Members banned from this thread: evince, domer76, archives, Nomad and Micawber


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47

Thread: We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 483 Times in 416 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 80 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corazón View Post
    I think that calling somebody a denier is very much in the same vein as calling somebody, who merely questions immigration, racist. They are both designed to shut down legitimate debate.
    Not quite because there is no evidence that climate change is caused by humans. If this were the case then there could have not been climate change before humans.

    Thus climate change is real and a function of the Earth

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDonald View Post
    Not quite because there is no evidence that climate change is caused by humans. If this were the case then there could have not been climate change before humans.

    Thus climate change is real and a function of the Earth
    Can you just bugger off? You don't add anything constructive to the debate.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Phantasmal (09-23-2017)

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    Oops, I may have been repeating misinformation. I can not verify my claim above, Sorry. Will keep looking for now, but I was wrong. I read it at Climate etc, which I trust greatly, but it was in the comments. Might have been someone making it up.
    God you're retarded.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    100
    Thanks
    61
    Thanked 46 Times in 36 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    There is ample evidence that the current episode of worldwide climate change is caused by the advent of the industrial age. Current climate degradation can be pointedly explained to the use of fossil fuels in the last 150 years or so. Other evidence is revealed in the amazing improvements to the atmosphere as fossil fuels and other contributors to climate degradation are systematically removed from specific locations. Argument against such positive proof is folly at best. That said, I encourage the deniers to proclaim their beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary, as loudly and as often as possible. Please. Carry on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 483 Times in 416 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 80 Times in 78 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippity Doo Da View Post
    There is ample evidence that the current episode of worldwide climate change is caused by the advent of the industrial age. Current climate degradation can be pointedly explained to the use of fossil fuels in the last 150 years or so. Other evidence is revealed in the amazing improvements to the atmosphere as fossil fuels and other contributors to climate degradation are systematically removed from specific locations. Argument against such positive proof is folly at best. That said, I encourage the deniers to proclaim their beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary, as loudly and as often as possible. Please. Carry on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Wrong, the climate warmed far more rapidly from 20,000 to 10,000 years ago which is when 99 percent of the ice age glaciation melted. This warming is still ongoing

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck and Nancy View Post
    God you're retarded.
    Irony indeed!

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    I agree pretty much with Matt Ridley, he is a fellow lukewarmer.

    In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who:

    Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but very far from being a planetary emergency.

    Takes due notice of the increasing divergence between climate model predictions and observations and the growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.

    Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards — as either an expensive exercise in futility or a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).

    Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilisation effect on global agriculture and green things generally.

    Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of preventable illness*and premature death.

    Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential*to poverty eradication and progress towards a healthier, safer, more prosperous world.

    As moral philosopher Alex Epstein recently put it, fossil energy companies did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous. They took a dangerous climate and made it vastly safer.

    For too long many in the GOP have been hoodwinked by folks like Al Gore, Greenpeace, and the UN climate glitterati into believing the key issue is whether climate change is “real.”

    Gore et al would have us believe that if we accept the reality of climate change, we must also agree that global warming “threatens the survival of civilisation and the habitability of the Earth,” hence that our only moral choice is to embrace their agenda of coercive de-carbonisation via centralised eco-energy planning.

    Consequently, many GOP politicians and activists assume that to defend the economy and oppose regulatory excess, they must deny, or at least question whether, there is any evidence linking the long-term rise of greenhouse gas concentrations with the (moderate and non-alarming) increase in global temperatures since the 1880s.

    That, alas, is exactly what the warming movement wants its opponents to say, not only because it makes them look “anti-science,” but also because it tacitly affirms the alarm narrative. As if all we have to do is assent to the virtual tautology that rising greenhouse gas concentrations have a greenhouse*(warming) effect, and we are compelled to concede every important scientific, economic, and moral point in a very complex debate.
    http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/01...limate-change/
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-25-2017 at 10:23 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Cancel 2018.1 (09-25-2017)

  10. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    1,138
    Thanked 2,495 Times in 1,799 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 171 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Pragmatic.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.1 For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (09-25-2017)

  12. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aloysious View Post
    Pragmatic.
    Indeed, all these climate loonies on here ever think of is the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario as described by the IPCC. I have thread banned the worst offenders as they only ever produce heat rather light, waste of space all of them.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a...enario-rcp8-5/

  13. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    1,138
    Thanked 2,495 Times in 1,799 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 171 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corazón View Post
    Indeed, all these climate loonies on here ever think of is the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario as described by the IPCC. I have thread banned the worst offenders as they only ever produce heat rather light, waste of space all of them.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a...enario-rcp8-5/
    Once I'm anointed King of America I willing to give tax credits for research into renewable energy much like we do for the NIH. Nothing wrong with renewable energy, it's part of advancing technology. But this doomsday, sky is falling , chicken little BS is an excuse for State Central Planning. I'd have more respect for the alarmists if they'd just come out and say they want state central planning of gubmint control.

  14. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aloysious View Post
    Once I'm anointed King of America I willing to give tax credits for research into renewable energy much like we do for the NIH. Nothing wrong with renewable energy, it's part of advancing technology. But this doomsday, sky is falling , chicken little BS is an excuse for State Central Planning. I'd have more respect for the alarmists if they'd just come out and say they want state central planning of gubmint control.
    Some actually do, especially the likes of Naomi Klein and Naomi Oreskes. Of course they are both batshit crazy as well!

  15. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    1,138
    Thanked 2,495 Times in 1,799 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 171 Times in 164 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corazón View Post
    Some actually do, especially the likes of Naomi Klein and Naomi Oreskes. Of course they are both batshit crazy as well!
    At least I can respect their honesty.

  16. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Great article posted on climate scientist Judith Curry's blog.

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/a...ng/#more-23412
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-29-2017 at 05:05 AM.

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aloysious View Post
    At least I can respect their honesty.
    During the panel discussion, Klein was asked: "Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes. Klein responded: 'Yeah.’

    Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions" even if the science was wrong.

    "Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interview.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/who...il-dissenters/

  18. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Can't remember if I posted this before, but it is worth a repeat. It really does describe much of the 'debate' regarding AGW.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1576946...ebate-illusion

Similar Threads

  1. Climate scientists trying to influence policy through fraud
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 10:18 AM
  2. Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 02:43 AM
  3. Climate scientists call out the cranks
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-02-2012, 04:37 PM
  4. APP - Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists
    By Cypress in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-14-2010, 10:55 AM
  5. Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •