patrick.net

HEYYOU says

Dumb asses read this & it's links & get back to me.
Those that haven't read it,know nothing.

theoakman says

I'd love to give him a scientific literacy test to see how he scores.

I'll take it! Majored in math minored in physics. After 2 years I walked away. I did like the math of Mo! Money!,
Mo! Money!, Mo! Money!
I'm no genius! I never understood the math of debt & no cash but I'm sure it's for losers.

'


I would be asking Gore questions such as, what is the atomic mass of carbon-13, and I know he'll get it wrong.

theoakman says

I would be asking Gore questions such as, what is the atomic mass of carbon-13, and I know he'll get it wrong.

The only correct answer to most people: who cares :)

I kid I kid, but have no idea what the answer could be

Don't forget about ManBearPig!

theoakman says

Regardless of what you believe, the fact remains, Al Gore shouldn't even be a trusted source on middle school science, let alone climate change. The man has zero credentials. I'd love to give him a scientific literacy test to see how he scores.

Huh? Didn't you know that Al Gore Jr flunked out of Vanderbilt Law School during his first year?

In fact, since Al Senior was senator of TN, the dean of the law school actually tried to broker a deal, letting Al Junior pass, if he submitted a term paper. Junior, being the lazy shit that he was, didn't even bother with that. If anything, Gore is as dumb as Dubya but gets all these accolades because he speaks well and is reasonably good looking in comparison.

Gore is as dumb as Dubya

Which is why we should not vote in "Dynasties." by electing wives and offspring of the original successful politicians. One Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Gore is enough. We also do not need any Michele/Malia/Sasha or Ivanka in the future.

Where is this proof of which you speak ? You mean becasue models were improved by collecting 30 years of data ? That's shocking.

Besides projections have bands representing the amount by which they know they may be off. Interesting that you say that in 1988 they said 3 to 8 degrees, and now they say two.

Are you sure they are being that precise with their prediction for 32 years out ? I'm pretty sure they still have ranges. So both could still be correct.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Fiction, from 2004, but with an extensive bibliography to support. This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well. The Addendum chapter on the Politicization of Science (eugenics) is a must read. You didn't get this in school.

My problem is not with saving the planet. Everyone wants to "save the planet", as do I. But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS. When you can't separate hyperbole from fact, it's religion. Religion is the cause of a lot of human suffering.

Agenda of the World Climate Order:
The only solution to global warming is to "remove the human infestation!" Of course, a select few of us will remain behind as stewards of the planet, because we really care. The rest of you fuckers can die.

rocketjoe79 says

This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well.

That a work of fiction is what informs your views on climate science speaks volumes.

Here's Michael Crichton's closing remarks to the Senate on the subject in 2005:

"In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."

Crichton's critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's. Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over and you are still willingly blind. Nice.

marcus says

Where is this proof of which you speak ?

You are right. I can't prove the negative.

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

The science is settled, after all.

Evan F. says

Crichton critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's.

So when do you think Mann will release his hockey stick data and methods?

Evan F. says

Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over

No we don't.

Link to the most convincing of these thousands of studies to prove me wrong. Just one.

Onvacation says

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Hahahaha

I earned my BS before politics invaded science. Many are swayed by the politicians who wouldn't understand the scientific method if you hit them in the head with it.

If your theory does not match reality your theory is wrong.

Many people have trouble with reality.

rocketjoe79 says

But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS

Seems likely, that humans cause it, even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

rocketjoe79 says

Agenda of the World Climate Order

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,. But I can see that there is at least a rational reason for thinking that a steady population of some level - maybe even lower than what it is today, could be better for humanity and for the planet and biosphere than letting human population growth run its course. Possibly even much better with respect to how many humans get to exist in the long run.

Appreciating this reality though is not the same as advocating Eugenics or genocide.

Onvacation says

I earned my BS before politics invaded science.

Is your BS in climate science?

Isn't it ironic ?

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

Dontcha think?

marcus says

That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

I hate to break it to you, but water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, as a matter of fact, it makes up 95% of greenhouse gases.



marcus says

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Sorry, wrong again. The sun creates the heat that increases the greenhouse effect and evaporation of water into water vapor. Why is it warmer on cloudy nights versus clear nights?



marcus says

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,.

But you get your info from this site below? Really?

marcus says

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

You know, the single guy working out of his spare bedroom writing a blog? Very scientific, isn't it?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

You can say that again!!!

Onvacation says

I am not a shill for the oil company I just believe in science.

Two simple questions: Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?
Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

marcus says

even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Please
Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

There should be a quantifiable correlation between the amount of co2 in the atmosphere and the level of global warming.

After all the science is settled.

Let's do nothing about nothing & see what happens.

That is all arguing with deniers is, doing nothing. Doing something would be:

Close the borders to 3rd worlders entering 1st world countries and allow the natural lower birthrate of the prosperous nations to let population settle to a level sustainable by wind, solar and other renewables. Solar and wind are on the increase anyway.

Restrict imports from countries that manufacture products without following similar environmental laws as the US.

Trump seems to be the only one addressing these issues.

Evan F. says

Is your BS in climate science?

No. But I do understand the scientific method.

Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

Still waiting.

marcus says

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

No. It's dangerous to reject science and ostracize anyone that does not accept your flawed theory.

rdm says

Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?

It's actually cooling. Look it up. The temperature peaked in 2016 and has been falling.
2017 was the third warmest and 2018 looks to be continuing the downward trend.

The temp went up 4/100 of 1 degree 2015 to 2016 and down 1/10 from 2016 to 2017. If you believe worldwide yearlong average temperature can be measured with accuracy.

If you believe.

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Onvacation says

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Yes, I am surprised there seems to be no research into this type of feedback loop. Would not more CO2 accelerate plant growth? After all, plants construct themselves using carbon from the CO2 in the air, powered by sunlight. And would not slightly higher temps encourage plant growth, especially in northern climates?

HeadSet says

We also do not need any Michele/Malia/Sasha or Ivanka in the future.

If Ivanka turns a debate into a swim suit competition she has my vote!

"Chevron’s first slide quotes #IPCC: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Says there is no debate on this consensus. #climatetutorial #climateliability"

Let that sink in. Oil comapnies accept the expert consensus on human-caused global warming
Why are you guys carrying water for the Kochs/KSA/OPEC?
The main show is not about Al Gore or questions of technical depth as a criteria versus leadership.
Steve Jobs was lacking in technical knowledge but he was a great visionary.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/23/in-court-big-oil-rejected-climate-denial

I also agree 100% that global humans population growth (83 millions per year) causing current global warming, despite the fact that it may be a normal part of global warming-cooling cycles.

kt1652 says

"Chevron’s first slide quotes #IPCC: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Says there is no debate on this consensus. #climatetutorial #climateliability"

Link to the presentation or this author is lying.

Big oil has modified the Tobacco industry's denial-to-the-end playbook slightly, they are using a two-faced approach.
Accepting Climate Change Science in court while funding FUD campaign secretly through 3rd party.to discredit CCS.
===
Lawyers for Chevron, one of the defendants in the case, say the company accepts the international consensus that human activities are a main driver of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the resulting warming.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article206025399.html#storylink=cpy
===
The company also stated that it had filed motions to dismiss such cases in other U.S. cities and counties, including in New York City and King County, Washington, although it does support “meaningful efforts to address climate change and accepts internationally recognized climate science.”

http://fortune.com/2018/06/26/big-oil-california-lawsuit-chevron/

San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc last year seeking an abatement fund to help the cities address flooding they said was a result of climate change.
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the ruling that the dangers raised by the complainants were real and worldwide, and both parties accepted the science behind global warming.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-lawsuits/u-s-court-dismisses-climate-change-lawsuits-against-top-oil-companies-idUSKBN1JM0EP

Dan8267 says

If you think the globe isn't warming, you are an idiot. At this point rejecting the thousands of independent verification indicates willful ignorance. And as such, a climate change denier reveals that his opinion on any subject matter should not be taken seriously.

The bottom line is that those who deny climate change should have zero voice in policy making as they have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they prefer to ignore and reject reality.

It amazes me how people who completely ignore very valid criticisms are so sure about their position. I found the best video bringing into question the consensus and the data integrity. I have found the best way to obliterate a theory, or in this case, a religion, is to use the proponent's data and facts or scripture to disprove itself. Well, here one will see actual NOAA charts that are now different, one will see how few weather stations there were in the 1800s and one will see the recycled doom and gloom headlines that we see today, only they are from the early 1900s. If someone can watch this and still maintain that someone else who raises these questions must be stupid, or somehow fooled, then I would judge him to be following a cult.

https://www.yqZGgaZaXig

marcus says

Could it be because he listens to the scientists ?

Left wing propaganda to impose a socialist top down government on the people to insure their control over the masses. Once they have your guns and the people agree to trade away their freedoms for safety and supposed clean air, then our fine republic will become a socialist nightmare like Venezuela.

It’s an idea, a hypothesis. But it’s far from reality. GW isn’t real

For the past 20yrs, I've listened anti-GW cultists gloat "This is the last nail for this fad", "this is the end of this scam", "The end is nigh for the carbon credit extortion".
Yet here we are...
The slightest cold air coming from the pole is an excuse to rehash their griefs.

Btw, if cold air comes from the pole... then it must be that warm air from the south moves north toward the pole on the other side, right?
What does it mean at a global level?

20 years ago in GW history: