More lying GW scientists part 1000

LINK


Will we ever learn this is and stop wasting money on this crap?

In other news, a change in solar activity won't cause any climate change we'd need to worry about:

IOW, a couple tenths of a degree Celsius pinned on SUVs or capitalism or modern living or whatever you don't like = Panic! Legislate! Change your evil ways!
A couple tenths of a degree Celsius caused by something you can't blame rich white Americans on = don't worry, nothing to see here.

Predictions are for way more than a couple tenths of a degree. But don't let that stop you.

Sounds like: "Fine! Just go ahead and live the way you want to, see if I care!

That global cooling claim is from Michael Mann - the inventor of the Hockey Stick and failed poster child of the AGW movement. He was a nonentity before he came up with 'proof' that GW was caused by man with the hockey stick that was adopted by the IPCC. It was later found to be full of errors. It's truthful to say his entire career is predicated on AGW and in particular climate change caused by GHGs to be fact. W

Predictions.

You mean those things that have never been right...ever in predicting cooling, warming or anything else?

How many liars have to be unearthed before people like you let go of the sacred cows?

That's the wonderful thing about these conspiracy theories. Everyone's a liar. If something doesn't jive with your desired point of view, you just regard it as more evidence that everyone is out to decieve you.

It's more than just a problem of worldview when these shifty fuckers are caught fabricating data to support predetermined conclusions and making predictions that never happen.

The predictions of scientists have been borne out, of course. We do have warming, higher sea-levels, melting ice, more acidic oceans, and a host of others things.

Um, the point of the thread is that they were 'adjusting' the sea levels, and that adjustment added in a 20% modifier to the actual rate of increase.

The sea levels have been moving higher for centuries. A 20% modifier is a significant error for the scientists to add.

Wow...the predictions borne out.

How did I miss a new ice age? I must have really been out of it.

The so-called correct predictions are usually only correct when the altered data is used. That is a lie, not a success.

Why do you bother?

It doesn't sound like an "error" to me. It sounds like a legitimate device to adjust for something else that's going on. Except that Fox News have jumped on it and gotten a lawyer of all people to give them a few quotes saying that it's evidence of malpractice.

Not convincing.

FTFY. There was no "error" here.

Yeah.
Die.

My concern with pollution isn't global warming. It's the rate at which we're releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Based on ice core samples, over the past 800,000 years, the Earth has reached present-day atmospheric CO2 levels. So it's not the amount of CO2 I care bout.
Here's the problem: it usually takes the Earth 10,000 years to go from average carbon dioxide levels to the maximum levels we're seeing today.
We have gone from the average to that maximum in the past 60 years.

60 vs. 10,000 years. We have done it in 0.6% of the time it normally takes! Never in the past 800,000 years has the Earth experienced such an incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2.
We don't know if the Earth can cope with this kind of rapid increase, or with the acidification of oceans we're seeing.
This can damage our fishing industry, and as a sushi lover, I can't stand for that!

We also don't know what effect rapid increases in CO2 have on plant life. Oak Ridge Nat'l Labs has a 10-year research project they began two years ago, where they're isolating groups of trees under canopies and pumping them with extra CO2 to see what happens. We'll have some idea of what this means for trees worldwide in about 15 years.

My reason for supporting green technology is to curb that fast increase of CO2, because if it turns out to be harmful, we won't be nearly as fucked as if we just kept burning shit.

It really doesn't matter how many lies are presented. The members of the global warming religion will continue placing their faith in the lies and propaganda fed to them by scientists.

Also, any scientist who goes to the media claiming to have accurate predictions for the future is a scumbag scientist. The climate scientists I've met at Oak Ridge have told me they just don't know what's going to happen, and that all their data right now simply points to environmental changes that could be drastic. They're working hard to figure out exactly what is going on, while the whistleblowers in their field are making it hard for the real scientists to get funding.

Typical leftist shitbag hypocrite.

TKO - my understanding is that the CO2 levels from the Vostok and other cores are sampled about once every thousand years - we can't do a finer sample than that. While it certainly seems unlikely, there might have been pretty pronounced CO2 variations within that time frame. We simply can't say with any certainty that the CO2 has never increased like this before - all we can say is the average over that time hasn't been this high. And the CO2 levels are higher than they have been since well before the rise of Cro Magnon, that much is true.

Increased CO2 production also leads to increased photosynthesis and oxygen output. Our world is very good at balancing itself out.

I am not opposed to trying to reduce CO2 and pollutants. However, not at the cost of economic prosperity and massive deficits to cover so called green energy. This is a case of a minor problem that the GW people are trying to use to create a massive way overdone not needed solution.

The climate on this planet has been changing from the beginning. Any scientist or politician who wants to ignore that fact and place blame on humans is perpetuating a fraud.

Attempting to reduce a naturally occurring substance like CO2 is futile.

It is without a doubt good for the plants, and surprisingly the amount of CO2 that gets scrubbed stays the same as a percentage, about 55%.

Except we don't know what big concentrations of it do. We have to look into it and be on the side of caution just in case.
I don't think we need to do anything that damages the economy, but some guidelines and reduced emissions wouldn't hurt our lungs and oceans at all.
I like having no breathing issues and I like my oceans at a healthy pH. So far we know at least that CO2 affects those things.
And GDI I want sushi for the next 60 years of my life

Our emissions are also higher than what is naturally produced, which is really why we're looking into CO2 at all.
Volcanoes, as the myth goes, release more than people. But it's just a myth. Volcanoes, IIRC, make up about 5-10% of yearly greenhouse gas emissions. Cows take up another small percentage (methane) and trees actually produce a fair amount. However, the bulk of it is us and we don't know how the Earth will change.

Ar

Well because of the stupid politicians in Sacramento, California that are members of the church of global warming the states economy is being systematically dismantled. Even "green" companies that are owned by former members of the state legislature have moved their solar panel companies out of the state because even they couldn't deal with the ridiculous regulations.

Oh I definitely agree that suffocating regulations are unnecessary and stupid. A bit of regulation is what I'm aiming for, especially to keep our oceans from turning into dead fish acid soup (oceans are really the most vulnerable area).
But I by no means support extreme regulations for 100% greenliness.

Predictions made by liars and their fraudulent data.