Climate Change Disbelief Rises in America

[mvscal]

I guess it's time to ramp up the propaganda machine.

[Moving Sale]

You will find 24 others, but you would have to look thru almost 14k more articles.

[Rooster]

So, in other words, that pie chart is utter bullshit. Got it. Just like the rest of climate change "facts and statistics." Count me in as a non-believer. The climate change game is strictly a power grab by the Left for money and political control.

[Felix]

Jsc:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-green ... -billions/

How much do you think your buddy and his buddies are invested in this shit? Seriously.

world net daily? seriously?

lets take a little closer look at that assertion.......$10 billion dollars? no doubt that's a lot of money, but your chart is a little misleading in the fact that of those companies cited, the ones that have declared bankruptcy the total subsidies and loans given to them is just a little less than 1.5 billion....meanwhile, the gas and oil companies received governmental tax cuts and subsidies that totaled about 13.6 billion....Exxon Mobil and Chevron realized profits in 2012 of almost 70 billion and paid about 15% in taxes, Exxon paid no taxes on the 49 billion in profits they realized from off shore drilling operations.....Exxon received over 600 million in federal subsidies in 2012, Chevron received about 700 million.....that doesn't include the state tax breaks both companies receive.......so $1.5 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared with what the taxpayers are funding for profitable companies like Chevron and Exxon......

In the early 1970's the following ominous events occurred: Snow and ice increased worldwide by as much as 15 percent; a 100-year low-temperature record was set in Greenland; the Moscow region had its worst drought in centuries, and severe droughts hit Central America, South Asia, China, Australia and the sub-Sahara; the United States had a series of floods. Some climatologists believe that a global cooling trend is taking place, and one study, commissioned by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and published May 1976, forecasts catastrophic food shortages and major political and economic upheavals as a consequence. The role of pollution is unknown, but most environmentalists agree that man's inadvertent modification of the climate may pose the most severe--and difficult to reverse--of all threats to his survival.

--from Reader's Digest 1977[/quote]

this is straight up bullshit.....the idea of global cooling was dreamed up by media squawks and was not based on any scientific literature.....

here, you can read about this myth here
http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a ... th1970.pdf

Who decides who is a "mainstream" scientist and who is not? Is it the case that if you agree with the IPCC, you are "mainstream" and if you do not, well, you are a kook?

says who? there are skeptics that have produced peer reviewed literature proposing alternate theories about why the temperatures on earth are rising....but even they acknowledge that global temps are rising, they simply think it's due to other forces unrelated to anything man has done.....nobody considers them kooks but their hypotheses have pretty much been dismantled....

The man-made global warming crowd theorized that an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in an increase in air temperatures via the greenhouse effect, which in the short term (20 years) would result in a rise in surface temperatures and some sea level increase, and in the long term would result in the melting of polar ice caps and a concomitant massive rise in sea levels. Beyond that, they further theorized that if man markedly decreased its output of CO2 into the atmosphere, their predicted apocalypse could be prevented. They put forth computer models explaining the rate at which these things would be observed, and missed the mark completely. It isn't even close. For the past 20 years, CO2 levels have been increasing, but the list of horrors they predicted has not come true. The "there" is simply not "there" insofar as their theory is concerned in light of new data. The scientific conclusion that must be drawn from the new observations is that something else must be going on that has a greater effect on climate than man's introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. This means that their theories have been disproved and can no longer be considered valid by people of science. This result is the basis of science. Or was, until some decided to turn certain beliefs cloaked in the guise of science into a religion.

what scientists were predicting these dire consequences? you seem to be mixing up what scientists say with what climate change alarmists are saying.....

There are many people with scientific training, myself included, that believe that the climate does change, and that it does so to some degree pretty much all the time. It certainly is not static. 20,000 years ago, ice was 100' thick where my house presently sits. It went away without any man-made CO2, SUV's, job losses, taxes and without the help of any NGO's and the IPCC. The climate changed. That is what the climate does, and has done for the history of the Earth.

and what caused that change? according to ice core samples, it was an increase in CO2.....the rise in the earths temperature lagged the increased CO2 levels by about 100 years, but it's evident that from the ice core samples taken from various parts of the world, the increase in CO2 levels resulted in the earth warming, which in turn caused more ice to melt which in turn released more Co2 into the atmosphere, and so on......

On that point, you will find many scientists (some of which you might even label as "mainstream") who have theories across the spectrum.

and what are those theories? please link me up to the papers offering up alternated theories because I'd be really interested in reading them......

Some, like the people hand-selected to write for the IPCC, believe man's contribution is huge (and those people continually tweak their theories in the face of data that shows they are wrong). Others say man's contribution is nil.

which scientists were "hand selected" to write for the IPCC and how do these hand selected scientific articles differ from the thousands of other articles produced on the theory of anthropomorphic climate change?

Based on my reading, I suspect man's contribution is small, and presently immeasurable with any degree of confidence due to the larger natural forces that drive climate. But I am not holding onto that belief like religion. My current take could be swayed by a coherent theory that is bolstered as new data is acquired. But so far, that has not happened.

which articles are you reading because I'd be interested in reading these articles as well.....unless they're produced by someone other than scientists.....I'm really not interested in the screechings of journalists, talk show hosts, world news net daily, or people trying to pass themselves off as experts in climatology when they have no expertise in the climatological science....

science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment....it's not good or bad, it's not opinion or hyperbole, science simply tries to explain observed phenomena......

[Dinsdale]

The way it works is that you posit a theory. Then you provide your data supporting your theory. Then others try to reproduce that data and/or demonstrate whether that theory holds true in the face of other data. If it does, then the theory is bolstered (not proven as an absolute fact, but bolstered). If the theory does not hold true in the face of new data, then the theory is wrong. There is no opinion or belief or faith involved.

Where have you been hiding for the last decade? That clearly is NOT "the way it works." "Modern science" now involves a vote, conducted by people whose paycheck all comes from the same place.


Sure, you cited the old definition of "science." Now, the sheeple say "peer review... peer review... peer review" like squawking parrots. They're parroting the folks who infamously stated as a mantra "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Science," indeed.

The IPCC (some of which are jumping ship and offering alternate theories, since the previous ones from the IPCC have proven wrong) posited theories. They based predictions off computer models based on these theories, involving temperature increase and changes in sea level and arctic sea ice. Their "doomsday" came, and the predictions were off by an order of magnitude.

We know FOR FACT the theories are wrong. Time to chuck them and get back to the drawing board... but since it's become a multi-billion dollar industry, that ain't happening. "science," indeed.

We know very little about climate science. But, we've been studying it enough of late that we know FOR FACT there's no direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 level and atmospheric temperature.

Do man's activities have some effect on certain climate changes? It would be foolish to think there wasn't at least a minute effect, what with deforestation, and irrigating deserts and maybe most of all, extensive paving. The most knowledgeable climate scientist in history, Dr. Richard Lindzen agrees with that statement completely. He also thinks the IPCC's thoughts on the matter are insane.

But if the Church says the earth is flat, who are we to argue? Just pay your tithe and shut up.

[Moving Sale]

Just so we are all on the same page. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its level is rising due to human activity and people who don't believe that are nutty.

Sin,
Dr. Richard Lindzen

[Moving Sale]

Thank you for your input.
Dims, we all on the same page?

[Dinsdale]

And the IPCC counters that Dr. Lindzen doesn't know what he's talking about, and bashes him shamelessly.

Funny thing, that -- since every last one of their computer models incorporates his theories and equations. Pretty much all you need to know about the Cultists.

[Moving Sale]

This is the page I'm on.

He goes on like that for a while. See you in the spring.

[Dr_Phibes]

IPCC doesn't review anything though, they just publish without analysing. They're volunteer, so they collect student papers and just publish them. I wouldn't get upset about it, they haven't any clout.

[Moving Sale]

CO2 levels have been far higher in the past than they are now. You're Dr. Dick didn't want to include that info, though. Weird.

It's Dimsdale's Dr. you vapid mix of failure and whale fat.

[missjo]

The Earth has undergone many periods of climate change through the whole periods of it's existence The Ice age being one of the most well known & that is only through archaeological findings.
It just happens that man has flourished during a period of moderate climate & our recording of weather changes only goes back a very short time in that existence, so in all reality there is no real way to predict exactly what will happen either way
did anyone really see the so called "polar vortex" coming that long before it's arrival & where did that fit on the whole "global warming" fiesta that Al Gore & his ilk have dribbled on about?

[Dinsdale]

While Mann deserves the same legal protections as the rest of us, it doesn't change the alleged "fact" that he's a compulsive lying climate-grifter, who has been proven to be a non-scientist who is full of poo.

[Dinsdale]

And JSC, you exemplify the issue -- the whole "right-wing" thing.

Science knows no political ideology. It knows no democracy, nor "consensus."

It only knows what can be proven or assumed from what is observed. And when grifters start altering what has been observed to keep the grift going, and divert a failed theory with "consensus" and suggestions of democracy, it's no longer "science" -- it's a "scam."


HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!!

[Dinsdale]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... peratures/

Convenient how they've been ignoring the last 17 years for their records.

Yet atmospheric CO2 has increased in that same period. We know FOR FACT there's no direct correlation between the two. If the grifters Cultists wat to go back to the drawing board and come up with an indirect effect, then I'm all ears. The catastrophically failed theory they've been pushing for the last 15 years that's been used in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the wealthiest of the wealthy is clearly wrong.

Their models missed the predictions by an order of magnitude. What's to debate?