]Remember when we were all going to die from Global Cooling?

The notion that this was EVER a thing, EVER a "scientific consensus", is a flat out lie, that has been debunked countless times.

Yet Denialists continue to bring up this old chestnut over and over as if it proves their case (it doesn't, even if it were true... being wrong in the past doesn't mean being wrong in the present, so it's a logical fallacy no matter how you measure it, and no matter what facts you start with).

[quote]BTW note the presumption both then and now that we are at THE EXACT PERFECT TEMPERATURE and any warming or cooling = horrible death and destruction.

Also an untrue assertion.

by Anonymousreply 46312/12/2013

When you just pull shit out of your ass to support your fervent beliefs, as the libertarian-troll/anti-science moron does, it's easy to understand how you believe in crap.

by Anonymousreply 46412/12/2013

Give it up, R464. When our supercomputers can predict what our weather will be day-by-day next week with accuracy I might lend some credence to the prognostications for next month. Next year, a decade from now, or a hundred years hence, hah!

You and all the "experts" are talking out of your asses.

by Anonymousreply 46512/12/2013

Yes, yes, R466... all the scientists and experts are morons, and you alone and all your uneducated denialist friends, know everything!

(rolling eyes)

by Anonymousreply 46612/12/2013

[quote]When our supercomputers can predict what our weather

And that's where everything you have to say gets disregarded. We are talking about climate, not weather. Two totally different things.

by Anonymousreply 46712/12/2013

R467, you can have a dozen Phd's and still not be able to predict the future of an inherently unstable system.

Your faith in "expertise" is charming, however.

by Anonymousreply 46812/12/2013

R469, if you had a greater understanding of what you were critiquing, your critique might carry a bit more weight. But you don't, and your critique thus carries no weight at all.

Again, you can't seem to grasp the difference between weather and climate, let alone exactly what is being predicted and why, or the accuracy of said predictions...

by Anonymousreply 46912/12/2013

R470, "climate" is "weather" times months and years.

To say they are disconnected is ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 47112/12/2013

R471 You have already been branded a liar. Give it up. No one believes anything you have to say.

And the GWPF? O sure, they should be trusted...NOT

[quote]The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions.

What could they be hiding?

by Anonymousreply 47312/12/2013

[quote]"climate" is "weather" times months and years.

No, not really. That's a very, very naïve understanding.


No, it doesn't. If you actually talk to actual scientists, instead of people trying to cherry-pick out-of-context factoids in order to reinforce their chosen belief (i.e. the OPPOSITE of actual real science... basically similar to Creationism), they explain how climate change dove-tails with this just fine.

In short, it's not a counter-example at all. It doesn't disprove anything.

But you'd have to read more deeply and understand more details than you're obviously willing to do, to understand how and why.

by Anonymousreply 47412/12/2013

Welcome to the new, greener arctic:

by Anonymousreply 47712/12/2013

Right, R475, "climate" and "weather" are two totally different things, just like dollars and cents.

by Anonymousreply 47812/12/2013

The Libertarian Fuckwit Troll should stick to shilling Gold and explaining to the great unwashed masses why fummint is evil.

by Anonymousreply 47912/12/2013

OMG the libertarian idiot almost got something right! Here, LIT! Have a cookie!

[quote]Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different than weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

by Anonymousreply 48012/12/2013

We are approaching another Little Ice Age and entire cities like Chicago will become ghost towns in twenty years.

There will be no more home games for the Green Bay Packers.

No one will be skiing for recreation anymore.

And mink stole burkas will be all the rage amongst the muslims.

by Anonymousreply 48212/12/2013

Keep learning, R481.

Weather determines climate.

by Anonymousreply 48312/12/2013

[quote]Weather determines climate.

You're still 150% full of shit, fool.

by Anonymousreply 48412/12/2013

R485, I don't know why I condescend to bother, but what is "climate" aside from weather?

I can't even imagine the headspace you are posting from.

by Anonymousreply 48512/12/2013

[quote]Right, [R475], "climate" and "weather" are two totally different things, just like dollars and cents.

No, more like "dollars" and "Economic Environment".

I said your statement was naïve. And it was. Climate is the context in which weather happens, at best. Snow does not disprove a warming climate.

by Anonymousreply 48812/12/2013

R488 thinks climate scientists the world over are so stupid they've never considered those things or factored them in, or tested them as causes.

All the data still points to AGW, like it or not.

by Anonymousreply 48912/12/2013

"Climate is the context in which weather happens"


You are a seriously deluded person.

by Anonymousreply 49012/12/2013

R491, no, I just have a deeper understand than your shallow, ignorant, oxygen-starved little brain can grasp.

by Anonymousreply 49112/12/2013

Globull warming is a myth created by astroturfers to siphon progressives away from real issues like Palestine and income inequality. Don't believe the hype.

by Anonymousreply 49212/12/2013

R491, a "deeper understanding" would know that the earth has gone through many, many climate shifts throughout its existence, none of which had fuck-all to do with puny humans.

by Anonymousreply 49312/12/2013

[quote]Globull warming is a myth created by astroturfers to siphon progressives away from real issues like Palestine and income inequality. Don't believe the hype.

That's one of the biggest loads of bullshit I've ever read.

by Anonymousreply 49412/12/2013

[quote]R491, a "deeper understanding" would know that the earth has gone through many, many climate shifts throughout its existence, none of which had fuck-all to do with puny humans.

Well no shit, Sherlock.

But none of that changes the fact that this change is accelerating FAR faster than "natural" change, and the reason is the gigatons of CO2 and Methane man's activities humans are pumping into the atmosphere over incredibly short time-scales (on a geological scale).

Of course, if you were informed, you'd know this. But you aren't. You're not even half-informed. All you can do is distract and parrot a few bullet points you've been given by those who profit from the status quo.

by Anonymousreply 49512/12/2013

Oh, please do inform me, you condescending fuckwit.

by Anonymousreply 49612/12/2013

How does one inform an impenetrably dense brain such as yours, R497? You're clearly only interested in things that reinforce your already-tightly-held dogma. You dismiss or ignore anything that contradicts your little fantasy. Most of the things you've posted were already thoroughly debunked in previous posts here on this very thread.

You can't educate willful ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 49712/12/2013

R496 any competent scientist knows there aren't enough historical data points to validate the claim that current fluctuations aren't any faster or slower than past ones.

Get back to us in one thousand years or so.

(btw there was a 'little ice age' as recently as 1812)

by Anonymousreply 49812/12/2013

R499 is the perfect example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Yes, yes, we know about the little ice-age. Do you know the cause of it? Do you somehow think that those years somehow disprove AGW?

by Anonymousreply 49912/12/2013

You certainly are snug in your little blanket, R498.

by Anonymousreply 50012/12/2013

Did not realize there were so many vetted climatologists on DL. And so sure of themselves. Keep trying to predict what will happen. We will all be wrong.

by Anonymousreply 50112/12/2013

R500 I'm taking my advanced degree and leaving - YOU are one of the many willfully ignorant suckers that's getting conned into believing warming is caused by humans.

Warming is a natural trend. It happens on other planets, too - planets where there aren't any humans. The solar system is not human-friendly. Just accept that and kiss your ass goodbye.

by Anonymousreply 50212/12/2013

the thing I dislike MOST about the Dl right now is the climate driers dragging this stupid thread out every night like some old blanket

by Anonymousreply 50312/12/2013

R504: they must have shitloads of money invested in Arctic real estate. Or maybe ExxonMobil is pouring money into libertarian think tanks.

by Anonymousreply 50412/12/2013

Rolling my eyes at R503

by Anonymousreply 50512/12/2013

I love it.

Despite ample evidence that the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" bullshit has been thoroughly discredited- you know, the lack of any warming since 1998, the fact that it was warmer 900 years ago, the leaked emails from top IPCC "climatologists" conspiring to "destroy" any scientist that dared question the AGW hypothesis- there are one or two trolls who still cling to their beliefs with religious fervor...I love it.

The climate is changing. Most likely due to solar variance. It might get a little hotter, and might get a LOT COLDER. I prefer a warmer planet to an icebox.

My favorite fact- the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland back in 2010 put more SO2, CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere than all human activity since 1900!

Global warming might be real, but it's the volcanoes, not the Volkswagens!

by Anonymousreply 50612/13/2013

I'm wagering not a single denialist has read the linked article in the OP, let alone the other evidence that debunks their other talking points throughout this thread.

[quote]Despite ample evidence that the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" bullshit has been thoroughly discredited

There is no such evidence, and it hasn't been thoroughly discredited. If there was such evidence and if there had been such a discrediting, 97% of scientists wouldn't be in agreement that warming is happening and Humans are at least partially responsible.

[quote]you know, the lack of any warming since 1998

This lie has been repeated several times, and debunked several times in this thread. This isn't the case. Assert a lie as a foundation of your theory, and your theory necessarily falls apart.

[quote]the fact that it was warmer 900 years ago

Which doesn't discredit AGW in any way... the level of ignorance required to make that "connection" is scary. Seriously.

[quote]the leaked emails from top IPCC "climatologists" conspiring to "destroy" any scientist that dared question the AGW hypothesis

That sensationalized story was completely misrepresented, and your conclusion has been thoroughly debunked.

[quote]there are one or two trolls who still cling to their beliefs with religious fervor...I love it.

The only denialists still clinging to their beliefs with religious fervor are you denialists. You're projecting again. Pathological projection is a habit of conservatives, and a symptom of sociopathic behavior.

Perhaps you should read the entire linked article in the OP before commenting further. And then perhaps those specific links that debunk your parroted/regurgitated talking points since then.

by Anonymousreply 50712/13/2013

We've already past the tipping point.

I'm just sorry the animals die with us. And yes humans are responsible.

by Anonymousreply 51112/13/2013

Global Warming is a complete and total joke. It's amazing to watch all of the Henny Pennys on this site. Cluck, cluck, cluck!

I think that I'm going to go out and buy an aerosol can and spray it just for fun...

by Anonymousreply 51212/13/2013

Denialists are such a complete and total joke. It's amazing to watch them braying their arrogant ignorance around on this site.

How do they breathe with their heads shoved so far up their asses?

by Anonymousreply 51312/13/2013

[quote]I think that I'm going to go out and buy an aerosol can and spray it just for fun...

You do realize that fluorocarbon gases used in aerosols was banned almost 30 years ago? Of course not. That's because you're retarded.

by Anonymousreply 51512/13/2013

R517 Aside from from demonstrating you're an ass who doesn't know what you're talking about and you're helplessly stuck in the past, what exactly is your point?

by Anonymousreply 51712/13/2013

That chicken's going to bleed out if you keep doing that to him without lubrication, R509/10/11/15/17/etc etc etc...

by Anonymousreply 51812/13/2013

What R518 said.

by Anonymousreply 51912/13/2013

R517 Don't forget how the earth was going to run out of oil in the 1970s! It was a scientific FACT!


by Anonymousreply 52012/13/2013

Dealing with the environment should be our top priority. Without a livable planet that can sustain us, nothing else really matters. There is no planet B.

by Anonymousreply 52112/13/2013

Funny how all your information sources come exclusively from the wingnut echo chamber, R523. It's almost like you've got an agenda or something.

by Anonymousreply 52312/13/2013

Funny how all those "professors" denying global climate change teach economics, mathematics, etc.

Well, my MFA in theatre gives me the authority to say the world's getting hotter. So there.

by Anonymousreply 52712/13/2013

Thanks, R525, but I have no interest in addressing your raw sewage flume of bullshit point by point. No reason to.

by Anonymousreply 52812/13/2013

[quote]Actually, [R528], the warmists' public enemy #1 is mathematician Steve McIntyre who actually CHECKS THEIR MATH

Well golly, who wouldn't want that?

[quote]Stephen McIntyre (born c. 1947) is a Canadian mathematician, [bold]former minerals prospector, and semi-retired mining consultant [/bold]who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is known in particular for his statistical critique, [bold]with economist Ross McKitrick, [/bold]of the hockey stick graph which shows that the increase in late 20th century global temperatures is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years.

An economist and former mining consultant. Well golly, no bias coming from those two. Nothing but pure, unmanipulated facts, yesiree!!!

by Anonymousreply 53112/13/2013


Math is a creation of penised persons designed to denigrate and degrade Mother Earth. All of their so-called "facts" about global changes in weather do not change the fact that we are being hateraped and imprisoned by their heterosexist system of math and logic.

by Anonymousreply 53212/14/2013

The history of the Climate Change Debate, in Comic form:

by Anonymousreply 53312/14/2013

This can't be repeated enough:

by Anonymousreply 53512/14/2013

R535, empty assertions can be dismissed just as easily as they can be made. Your asserting is as empty as they come.

by Anonymousreply 53612/14/2013


No amount of data or differing hypotheses will convince the True Believers.

They are convinced that human activity causes climate change. It's sad. And tragic.

by Anonymousreply 53712/15/2013

Again, you quote the Daily Mail, which is sorta like quoting FOX News. It ruins your credibility.

Meanwhile: "NASA Reports Warmest November On Record, Confirming Warming Trend"

Hey, know what November was the 2nd warmest on record? LAST YEAR'S.

by Anonymousreply 53912/15/2013

So which one of the warming alarmists on this thread are going to give up their computers? Their air conditioning? Trade in their car for a bike? etc.... etc.... etc....

You know just like Al Gore did.

by Anonymousreply 54012/15/2013

R541 creates a false dichotomy. Like all deniers, they deal in logical fallacies.

by Anonymousreply 54212/15/2013

So R543 you won't be giving up your air conditioning this Summer or installing windmills in your backyard?

by Anonymousreply 54412/15/2013

Once again R544 needs to use lies to try to make a point. Steven Goddard is not even a real person, he uses a fake name because he is too chicken shit to really stand by what he writes. He has a degree in geology and electrical engineering, meaning he is totally unqualified to write about climate.

R544 it has to be stated for like the one-hundredth time: when one is caught telling lies the way you have, nothing you can say will ever have any merit.

by Anonymousreply 54512/15/2013

Thank fucking god this thread will die soon. The Libertarian fuckwits will of course deny the "contested theory" that threads close after 600 posts.

by Anonymousreply 54612/15/2013

You poor exasperated thing, R547. Having people question your dogma! Why, I never!

by Anonymousreply 54712/15/2013

It should be clear by this point that sarcasm isn't the Libertarian Idiot's strong suit.

by Anonymousreply 54812/15/2013

Just say NO to foreign oil. I am going to start burning whale blubber again- its organic!

by Anonymousreply 54912/15/2013

It should be clear by now that R549 has a hockey stick up his butt.

by Anonymousreply 55012/15/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!