Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not sure that bravery is what's happening here.

Discretion is overrated.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I'm not sure that bravery is what's happening here.

Jeff Lebowski is being very brave standing up to mean BYU71 in this thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jeff Lebowski is being very brave standing up to mean BYU71 in this thread.

Ouch. That hurts.

See, this is the kind of cheap shot that you have to take on the front lines.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Ouch. That hurts.

See, this is the kind of cheap shot that you have to take on the front lines.

You just teed that up so nicely, I couldn't help myself. I was like Obama with a nuclear explosion behind me, swinging away.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You just teed that up so nicely, I couldn't help myself. I was like Obama with a nuclear explosion behind me, swinging away.

That was a very nice shot.

[Uncle Ted]

The cofounder of Greenpeace is a climate change skeptic...

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

Dr. Patrick Moore

[...]
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.


In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.


The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
[...]

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

In fact, he claims that humans saved the planet...

Human Emissions Saved Planet


Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.


At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.


We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Yes, it is those damn cows that are trying to destroy the planet!

[byu71]

The cofounder of Greenpeace is a climate change skeptic...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

In fact, he claims that humans saved the planet...





Yes, it is those damn cows that are trying to destroy the planet!

Well, Jerry Brown, Govenor Moonbeam, said that the droubt in California and hot weather is caused by climate change. He also said the terrible winter in the N.E. has been caused by climate change.

I think he went on to say the weather isn't the same every year due to climate change.

[Uncle Ted]

Well, Jerry Brown, Govenor Moonbeam, said that the droubt in California and hot weather is caused by climate change. He also said the terrible winter in the N.E. has been caused by climate change.

I think he went on to say the weather isn't the same every year due to climate change.

I saw part of Governor Moonbeam's interview on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. He called Cruz "absolutely unfit" to run for president because of his views on global warming and how it is causing the drought in his state. He may be right about one of his assertions. During his discussion I remembered the following article about how Cali should be getting wetter according to the computer models:

Science Linking Drought to Global Warming Remains Matter of Dispute

In delivering aid to drought-stricken California last week, President Obama and his aides cited the state as an example of what could be in store for much of the rest of the country as human-caused climate change intensifies.


But in doing so, they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.


In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.
[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/sc...o-warming.html

So maybe Governor Moonbeam is selective about which science he likes to believe. Shouldn't he believe all science? If so, he would realize it is the cows that are the problem.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Fun to watch this byu71/Uncle Ted tag team at work.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I saw part of Governor Moonbeam's interview on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. He called Cruz "absolutely unfit" to run for president because of his views on global warming and how it is causing the drought in his state. He may be right about one of his assertions. During his discussion I remembered the following article about how Cali should be getting wetter according to the computer models:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/sc...o-warming.html

So maybe Governor Moonbeam is selective about which science he likes to believe. Shouldn't he believe all science? If so, he would realize it is the cows that are the problem.

Can someone please elaborate on what science to believe? I don't want to be anti-science. Should I choose the science that says California is supposed to get wetter or is it the science espoused by Obama, Moonbeam, JL and that idiot who thought the Hudson and East Rivers were supposed to have converged on Times Square that blames the drought on global warming?

What's the current position of the goalposts?

[SoCalCoug]

Can someone please elaborate on what science to believe? I don't want to be anti-science. Should I choose the science that says California is supposed to get wetter or is it the science espoused by Obama, Moonbeam, JL and that idiot who thought the Hudson and East Rivers were supposed to have converged on Times Square that blames the drought on global warming?

What's the current position of the goalposts?

If you don't want to be anti-science, then I'd go with what the climate scientists say - you know, the guys who have made it a career of studying the climate.

Hint: They're not studying whether anthropogenic global warming exists or not anymore. They've moved on to studying and monitoring its effects.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If you don't want to be anti-science, then I'd go with what the climate scientists say - you know, the guys who have made it a career of studying the climate.

Hint: They're not studying whether anthropogenic global warming exists or not anymore. They've moved on to studying and monitoring its effects.

They're largely in agreement with the basics, that more CO2 has to mean some degree of warming. But the opinions on the extent of that warming are wildly divergent. There are idiots like James Hansen who you and JL choose to slavishly follow despite a track record of being hilariously wrong. But I don't doubt the thousands of scientists that keep their head down, stay out of The politics and are studying the nuts and bolts. I can't imagine those researchers think much of guys like Hansen and Mann and their clownish hysteria.

And you obviously didn't answer my previous question. I also wonder which science to believe regarding hurricane frequency. The consensus in 2005 or the consensus now during the trough of a hurricane cycle.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can someone please elaborate on what science to believe? I don't want to be anti-science. Should I choose the science that says California is supposed to get wetter or is it the science espoused by Obama, Moonbeam, JL and that idiot who thought the Hudson and East Rivers were supposed to have converged on Times Square that blames the drought on global warming?

What's the current position of the goalposts?

You are clearly not paying attention. I have said countless times in this thread that it is impossible to take a single weather incident and blame it on global warming due to the natural variability in weather conditions. You have to focus on long-term trends.

I can't decide if you are anti-science or just so ideologically biased that you are incapable of rational thought on issues like this. Probably the latter.

They're largely in agreement with the basics, that more CO2 has to mean some degree of warming. But the opinions on the extent of that warming are wildly divergent. There are idiots like James Hansen who you and JL choose to slavishly follow despite a track record of being hilariously wrong. But I don't doubt the thousands of scientists that keep their head down, stay out of The politics and are studying the nuts and bolts. I can't imagine those researchers think much of guys like Hansen and Mann and their clownish hysteria.

And you obviously didn't answer my previous question. I also wonder which science to believe regarding hurricane frequency. The consensus in 2005 or the consensus now during the trough of a hurricane cycle.

I had to google "James Hansen". You know... to find out who it is I am "slavishly" following.

[old_gregg]

They're largely in agreement with the basics, that more CO2 has to mean some degree of warming. But the opinions on the extent of that warming are wildly divergent. There are idiots like James Hansen who you and JL choose to slavishly follow despite a track record of being hilariously wrong. But I don't doubt the thousands of scientists that keep their head down, stay out of The politics and are studying the nuts and bolts. I can't imagine those researchers think much of guys like Hansen and Mann and their clownish hysteria.

And you obviously didn't answer my previous question. I also wonder which science to believe regarding hurricane frequency. The consensus in 2005 or the consensus now during the trough of a hurricane cycle.

well, like i always say, when in doubt about who to believe, always trust the overwhelming minority of folks on the margins who don't disclose the source of their funding and deviate wildly in their findings.

[Uncle Ted]

Can someone please elaborate on what science to believe? I don't want to be anti-science. Should I choose the science that says California is supposed to get wetter or is it the science espoused by Obama, Moonbeam, JL and that idiot who thought the Hudson and East Rivers were supposed to have converged on Times Square that blames the drought on global warming?

What's the current position of the goalposts?

Simple... believe in the science that advances your political agenda. For example, I have nothing against cowboy and his life style, he seems like a great guy, but I grew up on a ranch in BFE, Idaho and hated it. We were always busting our asses for the stupid cattle and a lot of times in the damn cold. Therefore, I believe in the science that says that cows are largely the problem. Those runny nose b*turds need to die before they kill us!