dajo9;842853051 said:

---

The only people that bring up Al Gore on this thread are deniers. The other side is talking about actual scientists.

---

Gore is the lead propagandist and most influential global warming figure, perhaps second only to IPCC founder Maurice Strong in terms of his personal role in pushing a global warming policy agenda. He's made a quarter billion dollars fronting for and investing in parties that financially benefited from environmental control schemes he's helped implement. As such, he's very relevant in this debate. Millions of people have made up their minds based on the alarmist Oscar-winning pseudo-science pushed in his documentary. And you also have at least one poster here who seemed to have made up his mind through a similarly dubious production by Leonardo di Caprio.

Warmists are quick to characterize skeptics as unscientific dupes, yet ignore the complete lack of scientific rigor in the media and in highly influential works like Gore's and di Caprio's. The main premise in his film, that Florida is about to get swallowed by the ocean, is completely unsubstantiated by real observations. Here's Judith Curry on the topic of sea level rise:



I've been trying to introduce some of the issues in the climate debate that have been stricken out from the public arena, and getting met with a great deal of hostility on here for daring to go against the grain, the kind of hostility that scientists like Curry who haven't fully toed the line have also encountered.

Rushinbear;842853067 said:

---

Cal88, I admire your persistence. And your arguments.

Did you see all the refutations I got when I posted the source CO2 data published by NASA/NOAA/Hadley? I didn't either.

Whenever these CC proponents are confronted with evidence, they call it fraudulent or ignore it. They have no facts to refute it, especially when it's their data.

We are not dealing here with people of a liberal persuasion. Instead, they fancy themselves as soldiers in the war to tyrannize the US and part of that (from Alinsky) is never to allow the other side to have the last word. Never. They "fight" by doing or saying whatever they think will damage the other side, no matter what. To them, the truth is whatever they say.

Happily, there are more and more of the population who believe, as we do, that we can be good stewards of the planet without self-bankruptcy. That we must face up to what's really going on and make progress (cough) to ameliorate it in the face of actual events and not contrivances. We will not be bullied or extorted into bending the knee simply because they won't shut up. We will not take action or be taxed because someone tried to guilt trip us into their nightmare.

---

Thanks Rushingbear, much appreciated, as were the supportive PMs from other posters for my contributions to this debate.

I think the amount of political polarization in general is really astounding, and has been a major impediment to any progress in this debate in particular, and that's a shame.

Cave Bear;842853035 said:

---

Feel welcome to point out which parts of the above post you think aren't true

---

Nice try CB.....My post #643 was in response to your lack of civility to opposing thoughts in your post #638....Easy enough to document, and enough said. Back in the Cave.

Rushinbear;842853067 said:

---

Cal88, I admire your persistence. And your arguments.

Did you see all the refutations I got when I posted the source CO2 data published by NASA/NOAA/Hadley? I didn't either.

Whenever these CC proponents are confronted with evidence, they call it fraudulent or ignore it. They have no facts to refute it, especially when it's their data.

We are not dealing here with people of a liberal persuasion. Instead, they fancy themselves as soldiers in the war to tyrannize the US and part of that (from Alinsky) is never to allow the other side to have the last word. Never. They "fight" by doing or saying whatever they think will damage the other side, no matter what. To them, the truth is whatever they say.

Happily, there are more and more of the population who believe, as we do, that we can be good stewards of the planet without self-bankruptcy. That we must face up to what's really going on and make progress (cough) to ameliorate it in the face of actual events and not contrivances. We will not be bullied or extorted into bending the knee simply because they won't shut up. We will not take action or be taxed because someone tried to guilt trip us into their nightmare.

---

It does seem to be the technique and one practiced pretty consistently by those left of center.

Rushinbear;842853067 said:

---

Cal88, I admire your persistence. And your arguments.

Did you see all the refutations I got when I posted the source CO2 data published by NASA/NOAA/Hadley? I didn't either.

Whenever these CC proponents are confronted with evidence, they call it fraudulent or ignore it. They have no facts to refute it, especially when it's their data.

We are not dealing here with people of a liberal persuasion. Instead, they fancy themselves as soldiers in the war to tyrannize the US and part of that (from Alinsky) is never to allow the other side to have the last word. Never. They "fight" by doing or saying whatever they think will damage the other side, no matter what. To them, the truth is whatever they say.

Happily, there are more and more of the population who believe, as we do, that we can be good stewards of the planet without self-bankruptcy. That we must face up to what's really going on and make progress (cough) to ameliorate it in the face of actual events and not contrivances. We will not be bullied or extorted into bending the knee simply because they won't shut up. We will not take action or be taxed because someone tried to guilt trip us into their nightmare.

---

http://www.thebrainwashingofmydad.com/

OdontoBear66;842853075 said:

---

It does seem to be the technique and one practiced pretty consistently by those left of center.

---

66: this kind of sentence is an unfortunate example of what Cal88 was talking about. There is, indeed, way too much polarization and name-calling, but to suggest that it is the province of the "left of center" merely perpetuates the problem. I guess Sean Hannitty never called Obama a traitor; Dinesh daSousa never said he was "rageful." Rush Limbaugh never said "feminazis." Donald Trump never called Hillary Clinton a criminal. No one on the right ever put nooses on African American's offices, fraternities, or homes. Obama's wife was never called a "gorilla." I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea...

Alexa, solve global warming.

bearlyamazing;842853062 said:

---

Sycasey, dajo and cavebear have zero credibility here.

By using the straight out of the climate change fanatic handbook tactic of completely dismissing out of hand any skepticism or evidence that contradicts their absolutist philosophies, they show the complete intransigence and cult-like mentality of the crowd they run with.

---

This is either delusion or intentional misrepresentation. It really can't be anything else because I've already said (several times) whose skepticism I think should have currency: qualified scientists. I don't dismiss out of hand the reservations of qualified people like Curry, I just insist their position be viewed in the greater context of the entire body of qualified opinion. The miserably incompetent presentation of "evidence" by totally unqualified people here (whose tactics here already call their integrity into question) does deserve to be completely dismissed out of hand and the purveyors of that propaganda merit contempt.

Quote:

---

Most of the "climate skeptics" out there believe that there's a man-made influence on climate to some extent and are willing to take common sense steps to protect the environment...

---

I'd love to see you substantiate this, but I surely won't hold my breath.

Quote:

---

...but your complete and utter refusal to accept that some of the philosophies that drive the climate change movement have plenty of room for error and, at a minimum, a need for more data, study and discovery just shows your obliviousness to reality.

---

Yeah, except for my full willingness to endorse the idea that climate change research is still young, still evolving, and has been accompanied by plenty of misapprehensions along the way. I also fully endorse the need for more data, study and discovery and I'm sure that everyone I'm aligned with on this issue in this thread will co-sign.

Now that I've addressed those who have made specific objections to my expressions, I'm going to ask you to do the same and I expect if you're as fair minded on the issue as you're trying to represent yourself in this post, you'll be eager to do so. These are your words from post #587:

Quote:

---

That is what this all boils down to. A big money grab by those vested in power of the climatology establishment.

---

When you made this ridiculous claim, I pointed out what I think are its very serious flaws which I'll reiterate here with brevity: the people driving the CC movement have virtually nothing financially at stake compared to the people driving the denial movement. Forget that people who choose the Earth sciences in the first place obviously are not motivated by greed (since being an Earth scientist is very rarely lucrative and requires both talent that could have done something far more lucrative and a huge investment in education); the average climate scientist makes under 100k. This is what you think motivates them by the thousands to perpetrate what would be one of the worst frauds in history?

Then, look at the other side of the issue. Greed is the religion of the people who drive the denial movement. The most powerful agents of the denial movement are fossil fuels companies and the people they directly subsidize, either with jobs or cash. Huge financial empires are built on these products. Koch, Exxon and Chevron have spent $10 million lobbying for fossil fuels this year alone.

How did you possibly come to believe it's the former group rather than the latter that is likely to be running a vast conspiracy aimed at subverting the truth? This is far from what I consider the nub of the issue, but I think it's a good place to start because if we're so far apart on this I think it's almost a given that one of us is being unreasonable and I'm 99.999% sure I know which one.

OdontoBear66;842853073 said:

---

Nice try CB.....My post #643 was in response to your lack of civility to opposing thoughts in your post #638....Easy enough to document, and enough said. Back in the Cave.

---

Ah, so I'm not wrong, you're just whining about how mean I am to all these people who themselves treat opposing thought like garbage (and with far less cause). Gotcha.

At this point, I suggest that we stipulate that all climate change deniers are delusional tools of the fossil fuel industry and burdened with a total lack of IQ and that all climate change accepters are part of a vast left-wing, commie pinko (even worse: liberal) conspiracy whose stated aim is to destroy the United States either for some secret cabal or for China.

Once that's out of the way, perhaps there will still be something about the science to discuss.

Cave Bear;842853080 said:

---

Yeah, except for my full willingness to endorse the idea that climate change research is still young, still evolving, and has been accompanied by plenty of misapprehensions along the way. I also fully endorse the need for more data, study and discovery and I'm sure that everyone I'm aligned with on this issue in this thread will co-sign.

---

And this is how they win.

Cave Bear, in your quest to be reasonable and search for common ground with people who will never offer the same you have given them the victory they want and need. You have said we need more data. Everything can pause now. No action needs to be taken. You have given them bipartisan consensus that more study is required. That is who we are dealing with here. You lose, they win. Time to cut more taxes.

dajo9;842853084 said:

---

And this is how they win.

Cave Bear, in your quest to be reasonable and search for common ground with people who will never offer the same you have given them the victory they want and need. You have said we need more data. Everything can pause now. No action needs to be taken. You have given them bipartisan consensus that more study is required. That is who we are dealing with here. You lose, they win. Time to cut more taxes.

---

The flaw in their logic (not yours, Dajo) is that acknowledging that more data are needed is not a valid reason for inaction. Take a medical analogy: you may or may not have a malignancy that, if untreated, is 100% fatal. We need more data to know for sure if your problem is, indeed, that malignancy; however, if you delay treatment--and it is cancer--you're dead. OTOH, you can treat now and there will be unpleasant side effects. Do you wait? Probably not if you value your life.

Cave Bear;842853080 said:

---

How did you possibly come to believe it's the former group rather than the latter that is likely to be running a vast conspiracy aimed at subverting the truth?

---

Right-wing media brainwashing has been strong. You can see their fingerprints all over the denier posts here.

If personal attacks are carried out by those left of center, I'm going to have to re-calibrate my assumptions about a number of OT posters at BI.

As for Call88's irrefutable evidence of a global cooling scientific consensus, apparently a few dozen articles over a few decades is irrefutable. Based on that standard, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism.

Cal88 likes to hold out certain well qualified climate scientists to bolster his arguments against the existence of AGW (Teller, Curry, Muller) but his dirty little not-so-secret is that every one of the credible scientists he likes to reference actually believe in AGW. Some, like Curry and Teller (before he passed) began to question the scientific process, the way grants are doled out and have questions around the peripheral regarding to what extent GW is anthropogenic, but none of them are on record saying that human CO2 contributions are not changing the climate to our detriment. Just another smokescreen.

Unit2Sucks;842853092 said:

---

If personal attacks are carried out by those left of center, I'm going to have to re-calibrate my assumptions about a number of OT posters at BI.

As for Call88's irrefutable evidence of a global cooling scientific consensus, apparently a few dozen articles over a few decades is irrefutable. Based on that standard, there must be overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccinations cause autism.

Cal88 likes to hold out certain well qualified climate scientists to bolster his arguments against the existence of AGW (Teller, Curry, Muller) but his dirty little not-so-secret is that every one of the credible scientists he likes to reference actually believe in AGW. Some, like Curry and Teller (before he passed) began to question the scientific process, the way grants are doled out and have questions around the peripheral regarding to what extent GW is anthropogenic, but none of them are on record saying that human CO2 contributions are not changing the climate to our detriment. Just another smokescreen.

---

You don't get it Unit2. The debate is over and Cal88 and company have won. There is a bipartisan consensus that more study is required. It is the same in that every time Hillary Clinton was exonerated in Benghazi (and everything else) it just meant that more questions needed to be answered. More study is required on climate change. It's done. It's agreed to. Delay has won the day. Take no action.

The good thing about this debate is it demonstrates the idiocy of "consensus", "reaching across the aisle", "moderates", "bring us all together" and all the other tired, lame cliches. Nobody wants that crap.

GB54;842853094 said:

---

The good thing about this debate is it demonstrates the idiocy of "consensus", "reaching across the aisle", "moderates", "bring us all together" and all the other tired, lame cliches. Nobody wants that crap.

---

That's true. After 45 pages Cave Bear finally tried it and it only results in immediate loss for his side. Maybe next year we can reconvene and see if enough research has been done to satisfy Cal88 and crew. If not, then maybe the year after. Congratulations you guys, you really know how to make an argument and win.

Alrighty then

dajo9;842853084 said:

---

And this is how they win.

Cave Bear, in your quest to be reasonable and search for common ground with people who will never offer the same you have given them the victory they want and need. You have said we need more data. Everything can pause now. No action needs to be taken. You have given them bipartisan consensus that more study is required. That is who we are dealing with here. You lose, they win. Time to cut more taxes.

---

I can see the danger you've pointed out and I admit it's real. There will be plenty of people who will misconstrue my belief that more research is needed as grounds to defer action, but of course that's not at all what my position is. Aside from the fact that scientific understanding is perpetually evolving, climate science is a notably young field that is going to continue to expand for awhile. There have been flaws in the research work that's been produced to date, and that's both understandable and okay. Trial and error is part of the method, and we don't need to wait until everything is perfect in our understanding before we take action.

How about we take reasonable measures to curtail CO2 production and if it turns out that prevailing science is incorrect we can worry about it then.

BTW, the Verge has an interesting article posted about how the doom and gloom crowd can be counterproductive by scaring people with all of the potential (but not necessarily likely) downsides to climate change. Cal88 will likely spin this as evidence of a scientific consensus that AGW is unsupported, but for the rest of you open-minded people it's quite interesting.

Unit2Sucks;842853107 said:

---

How about we take reasonable measures to curtail CO2 production and if it turns out that prevailing science is incorrect we can worry about it then.

BTW, the Verge has an interesting article posted about how the doom and gloom crowd can be counterproductive by scaring people with all of the potential (but not necessarily likely) downsides to climate change. Cal88 will likely spin this as evidence of a scientific consensus that AGW is unsupported, but for the rest of you open-minded people it's quite interesting.

---

Agreed. The irony here is the people in the denial camp are precisely the sort you would expect be critical of positions that require an excessive amount of information/understanding before meaningful corrective action is taken.

UrsaMajor;842853077 said:

---

66: this kind of sentence is an unfortunate example of what Cal88 was talking about. There is, indeed, way too much polarization and name-calling, but to suggest that it is the province of the "left of center" merely perpetuates the problem. I guess Sean Hannitty never called Obama a traitor; Dinesh daSousa never said he was "rageful." Rush Limbaugh never said "feminazis." Donald Trump never called Hillary Clinton a criminal. No one on the right ever put nooses on African American's offices, fraternities, or homes. Obama's wife was never called a "gorilla." I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea...

---

I would never for a second deny any of the above. I was not saying the right was all good, and the left all bad. My responses related more to having a civil discussion to be informative to all. Behaviors of Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. are unacceptable. I was speaking of current arguments and contributing why it is hard to have a discussion. I do not subscribe to Cal 88s views either, but the excesses of the right (and the left) seems to me to prevent any kind of civility. I especially don't care for "attack the person" not the message, and that is practiced by both sides. So if you took it as me absolving the right not so. I was coming down on the left as I am in the position of siding against in this encounter. I am an admitted strong fiscal conservative with regards to having the money or means prior to spending it, but not a philosophical one. A self described RINO. To choose between a progressive anarchist or a fascist is not a choice to me. Throw 'em both out.

UrsaMajor;842853082 said:

---

At this point, I suggest that we stipulate that all climate change deniers are delusional tools of the fossil fuel industry and burdened with a total lack of IQ and that all climate change accepters are part of a vast left-wing, commie pinko (even worse: liberal) conspiracy whose stated aim is to destroy the United States either for some secret cabal or for China.

Once that's out of the way, perhaps there will still be something about the science to discuss.

---

Oh, that was good.

Rushinbear;842852253 said:

---

Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-duke-warming-temperature/2015/04/24/id/640540/

---

I will reiterate, since the CC proponents here avoided addressing it the last time:

Until the climate scientists with their mathematical modeling can incorporate the following influences on climate, they are bereft of plausibility. So far, they pretend that such influences don't exist:

Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Atlantic Decadal Oscillation
El Nino
La Nina
Solar Activity in its various forms, including Solar Minima
Cosmic Rays
Historic patterns of variation, including interglacials, ice ages, little ice ages, warming periods, all before industrialization

All of the above and more, have considerably more influence on climate than does CO2. It represents a very small percentage of the earth's atmosphere and small changes in it represent temperature changes of less than one percent. And, changes in CO2 come after changes in temperature; they do not lead it.

Ah, yes, temperature changes. At the same time these CC proponents attempt to explain away the above factors, let them attempt to explain how the temperature measurement method (I was going to call it a scheme, but thought better of it) currently in use can be considered scientific. Temperature measuring devices either fail to remain at constant places (thus defeating a consistent measurement platform) or are at least once removed from that which they purport to measure, meaning that they are premise-based speculation (notice I didn't say merely). The fact is, CC proponents claim to know that the earth is warming (and, it may very well be), but they can't prove it.

Climate does indeed change...all by itself. There may be a teensy, tiny, weeny impact by mankind, but nothing that can be proved or that amounts to enough to justify the cooptation of the sovereignty of nations to a world body such as the UN that is driving this thing.

The bottom line is that the Climate Change proponents see this as a pretext by which to gain hegemony over world citizens and to pay for their power grab with money extorted through guilt trips and other legerdemain honed by 50 years of practice, or more. Once Climate Change/Global Warming is finally put to rest, they will gin up another pretext (just as happened when they learned that their fear mongering over "Global Cooling" was debunked).

When you hear one of your friends go on about global warming and CO2, just ask them how their "evidence" accounts for the effects of solar activity on climate. Just ask the question. Be nice about it. Wait patiently, without saying another word.

Or, when you hear them say, "97% of scientists agree." Just ask them politely, "Name one."

Rushinbear;842853117 said:

---

There may be a teensy, tiny, weeny impact by mankind, but nothing that can be proved or that amounts to enough to justify the cooptation of the sovereignty of nations to a world body such as the UN that is driving this thing.

---

Source?

Rushinbear;842853117 said:

---

The bottom line is that the Climate Change proponents see this as a pretext by which to gain hegemony over world citizens and to pay for their power grab with money extorted through guilt trips and other legerdemain honed by 50 years of practice, or more. Once Climate Change/Global Warming is finally put to rest, they will gin up another pretext (just as happened when they learned that their fear mongering over "Global Cooling" was debunked).

---

Source?

Rushinbear;842853117 said:

---

Or, when you hear them say, "97% of scientists agree." Just ask them politely, "Name one."

---

How about Richard Muller? Does he count? Feel free to read his Op-Ed from 2012 and let us know where he went wrong.

Quote:

---

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
...
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

---

Rushinbear:

You raised some interesting points that can be debated, both about the measurement of temperature and the role of non-anthroprogenic factors. I would say, btw, that because there have been (and still are) factors other than CO2 that have caused temperature variation, doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a major factor now. It's like saying that because there have been many different causes of death throughout history, since AIDS is recent, it cannot cause death. Nonetheless, these points can--and should--be debated scientifically.

HOWEVER, when you then descend to paranoid bullshit like the quote below, you lose all credibility. As I see it, you are saying that the majority of academic scientists are in a secret conspiracy to take over the world and ruin your life. Sounds like the Illuminati or Elders of Zion or (fill in your favorite bogeyman).

Rushinbear;842853117 said:

---

The bottom line is that the Climate Change proponents see this as a pretext by which to gain hegemony over world citizens and to pay for their power grab with money extorted through guilt trips and other legerdemain honed by 50 years of practice, or more. Once Climate Change/Global Warming is finally put to rest, they will gin up another pretext (just as happened when they learned that their fear mongering over "Global Cooling" was debunked).

---

UrsaMajor;842853124 said:

---

Rushinbear:

You raised some interesting points that can be debated, both about the measurement of temperature and the role of non-anthroprogenic factors. I would say, btw, that because there have been (and still are) factors other than CO2 that have caused temperature variation, doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a major factor now. It's like saying that because there have been many different causes of death throughout history, since AIDS is recent, it cannot cause death. Nonetheless, these points can--and should--be debated scientifically.

HOWEVER, when you then descend to paranoid bullshit like the quote below, you lose all credibility. As I see it, you are saying that the majority of academic scientists are in a secret conspiracy to take over the world and ruin your life. Sounds like the Illuminati or Elders of Zion or (fill in your favorite bogeyman).

---

So, how about Pacific Decadal Oscillation? Whadda ya got?

Rushinbear;842853067 said:

---

Cal88, I admire your persistence. And your arguments.

Did you see all the refutations I got when I posted the source CO2 data published by NASA/NOAA/Hadley? I didn't either.

Whenever these CC proponents are confronted with evidence, they call it fraudulent or ignore it. They have no facts to refute it, especially when it's their data.

We are not dealing here with people of a liberal persuasion. Instead, they fancy themselves as soldiers in the war to tyrannize the US and part of that (from Alinsky) is never to allow the other side to have the last word. Never. They "fight" by doing or saying whatever they think will damage the other side, no matter what. To them, the truth is whatever they say.

Happily, there are more and more of the population who believe, as we do, that we can be good stewards of the planet without self-bankruptcy. That we must face up to what's really going on and make progress (cough) to ameliorate it in the face of actual events and not contrivances. We will not be bullied or extorted into bending the knee simply because they won't shut up. We will not take action or be taxed because someone tried to guilt trip us into their nightmare.

---

Bending the knee? You own a sword don't you?

There is some debate about the role of the PDO and the ENSO on climate change; however, if you plot PDO and ENSO indices against the average temperature over the last 100+ years, they don't map that well. The PDO index tends to oscillate around a mean in 5-30 year cycles, whereas the slope of the global temperature curve is positive. As I understand it, the PDO transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the oceans. When the ocean is cooler, the atmosphere is warmer and vice versa. If the PDO were a cause of overall warming, the ocean surface temperature should cool with rising atmospheric temperatures. Also, the mechanism of trhe PDO and ENSO is not understood. Greenhouse gases may well contribute to ocean temperature variation.

The Grand Conspirators? Whadda ya got?

UrsaMajor;842853141 said:

---

There is some debate about the role of the PDO and the ENSO on climate change; however, if you plot PDO and ENSO indices against the average temperature over the last 100+ years, they don't map that well. The PDO index tends to oscillate around a mean in 5-30 year cycles, whereas the slope of the global temperature curve is positive. As I understand it, the PDO transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere to the oceans. When the ocean is cooler, the atmosphere is warmer and vice versa. If the PDO were a cause of overall warming, the ocean surface temperature should cool with rising atmospheric temperatures. Also, the mechanism of trhe PDO and ENSO is not understood. Greenhouse gases may well contribute to ocean temperature variation.

The Grand Conspirators? Whadda ya got?

---

Where is it accounted for in the Phil Jones/IPCC/UN algorithms? You can't answer it because they refuse to release their mathematical model for scrutiny by scientists. But, one thing you can be sure of, if they did release it, those factors would be conspicuous by their absence. One reason, among many, why they won't release it.

I do appreciate, though, your tackling of the subject rather than ignoring or dismissing it. Your analysis was good as far as it went. The PDO also has an impact on retention of dissolved CO2 in the Pacific (and the other oceans). I'm not sure, though, about your statement that the oceans should cool with rising atmospheric temps. And, I noted that you referred to greenhouse gases this time, which include but are far from being limited to, CO2.

Rushinbear;842853117 said:

---

I will reiterate, since the CC proponents here avoided addressing it the last time:

Until the climate scientists with their mathematical modeling can incorporate the following influences on climate, they are bereft of plausibility. So far, they pretend that such influences don't exist:

Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Atlantic Decadal Oscillation
El Nino
La Nina
Solar Activity in its various forms, including Solar Minima
Cosmic Rays
Historic patterns of variation, including interglacials, ice ages, little ice ages, warming periods, all before industrialization

All of the above and more, have considerably more influence on climate than does CO2. It represents a very small percentage of the earth's atmosphere and small changes in it represent temperature changes of less than one percent. And, changes in CO2 come after changes in temperature; they do not lead it.

Ah, yes, temperature changes. At the same time these CC proponents attempt to explain away the above factors, let them attempt to explain how the temperature measurement method (I was going to call it a scheme, but thought better of it) currently in use can be considered scientific. Temperature measuring devices either fail to remain at constant places (thus defeating a consistent measurement platform) or are at least once removed from that which they purport to measure, meaning that they are premise-based speculation (notice I didn't say merely). The fact is, CC proponents claim to know that the earth is warming (and, it may very well be), but they can't prove it.

Climate does indeed change...all by itself. There may be a teensy, tiny, weeny impact by mankind, but nothing that can be proved or that amounts to enough to justify the cooptation of the sovereignty of nations to a world body such as the UN that is driving this thing.


The bottom line is that the Climate Change proponents see this as a pretext by which to gain hegemony over world citizens and to pay for their power grab with money extorted through guilt trips and other legerdemain honed by 50 years of practice, or more. Once Climate Change/Global Warming is finally put to rest, they will gin up another pretext (just as happened when they learned that their fear mongering over "Global Cooling" was debunked).

When you hear one of your friends go on about global warming and CO2, just ask them how their "evidence" accounts for the effects of solar activity on climate. Just ask the question. Be nice about it. Wait patiently, without saying another word.

Or, when you hear them say, "97% of scientists agree." Just ask them politely, "Name one."

---

It's great how you think you know all of this to be true. You must be quite certain of it given how confidently you offer your opinion, but this confidence must be based on some secret knowledge because of course there's not a shred of substantiation to any of this here. Perhaps it's the knowledge of others that has led you to this conclusion? If so, please do share their research. It must be beyond persuasive in its self-evidence truth since it overcomes a body of research that is orders of magnitude more massive. I look forward to your posting links to the these articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that prove the truth of what you say. When you do so, please do be specific about which of your denialist claims the paper is supposed to support and how by citing the critical passages. I know you must be able to do this not only because of how confident you are about the supposed fact that the enormous body of research done by the thousands of scientists who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change is all fraudulent or erroneous, but also because given how much you value knowing the issue yourself and making up your own mind about it; you must have a very high level of scientific knowledge of the subject.

Once you provide the smoking-gun substantiation for your scientific views on climate change, we can talk a little bit more about the motives and methods of those who are engaged in this incredible, unprecedented conspiracy to defraud the public. It will be easier to have this conversation once you've demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt the truth of your scientific position; it will be obvious then that there must be malfeasance in the huge current scientific consensus regarding climate change because that is the only explanation for how so many highly qualified professionals could have come to this ridiculously false position with the truthful research apparently available to any who cares to look.

Oh for goodness sake! Could you be any more pompous, smarmy and condescending?

There are a lot of people in the industry that are employed because of all the climate change hysteria they've generated. Whether or not they're well-compensated in your book, they're protecting their jobs and their careers by propagating their alarmist theories, allowing no argumentation without ruining climate scientists reputations and careers.

They engage in the same types of tactics that you, sycasey and dajo engaged in here, verbally bullying, mocking and discrediting any skepticism whatsoever.

It's transparent and it's nauseating.

bearlyamazing;842853202 said:

---

There are a lot of people in the industry that are employed because of all the climate change hysteria they've generated. Whether or not they're well-compensated in your book, they're protecting their jobs and their careers by propagating their alarmist theories, allowing no argumentation without ruining climate scientists reputations and careers.

---

That's the motive force that powers a hoax that would be larger both in scale and in historic import than the moon landing hoax? That is what this conspiracy theory sounds like to me. Moon truthers.

The direction this argument has moved is telling. It used to be that there wasn't a consensus among qualified scientists, but that can't be maintained anymore. There have been too many independent surveys of climate scientists by organizations that represent science broadly like the NAS that all return support for the theory of anthropogenic climate change in the high 90 percents to continue to maintain any credible argument against the consensus. So now if you are irrationally set against anthropogenic climate change, you must go farther down the rabbit hole. It must be a conspiracy.

This conspiracy is necessarily vast, starting with because about 1000 people have written at least 20 articles on climate science in peer reviewed science journals and 95+ % of them continuously affirm their support for the theory. You're seriously claiming it's reasonable to believe that 95+% of them joined the conspiracy while less than 5% didn't? That doesn't sound plausible to me. If they're just trying to protect their jobs, why haven't more defected? The deniers would shower jobs on them. They love having shills and must be dismayed that so few qualified people have wanted the job so far.

Moreover, if this is a conspiracy among climate scientists for the purpose of protecting their jobs, how did they get the rest of the Earth scientists to go along? Around 90% of them endorse the theory of anthropogenic climate change and their jobs aren't reliant upon the perpetuation of the field of climate science. They're geologists, oceanologists, meteorologists and astronomists. Why are they lying to prop up the conspiracy? Or are they not lying in affirming their support for the theory, they just don't understand the issue as well as you?

That right there should be the end of the conspiracy theory, but I know it won't be so I'll keep going and ask how you know about this conspiracy? Is it a hypothesis your intuition says is true but for which there is no evidence? Because there is no evidence of this conspiracy and that's also damaging to its plausibility. This consensus has lasted for decades and there have been no leaks or defections the conspiracy? Hackers dumped thousands of climate scientists' emails and private papers onto the internet and the very worst thing that could be found in any of them was one researcher referring to a "trick" to "hide" data in his formulas, terminology that has been described by non-climate scientists as vernacular for valid statistical methods and not evidence of malfeasance. In thousands of emails and papers. The NSA can't keep things secret for more than a few years and these guys manage to keep any evidence of this conspiracy from leaking for decades.

The real partisan nature of this fake controversy is obvious. That's the fossil fuels industry, which spends tens of millions every year on their public campaign against climate change, and all the people they subsidize, especially Republican politicians and their constituencies. You've chosen to believe in a ridiculous fantasy for entirely politically partisan reasons. now matter how implausible it is. It's exactly the same as the people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that modern geology is a conspiracy, or one of any number of other exact analogies where science very confidently informs us of something that's inconvenient for American conservatives and so must be a conspiracy.

bearlyamazing;842853202 said:

---

Oh for goodness sake! Could you be any more pompous, smarmy and condescending?

There are a lot of people in the industry that are employed because of all the climate change hysteria they've generated. Whether or not they're well-compensated in your book, they're protecting their jobs and their careers by propagating their alarmist theories, allowing no argumentation without ruining climate scientists reputations and careers.

They engage in the same types of tactics that you, sycasey and dajo engaged in here, verbally bullying, mocking and discrediting any skepticism whatsoever.

It's transparent and it's nauseating.

---

Its science, there are no tactics. Scientists and meteorologists have their jobs no matter what.
Other people have jobs because there has been some good evolution in the way that we do things-people have responded. What's your biggest fear? That relying on alternative fuel sources all ends up being for no reason?
But to ask a question: based on the facts that you know, how would you handle Climate Change if you were say President? If you sat down right now with a meteorologist, what would you tell that that about Climate Change as you see it?

sycasey;842852920 said:

---

The longer this goes, the more these climate change deniers sound like nutso conspiracy theorists.

---

It has gone on long enough.
Reuters reported today that one of the largest glaciers icebergs on record of 5,800 sq km just broke off the Antarctic ice shelf.