Is Global Warming A Hoax? Discover The Climate Change Facts And Fiction

[tff]

Just shut the fuck up about climate change, and you won't hear a word.

So you can continue in your alternate reality where driving an SUV is not sinful?

 

[cancel2 2022]

I do have to laugh at your list..

This about Lindzen...
The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[76] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[77]

Such a skeptic that he would only take 50-1 odds in 2004 that the temperature would be lower. He would have lost unless we suddenly have 10 major volcanoes erupt in 2022.

Herman Harde's lack of credentials can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/04/harde-times/

Henrik Svensmark in March of 2018 said this -
“I believe there's no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. […] So there's no doubt that CO2 is also affecting climate"

Another idiot, where are these clowns coming from?

 

[cancel2 2022]

4 Climate scientists?

Geez. I hope you don't tell Congress they are Climate Scientists or you would be guilty of perjury.

Richard Keen - Meteorologist
Stanley B Goldenberg - Meteorologist
Jay H Lehr - A PHD in Ground Water Hydrology and Geology.

Fuckwittery on steroids, I bet you can't name a single warmist other than Michael Mann or James Hansen.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Fuckwittery on steroids, I bet you can't name a single warmist other than Michael Mann or James Hansen.

If by "warmist" you are asking for names of people that acknowledge that global warming is happening then I can name several on the list of names you posted.

Bjørn Lomborg - argues that mitigation will cost more than the cost of adapting to the changes

Henrik Svensmark - as I already pointed out admits warming is caused by CO2. He just takes the same position economically that Lomborg does

Richard Lindzen has actually admitted the earth is warming. His denials were making him look like a fool.

Nic Lewis - Admits a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures by 1.5 degree C

Judith Curry's current research is on how hurricane strength is being affected by global warming.


Your list of names is over 10 years old. It includes names of people that died in 2008.

 

[cancel2 2022]

If by "warmist" you are asking for names of people that acknowledge that global warming is happening then I can name several on the list of names you posted.

Bjørn Lomborg - argues that mitigation will cost more than the cost of adapting to the changes

Henrik Svensmark - as I already pointed out admits warming is caused by CO2. He just takes the same position economically that Lomborg does

Richard Lindzen has actually admitted the earth is warming. His denials were making him look like a fool.

Nic Lewis - Admits a doubling of CO2 would raise temperatures by 1.5 degree C

Judith Curry's current research is on how hurricane strength is being affected by global warming.


Your list of names is over 10 years old. It includes names of people that died in 2008.

How can my list of names be ten years old ffs? I only put it together a few days back. Can I just reiterate for the umpteenth fucking time that I am a lukewarmer, I am well aware of the paper written by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis, indeed I posted it on here a while back. They arrived at values of ECS and TCR of 1.66K and 1.33K respectively. Sorry to spoil your gotcha, please try harder!!

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10...ail&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-a24cafd790-20156641

 

[cancel2 2022]

Let me post the opening statement of a presentation given to a House of Commons committee back in 2012 by Richard Lindzen.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

 

[LV426]

If you looked at the graph of the number of deaths from heatwaves, you'd know that you are spouting specious bollocks.

Ehhh, but that's "deaths from heat", not actual heat waves.

The link you provided only called out two between the 1890's and 1930's.

 

[Granule]

Ehhh, but that's "deaths from heat", not actual heat waves.

The link you provided only called out two between the 1890's and 1930's.

Global warming will always be a threat as long as Conservatives are alive. The earth hates them. It's even told me.

-- LV426

 

[Celticguy]

One heat wave in one year.

Australia has been seeing record high heat waves consistently over the last 5-10 years.

Please note the "global" in global warming. You are referring to weather not climate.

 

[LV426]

Global warming will always be a threat as long as Conservatives are alive. The earth hates them. It's even told me.

You lack impulse control so instead of admitting you tried to hoodwink people with your bullshit statistics, you lash out at those who put it in proper context because they make you feel bad about yourself.

 

[LV426]

Please note the "global" in global warming. You are referring to weather not climate.

Right, but the climate affects Australia's weather.

Nice try with the bad faith sophistry there.

 

[Teflon Don]

Global warming

ROFLMAO

 

[Tkaffen]

Meanwhile, south of the Equator where it is currently summer, Australia is once again experiencing record heat.

So you want to know where the global warming is? Take out a map, locate the Equator, find the country of Australia, see their record heat, and go fuck yourself.

When did global warming start?
Did it start in 1939?
In 1939 (in Australia) the old heat record was 115 degrees. In January of this year the record was shattered at 115.9.
There have been extreme weather events throughout history.

 

[Superfreak]

4 Climate scientists?

Geez. I hope you don't tell Congress they are Climate Scientists or you would be guilty of perjury.

Richard Keen - Meteorologist
Stanley B Goldenberg - Meteorologist
Jay H Lehr - A PHD in Ground Water Hydrology and Geology.

Please list the SCIENCE classes a person takes to get from Meteorology to 'Climate Science'.

I'll wait...

 

[Superfreak]

The best advertisement for the utter stupidity and willful ignorance of the climate denier corps are posts like this.


Next up: There is an vast, international conspiracy of climate scientists who are faking the data to perpetrate the global warming hoax!

Their funding relies upon their 'crisis' being real. Which is why data is constantly 'adjusted' to show that earlier temps are cooler than recorded.

 

[LV426]

When did global warming start?
Did it start in 1939?
In 1939 (in Australia) the old heat record was 115 degrees. In January of this year the record was shattered at 115.9.
There have been extreme weather events throughout history.

Extreme weather events, sure.

But not extreme climate change.

 

[Superfreak]

Let me post the opening statement of a presentation given to a House of Commons committee back in 2012 by Richard Lindzen.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/

Don't dare bring up the FACT that the global temp has decreased by about 0.5 degrees C in the past two years. Because the morons like Cypress will have a meltdown trying to spin it.

 

[Granule]

You lack impulse control so instead of admitting you tried to hoodwink people with your bullshit statistics, you lash out at those who put it in proper context because they make you feel bad about yourself.

You're going to have to better than that, pampers.

Drum up some counter sources, that don't have the taint of your opinion on them, or you can quietly go fuck yourself.

 

[moon]

While many people in the media and scientific community claim the climate change science is settled, do the facts back that up? Derisively called "deniers," climate change skeptics continue to challenge the so-called conventional wisdom, asking "Is global warming a hoax? Is man-made global warming the dire threat environmentalists claim?"

Recent global warming agreements brokered by the U.N. seek steep reductions in world C02 output to slow the presumed warming of the earth's atmosphere, while also seeking alterations in the economy that would move energy sources away from fossil fuels toward renewable natural energy.

But a growing contingent of scientists and economists call into question the climate change dogma, saying that the temperature data show no clear recent warming and noting that the benefits of global warming, if it existed, might be greater than the costs. This split will define the political debate in the near term.

https://www.investors.com/politics/global-warming-hoax-climate-change-facts/


The sky is freezing the sky is FREEZING!!!!

-- The Left

This stuff has no right to be in ' Current Events '. The forum's going to the trolls.

 

[Grokmaster]

While many people in the media and scientific community claim the climate change science is settled, do the facts back that up? Derisively called "deniers," climate change skeptics continue to challenge the so-called conventional wisdom, asking "Is global warming a hoax? Is man-made global warming the dire threat environmentalists claim?"

Recent global warming agreements brokered by the U.N. seek steep reductions in world C02 output to slow the presumed warming of the earth's atmosphere, while also seeking alterations in the economy that would move energy sources away from fossil fuels toward renewable natural energy.

But a growing contingent of scientists and economists call into question the climate change dogma, saying that the temperature data show no clear recent warming and noting that the benefits of global warming, if it existed, might be greater than the costs. This split will define the political debate in the near term.

https://www.investors.com/politics/global-warming-hoax-climate-change-facts/


The sky is freezing the sky is FREEZING!!!!

-- The Left

Because they support the UN's Income Redistribution Scam, which is all it has ever been...