Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

[Dr Kynes]

I directly linked the image.. Here's another edit with interesting conclusions;

350K - 105° CO2 @ 295PPM, 250K - 105° CO2 @ 270PPM, 140K - 93° CO2 @ 290PPM, Now - 91° CO2 @ 400PPM

Do you notice a trend...?

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years."

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%. The claim forms part of its fifth assessment on the state of the global climate. "

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains

That must be why every other major scientific organization in the world agrees with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change...

you did not "directly link to the image" you posted a copy, with your crayola scribbling on it

positing that Man Made Global Warming is a direct result of c02 concentrations is a THEORY (which are not facts, nor was it derived from Facts) and there are several competing theories which explain the same observations as well or better.

the assumption that an increase in global co2 concentrations from 300 ppm to 400 ppm ( thats an increase of 33%) results in an increase in global mean temps of 1.7% is not irrational, but is also not proved, nor is it catastrophic.

the waning of global warming as we approach the peak of the current milenkovic period is more likely to be the cause of a 1.7% increase in temps over 100 years, but theres no money in "remediation" of the earth's orbital eccentricity or long established glacial cycles

and thats where the politics comes in.

as Rahm Emmanuel clearly elucidated,

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." ~Rahmbo

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

wow, Peer Reviewed Study demonstrates that Oreskes' paper (and the cook plagiarization thereof) is fiction, and the actual "consensus" is ~45%??

i guess the journal Organizational Studies is also "Infiltrated by the Baddies" too ehh?

 

[abandonconflict]

positing that Man Made Global Warming is a direct result of c02 concentrations is a THEORY

so is gravity

go test that one by jumping off a cliff

 

[UncleBuck]

I am not a sock puppet(what ever that means). sifl & oly was a great show though. I'm reading through your post history right now. I don't understand why you have taken to making fun of me. give me a break it's my first day here. Go ask a Moderator i just made this account silly

so you enjoy having a fist up your ass?

not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

wow, Peer Reviewed Study demonstrates that Oreskes' paper (and the cook plagiarization thereof) is fiction, and the actual "consensus" is ~45%??

"Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 200. This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010)."
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

 

[sheskunk]

"Likely"

L O fucking L

 

[Dr Kynes]

so is gravity

go test that one by jumping off a cliff

i can only assume this response somehow explicates your position re: Mike Mann's accusation of malfeasance by Letters of the Geophysical Union, and your own (presumably) well sourced and logical reasoning for supporting those assertions.

this is some Deep Chompsky Word Salad.

ill need some time to make the necessary connections.

 

[Dr Kynes]

"Indeed, while there is a broad consensus among climate scientists (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change remains. The proportion of papers found in the ISI Web of Science database that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75% (for the period between 1993 and 2003) as of 2004 to 45% from 2004 to 2008, while outright disagreement has risen from 0% to 6% (Oreskes, 2004; Schulte, 200. This drop in endorsement may be a manifestation of increasing taken-for-grantedness (e.g., Green, 2004) of anthropogenic climate science; the rise in disagreement may be a result of increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks (McCright & Dunlap, 2010)."
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

so, rather than contend that the "consenus" you have been parroting was drawn from a deeply flawed and fully discredited metastuy by a history teacher, and a cartoonist/blogger who plagiarized that flawed and discredited metastudy, you are conceding the point and moving on to some speculations in a report that examined the "consensus" alone, NOT the science or reasoning behind that "consensus" or why the real number is such a low percentage.

the "consensus" inflation by oreskes, and the later plagiarized version by cook were also not examined, instead the Organizational Study paper examines the consensus itself, and how it relates to the social dynamics of "The Academy".

interestingly, the low real percentage of agreement is greatly magnified, even among academics, while competing theories are suppressed and those who proffer them are ostracized.

the paper demonstrates to my satisfaction that "climate science" has become a clique, a tribal organization designed to reinforce the beliefs of it's initiated members, and eliminate other ideas from outside the small group of dominant personalities.

it's a Jockocracy in lab coats.

 

[Padawanbater2]

so, rather than contend that the "consenus" you have been parroting was drawn from a deeply flawed and fully discredited metastuy by a history teacher, and a cartoonist/blogger who plagiarized that flawed and discredited metastudy, you are conceding the point and moving on to some speculations in a report that examined the "consensus" alone, NOT the science or reasoning behind that "consensus" or why the real number is such a low percentage.

Prove it. You made the claim that 97% of publishing climate scientists disagree with the IPCC about anthropogenic climate change, so prove it

the "consensus" inflation by oreskes, and the later plagiarized version by cook were also not examined, instead the Organizational Study paper examines the consensus itself, and how it relates to the social dynamics of "The Academy".

97% of published papers that reach a conclusion on anthropogenic climate change agree with the IPCC's conclusion, so where is the "inflation" and the "plagiarism"?

interestingly, the low real percentage of agreement is greatly magnified, even among academics, while competing theories are suppressed and those who proffer them are ostracized.

That's what you believe and have never provided any evidence to support it. That's exactly what creationists think about intelligent design, that their view is being "suppressed" in favor of "evilution"... I guess that's just another coincidence..

the paper demonstrates to my satisfaction that "climate science" has become a clique, a tribal organization designed to reinforce the beliefs of it's initiated members, and eliminate other ideas from outside the small group of dominant personalities.

Amateur opinion, it would be nice if you could actually show some proof of this instead of perpetuate more conspiracy theories..

 

[UncleBuck]

a deeply flawed and fully discredited metastuy by a history teacher

only one problem with you repeating that over and over and over again: it does not make it true.

just ask NASA, they have it on their website.

but hey, the racist walmart stocker who can't do exponents probably knows better than NASA.

 

[UncleBuck]

"Likely"

L O fucking L

you are fat and no one likes you.

 

[TheChemist77]

climate change isnt real?? u must not be over 40 years old, to have seen its efects.. polar bears will be extinct by the time my son is my age, there is too much proof its happening, and co2 levels have proven to afect the climate..dont believe it, move to northern michigan,, see what it looked like here just 10 years ago to now,,,tempertures are climbing and the culprit,,,GLOBAL WARMING!! TAKE UR SCIENTIFIC SHIT AND SHOVE IT IN UR ASS,,,THEN LOOK OUT THE FUCKIN WINDOW, TAKE A PIC, WAIT TEN FUCKIN YEARS AND TAKE ANOTHER..PROOF!!!!!

 

[NoDrama]

Does anyone know what kind of thermometers they had 65,000 years ago? What about 600 years ago? What kind of CO2 measuring devices were they using 200 years ago?

You don't suppose the huge disparity in instrument accuracy and the fact that reading the ice for co2 50,000 years ago might not yield a perfect answer. Could there be a problem when we try to compare today to 20,000 years ago when no actual temperature measurements were taken? Maybe we are totally wrong about CO2 levels and temps in the far past.

These are just questions I am putting out there.

 

[TheChemist77]

OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT AND NASA SAY ITS NOT REAL,,,THEY ALWAYS TELL US THE TRUTH,,,JUST LIKE LEE HARVEY OSWALD KILLED JFK.. AND IF THEY SAW A SOLAR FLARE TOMORROW,, DO U REALLY THINK THEYD TAKE THE CHANCE OF WIDE SPREAD PANNIC BY TELLING THE PUBLIC??

 

[UncleBuck]

Does anyone know what kind of thermometers they had 65,000 years ago? What about 600 years ago? What kind of CO2 measuring devices were they using 200 years ago?

You don't suppose the huge disparity in instrument accuracy and the fact that reading the ice for co2 50,000 years ago might not yield a perfect answer. Could there be a problem when we try to compare today to 20,000 years ago when no actual temperature measurements were taken? Maybe we are totally wrong about CO2 levels and temps in the far past.

These are just questions I am putting out there.

yeah, i'm sure the currently skyrocketing CO2 and temps are because of bad thermometers.

you are a fucking genius.

 

[NoDrama]

yeah, i'm sure the currently skyrocketing CO2 and temps are because of bad thermometers.

you are a fucking genius.

What I meant was the disparity in accuracy of today's measuring devices vs the ones we didn't use at all 20,000 years ago.

 

[sheskunk]

OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT AND NASA SAY ITS NOT REAL,,,THEY ALWAYS TELL US THE TRUTH,,,JUST LIKE LEE HARVEY OSWALD KILLED JFK.. AND IF THEY SAW A SOLAR FLARE TOMORROW,, DO U REALLY THINK THEYD TAKE THE CHANCE OF WIDE SPREAD PANNIC BY TELLING THE PUBLIC??

Chemtrails!!!

 

[TheChemist77]

Does anyone know what kind of thermometers they had 65,000 years ago? What about 600 years ago? What kind of CO2 measuring devices were they using 200 years ago?

You don't suppose the huge disparity in instrument accuracy and the fact that reading the ice for co2 50,000 years ago might not yield a perfect answer. Could there be a problem when we try to compare today to 20,000 years ago when no actual temperature measurements were taken? Maybe we are totally wrong about CO2 levels and temps in the far past.

These are just questions I am putting out there.

It doesnt matter 600 years ago,, look at just ur life time.. 20 years ago winter in ilinois had snow from nov- may..now its damn near 60 deg.f all winter or what should be winter.. in michigan 10 years ago deer hunting in nov. u froze ur fuckin ass off now u can wear a t shirt... look at the mountains here, they had snow year round just 10 years ago, now thyve melted and some of that frost was there over 100 years ago,,, how do i know?? not a thermometer or co2 reader,,my grandfather and great grandfather lived here seen it, even took pics of it in the 1920's that snow was there for both their life times and probably their fathers and grandfathers too,,i watched it gradually fade to just the tips and peaks of the mountains to now ,,only there in winter its sad,,in my life time alone over 1000 speacies have gone extinct, never to be seen again and we sit here wile the elefants,tigers,polar bears, condores, and even honey bees are on the edje of beeing gone forever,, so global warming isnt the culprit,,,ITS MANKIND THATS DESTROYING EVERYTHING

 

[UncleBuck]

What I meant was the disparity in accuracy of today's measuring devices vs the ones we didn't use at all 20,000 years ago.

a retarded person couldn't come up with stupider blather than that.

 

[NoDrama]

It doesnt matter 600 years ago,, look at just ur life time..

20 years ago things were much warmer around here, so I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The last few years have been cold as fuck and the cold has crept in sooner than ever. In fact my area has not gotten close to the highs we had in the summer of '85, not even close.

Anecdotal evidence isn't worth a hill of beans.

 

[NoDrama]

a retarded person couldn't come up with stupider blather than that.

But you couldn't.

I see you changed retardeder into retarded.