Monday, July 26, 2021
Home Middle Column Trump to cause seas to rise?! Climate activist warns Florida property owners:...

Trump to cause seas to rise?! Climate activist warns Florida property owners: If Trump elected ‘sell now while sea levels still leave you something to sell’

-

Climate activist Tom Burke, the former head of Friends of the Earth UK, and currently chairman of E3G, a group which works to accelerate the transition to a “low-carbon” economy, has a warning to property owners in Florida if presumptive nominee Donald Trump is elected President.

A Trump presidency “sends a clear signal to people who have property in Florida: sell now while sea levels still leave you something to sell,” declared Burke after Trump said he would essentially scrap the UN Paris climate deal.

Donald Trump’s climate doubts cannot sway the rest of the world. Photo credit: Wikimedia

Trump, in an interview with Reuters,  said he was “not a big fan” of the UN Paris climate accord. Trump said he would seek to “renegotiate” the deal because it is not in the best interests of the U.S. and benefits countries like China.

“I will be looking at that very, very seriously and at a minimum I will be renegotiating those agreements, at a minimum. And at a maximum I may do something else,” Trump said.

But climate activists like Burke have nothing but insults for Trump due to his skeptical take on man-made global warming. [Note: Climate skeptics have implored Trump not to “renegotiate” the UN climate treaty, but to “withdraw” the U.S. from it altogether and defund the UN climate panel.]

According to Burke, a Trump presidency would spell disaster for the global warming movement and the Earth’s climate itself, causing runaway sea level rise. “All this sends a very negative signal to the rest of the world, that he’d be a very ignorant president,” Burke said.

Tom Burke\

Climate activist Tom Burke

“And of course it sends a clear signal to people who have property in Florida: sell now while sea levels still leave you something to sell,” he added. Earlier this week, Trump was also warned that his golf courses would be under threat from “climate change.” See: NY Times Tom Friedman tells Trump his golf courses will be under water because of ‘global warming’ – ‘Donald, Save Your Golf Greens, and the Planet.’

[Climate Depot Note: For a complete debunking of sea level rise scares, see here.

Burke contends Trump could not derail the Paris UN climate agreement. “Who would he renegotiate the agreement with? He can’t renegotiate on his own and the rest of the world is moving on,” Burke added.

‘Trump can repudiate the agreement, but it won’t make a scrap of difference to the rest of the world. The drive towards a low-carbon economy is being propelled, not by law, not by constraints, but by opportunity. China and the U.S. reached a deal in Paris because it was in their interests to do so. What Trump cannot do is renegotiate the agreement.’

“Who would he renegotiate the agreement with? He can’t renegotiate on his own and the rest of the world is moving on,” Burke added.

#

Related Links: 

What the next President needs to do to dismantle the ‘global warming’ agenda – “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

1) Repeal all EPA climate regulations;

2) Withdraw the U.S. from any Paris agreement (nonbinding) ‘commitments’;

3) Withdraw the U.S. from the UN climate treaty process entirely;

4) The U.S. should defund the UN IPCC climate panel;

‘Yes! We Should Defund The UN IPCC': ‘It seems along with 17 years of flat global temps there is some evidence that we are witnessing some cooling on global warming hype & hysteria in DC as well’

5) Start praising carbon based energy as one of the greatest liberators of mankind and the best hope for the developing world’s poor. Anything short of this clear and comprehensive approach will lead to failure and guarantee Obama’s climate policies will become permanent in the U.S. The Republicans need to get a coherent plan and articulate their course of action.

Warmist New claim: ‘Recent sea level rise is highest in 6,000 years’ — DEBUNKED – Latest warmist claim on sea level here. – Debunking here  – Also see: Claim: ‘No change in sea level until modern times – but that change is dwarfed by sea levels of the past

Warmist declares: ‘Trump Cannot Derail Paris UN Climate Deal’

UN ignores Trump comments about dumping Paris climate deal

373 COMMENTS

    • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!kj24ytwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !kj24y:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPermanentGetPay-Hour$98…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!kj24y….,….

    • According to these brain dead liars… 1/3 of terra firma is already supposed to be under the sea, and 2/3rds of the Earth’s population should have already drowned from hockey stick global warming. I happen to live on the edge of the sea… and the sea level is exactly where it has always been. One of my piers is over 80 years old, and the water lines are actually lower than the high water mark.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2cbbe4ca90412e457285f6e73d795fa6ca7ebd4c2b18c598469ab287ab53ab8f.jpg

      • Excellent! A few years ago, I dropped by the office of a friend to say hello. He was one of the very few scientists I knew who bought into (but not entirely) the AGW hypothesis. While he was speaking with someone else, I was glancing through one of the respected scientific journals on a table in his outer office. It carried a report of a study on the increase in the polar bear population. I made a passing comment on it after we exchanged greetings. His expression was priceless.

          • Many of them are, and I know that for a fact. This gentleman was honest, and not one of those, but I did know one who privately discounted AGW, but made sure to include a possibility of its influence in all his grant proposals in order to improve his chances for funding.

            An excellent example of the need to get politics out of science.

            • You nailed it. Human self-interest on the part of the individual cannot be discounted, and is at the forefront of politics in virtually every aspect of it. The bulk of AGW research is hidden behind pricy academic paywalls rater then freely distributed for anyone who’s interested, begging the question of why that is if everything is on the up and up. If the bulk of GW scientists came out and said that there’s no need for further gov’t regulation, their grant streams would dry up faster then a water puddle in death valley.

              • If I truly thought that the Earth and mankind was on the brink of extinction, and I had the unmistakable proof of what I have learned and there was a way to prevent it…. I and most other people, would lay it all out for the world to see. Money wouldn’t even be a consideration. I would let any and all that wanted to examine what I found to have every single tidbit of information that I came up with, and I would encourage everyone to study more and come up with solutions.

                Instead, these junk science mongers, hide their data, hide all of their communications, hide their processes of data gathering and no matter how often all of their theories and models fail, they still insist that they are right, and turn to attack and censorship of opposing views and research, instead of just proving what they say is true. We don’t even have to get into the political and financial aspects of the whole thing.

                • Yep! They’re in it for the “cheddar” as my son is fond of saying. Even if you had researchers actually doing what you describe with people accepting the worst of AGW without any reservation, accepting that a gov’t that can’t even balance its own budget for the good of future generations is somehow going to put its own interests on the back burner, for the good of the future, is absurd.

                  Polichickens are all about their own interests, and no one else’s, their job, is to keep their job. This behavior alone precludes any possibility of the gov’t from doing anything other then what it actually does, which is f–king everything up by the numbers.

                • And you wouldn’t be flying a 747 to Las Vegas twice a month to golf, like obama, or spending 400 times what the average citizen does on their electric bill, like Dirty Al.
                  That in itself proves they don’t believe it, either

                  • I know for a fact that I wouldn’t buy a sea-side home in Montecito, CA, if I thought the polar ice caps were going to melt and the sea level was going to rise and flood the land 50 miles inland. I would sell my sea-side home and move to Leadville, CO. According to Al and his eco-cult apostles, Florida is supposed to be completely under water in about 30 years.

        • I spent some time searching for a full-page ad I saw years back in the NY Times, purchased by 400 prominent scientists who did NOT agree with the AGW crowd, and was unable to find it. Links have been scrubbed.
          This is how they achieve their ‘consensus’.

            • They are scrubbing many facts, including references to Valerie’s ‘Grove Parc’, in their efforts to promote revisionist history, as well as facts leading to the financial crisis of 2008. I expect they will be very busy attempting to whitewash (racist allusion?) obama’s actions.
              There still exists a reference to one of my favorites, you can still find the NY Times article by Stephen Holmes, Sept. 30, 1999, where he warns of the impending sub-prime mortgage crisis, but I believe they have removed the names of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
              When you and I are no longer among the living, their task will become easier. At this point we’re already starting to pass down the facts of the previous generation verbally.

          • I know of that ad — pity it has been “lost.” There are many thousands of well respected scientists in the area who question the official party line, but who are ignored by the media and stifled by the establishment. If you’ve not seen it before, you might be interested in this letter from a few years ago:

            March 28, 2012

            The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
            NASA Administrator
            NASA Headquarters
            Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

            Dear Charlie,

            We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

            The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

            As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

            For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

            Thank you for considering this request.

            Sincerely,

            (Attached signatures)

            CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

            CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

            Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

            /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

            /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

            /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

            /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

            /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

            /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

            /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

            /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

            /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

            /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

            /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

            /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

            /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

            /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

            /s/ Anita Gale

            /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

            /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

            /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

            /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

            /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

            /s/ Thomas J. Harmon

            /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

            /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

            /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

            /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

            /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

            /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

            /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

            /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

            /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

            /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

            /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

            /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

            /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

            /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

            /s/ Tom Ohesorge

            /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

            /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

            /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

            /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

            /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

            /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

            /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

            /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

            /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

            /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

            /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

            /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

            /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

              • Questions of the validity of the hypothesis aside, everyone, on both sides of the fence, should be deeply concerned by the deliberate effort of the government to directly influence the outcome of scientific research to a predetermined end. This is a most disturbing and highly dangerous trend.

                • To me, the most disturbing part of this, is the great number of people that continue to believe in this debunked, end-of-time, apocalyptic secular cult. There are a great number of people like Al Gore and Obama, that use it as a tool to increase their political power, push their leftist ideology and at least with Al, get very wealthy. It’s the people that actually think that the Earth is on the brink and we are all about to die… as they blog their fears drinking a piping hot soy latte at Starbucks.

                  It is a failed end-times cult. This has been their position over the past 20 years:

                  Severe changes in our climate will begin in 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020!

                  The polar ice caps will be melted, and Florida will be under water by 2010 2015 2040!

                  Mega quakes and hurricanes greater in number and size, than any ever recorded, will begin in 2005 2010 2015 … really soon!

                  One third of the population will be dead from natural disasters, exposure, starvation and disease by 2015 2050!

                  No really… any time now, the end will begin. So we must put an end to dissent and fund this mission to save the Earth with every thing we have!

          • “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!kj20ytwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !kj20y:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsPermanentGetPay-Hour$98…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!kj20y….,…..

        • Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

          Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

          • Neither of your questions have any validity as phrased. The “scientific consensus on climate change” is both wildly exaggerated and in any case irrelevant; “climate change denial” is nonexistent.

            • You did not answer my questions.

              The “scientific consensus on climate change” is both wildly exaggerated and in any case irrelevant; “climate change denial” is nonexistent.

              Did you have amnesia between your semi-colon (your two sentence clauses)?

              Remember, religious faith (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Admitting your denial to defend your greed seems strangely odd though.

              And your “Neither of your questions have any validity as phrased” are crank theory claptrap.

              The Earth heats and hiatus/coolists panic alarm. You might want to seek professional help for your problem with incoherence.

                • But you did not answer my questions. Sadly, a response is not always an answer.

                  Lack of proficiency:
                  I am stupid. One of the dumbest people in my class. I have always been open about that.

                  Having said that, my stupidity cannot be excuse for your lack of knowledge. It does make me feel better when idiots call me incompetent…if you thought I was smart…I’d be in real trouble.

                  I think it was Mark Twain who almost said: It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

                  You, opened your mouth, as it were.

                  Can you now answer my 3 questions? My third question is a bit more difficult and open ended. Have a go
                  I want to add: 3) What do you have to fear if anthropogenic climate change is true?
                  1) Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?
                  2) Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                  • As to (1) & (2), repetitions of the same questions will only result in repetitions of the same answers, not generate new answers, and there is no point to repeating what you failed to understand in the first place.

                    Your third question lacks the specificity to be meaningful, but that being said, the only fearful aspect of all of this is the fact that governmental entities are attempting to force science to conform to political goals.

                    • Ok, I take your demonstration of climate change denial as a yes to my first question. I also take your logorrhea of crank theory (a response is always an answer) as yes to my second question.

                      Fine.
                      Incidentally, that is exactly what we found in science. Look it up, don’t take my work for it.

                      So, your fear of ACC is:

                      that governmental entities are attempting to force science to conform to political goals.

                      That is not an answer, it is merely admitting to 1 and 2 again.

                      But you are actually correct that 1) the reality of the scientific evidence for ACC has nothing to do with politics and 2) public policy decisions about what to do about it are (and should be) political, not scientific. So by all means express your opinions on what we should do, if anything, about ACC. But don’t deny the science. That’s just dishonest and downright stupid.

                      Who do you have to lose if ACC is true?
                      Are you scared of the political and economical implications of ACC on your lifestyle?
                      Are you scared that governments will regulate limited resource given that you think we can get unlimited growth from limited resource?

                      You don’t have to answer the above anymore. I have what I wanted to get from you. Your admission that:

                      Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                      Fine.

                      Thank you for your attention. You are dismissed, I have no further use for you. Have a good day.

                    • At least you are honest to being in denial. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                      Do you now deny being in denial?

                      Denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

                      You can’t convince a climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.

                    • Mark Twain – “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

                      “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – George Carlin

                      I have stopped arguing with you, long ago. It was never a quarrel either! I merely refuse to go down to your level and to be beaten by your troll experience.

                      I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                  • Something pertinent to the subject, also from Twain.

                    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” Mark Twain

                    • 1) Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                      2) Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • Climate has always changed, the question remains as to the cause. You can mix apples and oranges all you want, proof of the cause(s) is yet to be proven. Consensus is NOT a scientific term.

                    • “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Aldous Huxley

                      The “useful” are the true deniers. Bless their hearts.

                    • Yeah, I find it curious that AGW is such a threat and catastrophe in the making, and potentially the end of human life on Earth, and yet John keeps his/her profile locked down, rather then open in order to spread the word. I mean if I personally knew that an extinction level event was imminent, I wouldn’t keep my profile locked so people cannot see my arguments.

                    • You know, when we’re all hunting squirrels, snakes, beetles and twigs to eat between roasting alive, dodging tsunamis, year round hurricanes, and earthquakes (any day now), I’m going to miss electricity and our various little oddball disqus encounters the most. And vacations to Disney World too, which will be under 2,000 feet of water, pity.

                    • Ha! Too true a tale for some of these fear mongers. One of the fun aspects of being involved with theater is the opportunity to meet talented and attractive women. Unfortunately, many of them are Class “A” ditzes. About 15 or 20 years ago, I went to see a friend in a melodrama in Madrid, NM. At a party after the show closed, I was getting along very well with the leading lady, until she got onto the subject of AGW. She was seriously convinced that her home in Madrid (elevation 6000 feet above sea level) would soon be a beach front property. My interest in her quickly went as dry as the desert.

                    • Funny how that works isn’t it? Just got back from my hunting and foraging trip, bagged a whole pack of “wild” sirloin at my favorite spot, prep time.

                    • I tend to enjoy the eccentric, but there’s a difference between being eccentric and being insane.

                    • Here we have it.
                      You are claiming that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, but you, an anonymous Disgus user, got it right. But you refuse to show your work, how you know you are right. That’s not very smart at all.

                      I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.

                      This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence.
                      But you want to exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, you’re not qualified, and thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority, but the undecided ignorant don’t). Your hope is to steal their vote, to warp public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

                      Don’t confuse consensus and opinion in science. Opinion is stated because consensus emerged (due to failure of ACC falsification attempts). In the case for ACC, opinion and consensus are basically same in terms of %.

                      But this is not about the science, is it.
                      This is about your greed and attraction to conspiracy theories.
                      And I’m backed by this via scientific research that has not falsified the facts that Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                      What do you have to fear of ACC is true?

                    • I never attribute to conspiracy what is usually just human ego mixed with government funding, seasoned with arrogance. “Adjusted” data is hardly proof. And changing the “cause” of the day from AGW to ACC is a strong indicator.

                    • There is no such thing as scientific proof, my dear. We don’t prove or disprove anything in science. You are demonstrating your ignorance of sciecne and its method.

                      ACC is a scientific theory, it explains the heating of earth due to the rise in CO2 levels. It is settled science. You cant change that, you’re not qualified.

                      You did not tell me what you fear of ACC is true. Why is that?

                      That you think this is human ego mixed with government funding underscores the fact that you believe in conspiracy theories and cements your desire for Laissez -Faire Capitalism.

                      Please continue to underscore that point for me.

                    • Carry on with your worship, and your arrogance. Rationalize your servitude as you wish, your choice. Many of us will not. ‘Bye.

                    • Thanks for conceding with your insult.

                      Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                      Your post content is a demonstration of nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, born in a delusional cognitive reasoning peril grounded in obscurantism, cemented by you, the fabulist replying on fideism: climate change denier.
                      I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                      Shame on you for rejecting science. The everything that allows you to read my post.

                      Pathetic.

                    • What will it take to accept ACC?
                      Imagine you can suspend (via some cognitive estrangement) your greed and deep seated love for crank theory, what will it take you to accept ACC?

                    • “There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled…Climate-change proponents have made their cause a matter of fealty and faith…Except that today there’s a new god, the Earth Mother. And a new set of sins — burning coal and driving a fully equipped F-150. But whoring is whoring, and the gods must be appeased. So if California burns, you send your high priest (in a carbon-belching Air Force One, but never mind) to the bone-dry land to offer up, on behalf of the repentant congregation, a $1 billion burnt offering called a ‘climate resilience fund.’” Even the liberal New York Times pointed out that “the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter.”

                      If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? For example, take the recent admission of experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California (and the U.K. National Weather Service, etc.). They have now admitted that there has been “no change” or a “pause” (as they delicately call it) in global warming since 1998. That is a 16 year pause. But, why have they preached the exact opposite for the past 16 years? And, that is not where the irony ends. They pitifully claim that the reason for the pause is recent increased volcanic eruptions. This is ironic on many levels. Volcanic eruptions are the single biggest contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere. And, now we are to believe that such CO2 emitting eruptions are pausing global warming?

                      They further admitted, “According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.” So, instead of backing off of their conclusions derived from such faulty models, they doubled down. However, if volcanic activity reduces warming effect, isn’t that another example of the earth amazingly designed to adapt? Isn’t that precisely what global warming opponents have been claiming these 16 years resulting in attacks, insults and derision hurled in their direction as a result? Even this last month, Secretary of State, John Kerry, referred to global warming opponents as “The Flat Earth Society.” But, isn’t ignoring volcanic impact for 16 years more like “Flat Earth” narrow-mindedness than those who have been objecting, “You are not including the impact of volcanoes in your models!”?

                      Further on the subject of recent admissions about volcanoes, the global warming prophets now claim volcanoes “release particles into the air that reflect sunlight – causing temperatures to drop.” Maybe, but they also spew CO2 into the atmosphere probably more than all other factors combined. You can’t have it both ways. And, having it both ways is precisely why they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change.” This way, they can cleverly own every answer. If it is warmer that is because of climate change. If it is colder, that is because of climate change. This is not science, but desperate and cultic faith.

                      Speaking of cults, recently, Patrick Moore (Ph.D. in Ecology), one of the former founders of Greenpeace, made a stunning admission. “It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and it’s taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. There are millions of children dying every day from preventable vitamin deficiencies and diseases, and we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a problem that may not exist. Nobody’s saying that the Earth hasn’t warmed a little bit. What we’re saying is there’s no proof that it is human activity that has caused this little bit of warming. What we’re also saying is this little bit of warming is actually good for most species on planet. Ice and frost are actually the enemies of life … they’re all saying that the CO2 is going to result in a very large increase in temperature. And the way they do that is by assuming that the increase in water vapor, which will come in a warmer world, is going to magnify the effect of the carbon dioxide by two or three times, when, in fact, increased water vapor may dampen the effect of CO2, and no computer models know the answer to that.”

                      There is no field of science that is beyond reproach. For example, in 2007, the book “The Black Swan – The Impact of the Highly Improbable” was written by statistician, Nassim Taleb. “Black swan” is a metaphor for the unknown or the unexpected. Before discovering Australia, we believed all swans were white. Therefore, when we saw a white swan, we thought that confirmed our belief. However, in Australia we discovered black swans, proving our belief all along was false. The scientific method is supposed to set out to disprove our theories. We design experiments to get “no” answers much more often than “yes” answers because “no” answers are much more informative while “yes” answers can be false positives. It is only when we can’t disprove a theory that we are really approaching something that is true about our reality. If you think something is true, you should try as hard as you can to disprove it. Only then can you really get at the truth and not fool yourself. And, declaring an aspect of science to be settled dooms us to avoid truth.

                      http://www.reasonifyouwill.com/2014/03/settled-science-oxymoron.html

                    • You did not tell me what you fear of ACC is true. Why is that?

                      So you seriously get your scientific information from http://www.reasonifyouwill.com/
                      facepalm.

                      Dude, if you want to falsify the settled sciecne of ACC, then you need to show it false. You need to do that using science, the scientific method, and evidence. That you don’t know that shows me that you have no understanding how science works.

                      You will have a problem because you also need to show each one of the publised peer reviewed reports false.

                      a) Oreskes 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

                      b) Doran and Zimmerman 2009 “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”

                      c) Anderegg tal 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change”

                      d) Cook et al 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

                      The way to settle science (file scientific knowledge) is with peer reviewed published journals, evaluation of them and failed falsification. To say that science can never come to any conclusions, that we can never reasonably settle any question, never file any knowledge, is to give up on the entire scientific adventure of understanding the natural world. That is to reject all scientific knowledge that we have filed over the last ~500 years. If we can never know anything, what’s the point of investigating, of science?
                      Claiming that ACC (anthropogenic climate change) is not settled is arguing that scientific theories do not exist. Saying that the ‘earth is warming’ is not settled is arguing that scientific facts do not exist. Saying we have not settled anything in science is saying that the SI unit for time is not a second, it is claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is not 299 792 458 m/s, it is saying that something/anything can go faster than the speed of light.

                      Claiming scientific knowledge do not exist (ACC is not settled) is a message that is profoundly anti-science. Shame on you.

                    • Study the history of science…scientific “fact” and models/theory are adjusted all the time.

                      I’m tired of your cut and paste, fallacies, and general stupidity…..bye troll.

                    • You did not answer my questions.

                      You did not tell me what you fear of ACC is true. Why is that?

                      Is that your best argument:
                      Nothing is science is 100% certain, therefore ACC is false?
                      Wiat, that means everything is false, including your claim.

                      Oh dear god.

                    • Some more of the “smartest people in the world”–who disagree!

                      Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.

                      David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]

                      Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][unreliable source?][21]

                      Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]

                      Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]

                      Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]

                      Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]

                      Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]

                      Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

                      Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[43][44][45]

                      Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[46][47]

                      Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[48][49]

                      Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[50]

                      Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[51][52][53][54]

                      Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[55]

                      Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[56][57]

                      Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[58][59]

                      Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[60][61]

                      Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[62][63]

                      Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[64][65]

                      Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[66]

                      Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.

                      Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[68][69]

                      Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[70][71][72]

                      Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[73][74][75]

                      Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[76][77]

                      Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[78][79]

                      David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[80][81]

                      Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[82][83]

                      William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[84][85]

                      Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[86][87]

                      Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[88][89]

                      William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[90][91]

                      David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[92][93]

                      Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[94][95]

                      Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[96][97]

                      Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[98][99][100]

                      Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[101][102]

                      Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[103][104]

                      Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[105][106]

                      Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[107][108][109]

                      Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[110][111]

                      Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[112][113]

                      Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[114][115][116][117]

                      Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[118][119]

                      Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[120][121]

                      Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[122][123]

                      George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[124][125]

                      Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[126][127]

                      Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown.

                      Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[128][129]

                      Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[130][131]

                      Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[132][133]

                      Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[134][135]

                      John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[136][137][138]

                      Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[139][140]

                      David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[141][142]

                      Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[143][144]

                      Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[145][146]

                      Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148]

                      Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences.

                      Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[149][150][151]

                      Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [152][153]

                      Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[154][155]

                      Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[156][157]

                      So, no, ACC, AGW, climate change caused by x/y/or z is NOT settled science.

                    • One cannot have a rational discussion with a parrot, but it does provide an opportunity to put the facts out.

                    • It does! I wonder what his response to my comment will be. Denial, or dismissal. What do you think?

                    • Some twisted combination of the two most likely. It’s like automated tech service, canned responses with no connection to the problem at hand.

                    • Why am I not surprised that you failed to refute the scientists who don’t believe ACC? That is because like the poster John, ACC is more religion than science in your lil’ world, right Guffie, old pal?

                    • You think your list is impressive? Here’s a list of scientists who believe that God created the earth in a week, a mere 6,000 years ago –

                      Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
                      Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
                      Dr James Allan, Geneticist
                      Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
                      Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
                      Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
                      Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
                      Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
                      Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
                      Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
                      Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
                      Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
                      Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
                      Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
                      Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
                      Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
                      Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
                      Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
                      Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
                      Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
                      Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
                      Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
                      Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
                      Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
                      Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
                      Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
                      Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
                      Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
                      Dr Bob Compton, DVM
                      Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
                      Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
                      Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
                      Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
                      Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
                      Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
                      Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
                      Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
                      Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
                      Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
                      Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
                      Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
                      Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
                      Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
                      Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
                      Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
                      Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
                      Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
                      Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
                      Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
                      Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
                      Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
                      Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
                      Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
                      Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
                      Dr Tim Gilmour, Electrical Engineer
                      Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
                      Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
                      Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
                      Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
                      Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
                      Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
                      Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
                      Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
                      Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
                      Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
                      Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
                      Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
                      Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
                      Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
                      Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
                      Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
                      Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
                      Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
                      Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
                      Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
                      Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
                      Dr George F. Howe, Botany
                      Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
                      Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
                      Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
                      Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
                      George T. Javor, Biochemistry
                      Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
                      Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
                      Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
                      Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
                      Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
                      Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
                      Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
                      Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
                      Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
                      Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
                      Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
                      Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
                      Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
                      Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
                      Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
                      Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
                      Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
                      Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
                      Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
                      Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
                      Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
                      Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
                      Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
                      Dr John G. Leslie, biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
                      Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
                      Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
                      Dr Alan Love, Chemist
                      Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
                      Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
                      Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
                      Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
                      Dr John McEwan, Chemist
                      Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
                      Dr David Menton, Anatomist
                      Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
                      Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
                      Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
                      Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
                      Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
                      Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
                      Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
                      Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
                      Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
                      Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
                      Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
                      Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
                      Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
                      Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
                      Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
                      Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
                      Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
                      Dr David Pace, Organic Chemistry
                      Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
                      Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
                      Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
                      Prof. Richard Porter
                      Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
                      Dr Albert E. Pye, invertebrate zoology, biotechnology, biological control (1945–2012)
                      Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
                      Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
                      Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
                      Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
                      Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
                      Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
                      Dr John Sanford, Geneticist
                      Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
                      Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
                      Dr Ian Scott, Educator
                      Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
                      Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
                      Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
                      Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
                      Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
                      Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
                      Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
                      Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
                      Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
                      Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
                      Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
                      Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
                      Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
                      Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
                      Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
                      Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
                      Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
                      Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
                      Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
                      Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
                      Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
                      Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
                      Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
                      Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
                      Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
                      Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
                      Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
                      Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
                      Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
                      Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
                      Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
                      Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist (1923–2012)
                      Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
                      Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
                      Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
                      Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineer
                      Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
                      Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
                      Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
                      Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
                      Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

                    • Odd thing is, Guffie, I am not sure I believe that list. Do I believe there are scientists that are religious? You bet. Your little “qualifier” seems a bit too “invented” by the master of inventing lies. So, provide the link.

                    • Like I thought, YOU created the qualifier. And it is so precious that you had to go to a website that’s a creationist group to find that. Typical left-winger.

                    • *As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because they should know better.”

                    • I have stated that when I read online comments, I hear white noise. That means, of course, that certain posters are inside my head. Maybe I should give myself a time out from this stuff, and give stamp collecting or bird watching a whirl.

                    • I am so deeply invested in this internet comment board thing that I hear sounds when I read certain posts. I should consider closing my laptop, and setting an appointment with a therapist.

                    • Sigh.
                      You completely forgot to answer my question. Remember, I asked you:
                      What do you have to fear of ACC is true?

                      Why do you keep on demonstrating that you’re not very smart?
                      You listed way less than 1% of climate change scientists, and you call that ‘smart’?
                      You missed the ‘smart’ point completely. Read it again, slowly.
                      You are claiming that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, but you, an anonymous Disgus user, got it right. But you refuse to show your work, how you know you are right. That’s not very smart at all.

                      You still have not showed me your work, how you know you are right. But you offered a red herring, wrapped a fallacious argument from population. It’s not even an appeal to authority because you cited politicians as experts in climate science.
                      facepalm.
                      Fine. I’ll play your game.
                      I’ll deal with your argument from population and show you that mine is bigger.
                      I went though your list, and you hardly listed any published climate change scientists. I mean you list has a botanist, former research physicist, biochemist, meteorologist, geologist, politician, etc. Do you go to a dentist if you have a brain problem? No, normal people don’t, but you see to do. Judith Curry actually supports the scientific consensus (that ACC is settled) – see Revkin, Andrew (November 27, 2009). “A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics”. New York Times. Retrieved 24 April 2010.

                      So, you are being dishonest.

                      Numerous studies* found that 98.4 scientists support the ACC Consensus (that the science is settled). That leaves you with 1.6%.

                      *Sources:
                      a) Oreskes 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
                      b) Doran and Zimmerman 2009 “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
                      c) Anderegg tal 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change”
                      d) Cook et al 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

                      I told you, my argument from population is bigger than yours.
                      And the problem with your 1.6% is that they also not very smart. because like you, they also refuse to show their work. You refuse to show me the published peer reviewed scientific journals that has the evidence that falsifies ACC.

                      Additionally, there are no scientific body of national or international standing that dissent from settled science of ACC. None, zip, zada. 100% supports it.
                      177 UNFCCC members signed the recent Paris Agreement, only 15 of which ratified it. That should be quite embarrassing for you. The USA signed. Why are you going against your own country?

                      So, no, ACC, AGW, climate change caused by x/y/or z is NOT settled science.

                      So, let me get this right; you think because a few non-climate change scientists and 1.6% of climate change scientists have an opinion but no evidence that ACC is wrong, therefore ACC is not settled?
                      And yet, you provide me no evidence to support that. You have no evidence that ACC is wrong, just your opinion that it is wrong.

                      You reject the fact that 98.4% climate change scientists agree that ACC is settled. They agree because they could not falsify the evidence as per published peer reviewed science. Spot the difference?

                      If you are smart, then you would provide me your work, show me that you have evidence that ACC is false, not settled. I want your url to a published peer reviewed scientific journal that falsifies ACC. Make sure that the smart people have checked it and agrees with it.

                      But we know you will not do that. You have no credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) in climate change science.

                      One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. You do require credentials in that field to meaningfully challenge those findings. Yet you have none. That is why you’re not very smart.

                      ACC is settled science. Deal with it my dear denier.

                    • Gee, my very first comment to you, and you start in with insults. OK, I’ll play. BTW, you didn’t ask me any questions.

                      The climate change hoax is exactly that. A hoax, with the goal to force even more money out of those who can least afford it, and put that money into the pockets of a few elites of this world, while at the same time, those elites grease the palm of government officials to insure the largess keeps flowing.

                      As for YOU asking for all the credentials? Odd thing is, you haven’t published yours either. As for links to reports, I got that also.

                      http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html

                      http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

                      http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

                      http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

                      Tag, you’re it.

                    • So, you are still refusing to answer my questions.

                      What do you have to fear of ACC is true?

                      The climate change hoax is exactly that.

                      And you know this how? You could not even list the 1.4% of climate change scientists that claims so.

                      As for YOU asking for all the credentials? Odd thing is, you haven’t published yours either.

                      One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. You do require credentials in that field to meaningfully challenge those findings. Yet you have none. That is why you’re not very smart.

                      Your links are from pseudo scientific websites and opinion pieces. Is this really where you get you scientific information from? Bejesus, no wonder you’re in denial of science.

                      98.4% climate change scientists agree that ACC is settled.
                      100% of scientific bodies of national or international standing accepts ACC.
                      177 UNFCCC members signed the recent Paris Agreement agreeing to ACC. 15 UNFCCC members ratified teh agreement, but did not reject or deny ACC.

                      That should be quite embarrassing for you.

                      Yet, you can’t give me a single piece of scientific evidence that supports your claim that ACC is a hoax and false.

                      You’re not very smart, are you?

                      Let’s see how you deal with these two questions.

                      Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                      Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • That would be “largesse”, Gomer. And may I suggest that you familiarize yourself with its actual meaning before employing it further?

                    • WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

                      GRAMMAR COP ON DUTY! MAKE SURE ALL COMMENTS ARE PASSED THROUGH THE GRAMMAR COP BEFORE POSTING! THIS IS YOUR ONLY WARNING! /sarc/

                    • I believe that Farnsworth also posed as “Gadfly the cross eyed bear” and one other that escapes me now.
                      p.s. when they are totally stopped by argument, they start checking for grammar. He also upvoted himself.

                    • How did I know that you would run off looking for some encouragement from one of your bone-headed BFFs? You wimps are too predictable.

                    • According to Google maps, I could leave now, and reach 34457 AZ HWY 180A Concho, AZ 85924 by around 4am. Are you usually up and around at that hour?

                    • That is a surprise. I am also a” cat person”. Although I will say, it’s hard to get my cat’s to dress up, like I do with my toy poodle.

              • >>”Remember, religious faith (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Admitting your denial to defend your greed seems strangely odd though.”

                Do you keep a file somewhere of this bull shiitake and just play cut & paste all day long?

                • Thanks for conceding with your insult.
                  Don’t have you anything intelligent to say?

                  1) Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                  2) Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • That’s not intelligent given that you already conceded with your insult. Short memory, slow day?

                      I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insults as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                      Your attempts to sound erudite are clumsy and stale.

                      Don’t have you anything intelligent to say?

                      1) Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                      2) Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • That’s still not intelligent given that you already conceded with your insult. Short memory, slow day, again?

                      I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your insults as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                      Your attempts to sound erudite are clumsy and stale.

                      Don’t have you anything intelligent to say?

                      1) Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                      2) Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • Well thank you for settling that, genius! Without your thoughtful and well-informed contributions, we’d be lost!
                      Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                    • It is ok to be loud. And it is ok to have nothing to say. But to be both, like you, on a Disgus forum, is pathetic.

                    • Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

                      Over recent geological time, Earth’s temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability.

                      Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being.

                    • Ah, back with your canards again. Don’t you have anything intelligent to say? Your post content is a demonstration of nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, born in a delusional cognitive reasoning peril grounded in obscurantism, cemented by you, the fabulist replying on fideism.

                      I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in.

                      I also want you to tell me how your greedy lifestyle will be impacted if ACC is true for you.

                    • Why then are all the IPCC models wrong if this is “settled science?”

                      A simple question. You should readily have the answer. Come on troll. Answer a question.

                    • Why should I answer your question?

                      I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific questions and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.

                      I’m interested to know what you are in denial. The real reason for it. We both know it’s about your love of crank theories and because you are greedy. That is what I want to discuss with you. because when you know you are in denial, and why you are, then you may want to reflect and get yourself out of it.

                      But first, you need to admit that you are in denial. Do you admit that?

                    • Why are all the models wrong?

                      Why is every post of yours full of the same fanatic religious dogma without containing a single credible piece of science? You are religious fanatic, no wait even worse, you have taken on blind faith political rhetoric as scientific fact.

                      Again, why are all the models wrong?

                      Religious fanatics such as yourself attempt to shout down dissenting opinion yet are unable to answer a relatively simple question.

                      Why are all the models wrong?

                    • Does it bother you I question your religion with simple questions all the while from a home that produces barely a quarter of the greenhouse gases you do, you so dearly profess will cause our demise. Who is the hypocrite?

  1. I’m just curious….for all the stop global warming now believers: how much are you willing to pay?

    There are three basic scenarios right?

    1. UN “cap and trade” – we can continue business as usual but we have to buy carbon credits from undeveloped countries in order to compensate for our rate of generation of gases. These billions have to come from somewhere? You will pay for them through higher taxes and/or higher prices (as companies recoup their cap and trade costs)

    2. Strict regulation driving up costs and the potential for shortages as industries (like coal) are forced out of the market by over regulation.

    Are you prepared for:

    1. $9.00 per gallon gas?
    2. Increases in heating oil, natural gas and electricity prices and the potential for rolling blackouts and shortages.
    3. 10% – 20% increases in food prices, and for that matter all retail goods (to cover the increase cost of fuel and energy for transportation, and manufacturing and storage)

    Solar is viable – in certain areas of the country (based on how much sun you are exposed to)…ditto for wind….a typical home solar installation might be $30,000.

    People in cities don’t have that alternative and while they may use mass transit – that cost will go up to along with food, goods and rent.

    Well what do you want?

    Of course…this story may be about the fact nothing is attracted to Hillary and her natural repulsive force will cause the seas to recede (or more precisely — retreat).

    • Remember, religious faith (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Admitting your denial to defend your greed seems extremely odd though.

      And your “your money can fix the atmosphere” are crank theory claptrap.

      The Earth heats and hiatus coolists panic with alarm. You might want to seek professional help for your problem with logorrhea.

      • so what are you willing to give up? What is the UN proposing? Cap N Trade. Hint John: That’s just a means to funnel money..via the purchase of carbon credits… 33% of electricity is generated by coal – as EPA shuts down coal via regulation…what do you think will happen? (which is all funny given you replied to me on a computer – made of fossil fuels, transported to a store via fossil fuel planes/train/automobiles, bought from a store (heated and cooled by fossil fuels most likely)…and just how did that Starbucks coffee make it to you neighborhood? Are you willing to give that up? Pay 10% or 20% more for everything? Meanwhile Windmills chop up birds of prey (remember Obama gave the wind folks a get out jail free card for that) and solar is only practical in micro-grid in areas with enough sun…

        And did I mention anything with religion? If anything progressives “the science is settled” believers are the religious fanatics – anyone skeptical of marginal science (all the models to date have been wrong) is drowned by the religious fanatics. They even want to DOJ to pursue criminal cases against people who say “wait a minute” wasn’t the arctic green and lush once? Weren’t the seas 15-30 m higher once? In the billions of years of Earth’s history couldn’t it be that just 30 years is meaningless?

        p.s. NASA just admitted there is only a 38% chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record (the 0.1C difference is much smaller than margin of error in their calculation) (oh, and they adjusted up the temperature reading on something like 17 of 19 satellites – to “agree” with the two that were getting “higher” readings.

        The reality is I agree man influences the environment around him…I just don’t agree with the sky is falling screams of the UN and progressives because it’s just a way to push a short term agenda (especially the UN – our little democracy of dictators – funny how all their proposals amount to wealth transfer)….I agree we have to continually be good stewards of the Earth…

        • Another spate of logorrhea from you.

          The science is not up for debate. You and I have no say in climate change science knowledge. We’re not qualified. Science is not a sport, it does not have two sides, nor are the sides equal. Science is not done via debate. Science is done by observation/experimentation of evidence, writing that up, getting peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. Consensus then emerges when the scientists can’t falsify the evidence and stop arguing about it. That you think this is up for debate shows me that you reject the scientific method.

          Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest. I’m glad you’re doing something to reduce CO2 emissions, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

          This is not about the science. This is about your greed and about your obsession with conspiracy theories.

          Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

          Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

          Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

          Answer my questions.

          • The science is not up for debate. — actually it is … scientists can’t prove man made CO2 vs climate change causality…just like scientists can’t prove evolution. They are both theories. Man made climate change is even more tenuous given satellite technology used today has barely been around at any level 40 years. They are comparing those readings (which have levels of uncertainty) with data gathered by other means (which have levels of uncertainty)…the predictive models developed have been generally wrong (outside reasonable confidence limits) [hence the admission regarding the that there is only a 38% chance 2014 was hottest by 0.1C]… what is true is politics is influencing science. {p.s. I generally made my living on data analysis among other things to the tune of about $400K per year, statistics IS never having to say you are certain}

            It is nothing about greed….given I retired some years ago and generally are capable of living off the grid should the need arise (blizzards for example) and could care less about what your Starbucks or even a pound of apples cost (acreage is good). But my guess is most of America is going to be pissed (81% live in urban areas) as costs skyrocket if progressive Government has its way.

            Wind has it’s own issues – and environmental impacts; solar is viable like I said on a micro grid scale (homes); hydro is viable (as Hoover and TVA have proven, but good luck building more dams – less you destroy the habitat of some dart fish); geothermal (requires electricity – that brine ain’t going to pump itself and still needs to be heated in the winter months); nuclear is see-saw option – let’s face it is is viable (except for the whole radioactive fuel issue) until a TMI or Fuchishima…still 66% of power is generated by fossil fuels and well as most our transport depends on fossil fuels. Let’s face very few of these “green” technologies are ready for prime-time. Pull away the Federal subsidies and they collapse. Hybrid cars are probably the closest – except when you remember 66% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels.

            So how much are you willing to pay for gas? EU prices? $6-$9 per gallon. Heat or Cool your home for $700-$1000 per month? Pay $5 for a gallon of milk?

            Are there lunatic fringes on both side? Yup. I don’t believe Jesus rode a T-Rex and the Earth is only 6,000 years old…nor do I believe the science is settled.

            • Here we have it, more spate of logorrhea from you.

              But thank you. Your post underscores the scientific research that Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

              You don’t fear the tax, you fear the political and economical implications of ACC on your greedy lifestyle.
              Of course I don’t expect to win this non existent debate about the science, because climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total Laissez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.

              You are claiming that the smartest people in the world got it wrong, but you, an anonymous Disgus user, got it right. But you refuse to show your work, how you know you are right. That’s not very smart at all.

              I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.

              This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence.

              But you want to exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, you’re not qualified, and thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority, but the undecided ignorant don’t). Your hope is to steal their vote, to warp public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.

              Don’t confuse consensus and opinion in science. Opinion is stated because consensus emerged (due to failure of ACC falsification attempts). In the case for ACC, opinion and consensus are basically same in terms of %.

              But this is not about the science, is it.

              This is about your greed and attraction to conspiracy theories.

              And I’m backed by this via scientific research that has not falsified the facts that Climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

              What do you have to fear of ACC is true?

              • You really are a wingnut aren’t you? Locked in your old little conspiracy world I see.

                I’ve seen you post the same drivel to multiple people.

                You have no idea what the “scientific method” is except maybe from 9th grade science. Show me confirmation experiments that prove these scientists theories (all the IPCC predictions have been fundamentally wrong haven’t they – the closest you will find to a confirmation experiment has failed).

                Journals don’t settle anything – their primary fault is well known – “group think” if the author and reviewer share the same theories then often primary driving assumptions aren’t challenged because both the reviewer and author share the same assumptions.

                My advice to you? When you put on the foil hat – don’t forget the chinstrap. It is critical, without properly securing the foil hat you end up typing drivel like what you have been spewing.

                • Thanks for conceding with your insult.

                  Yet, you still have not answered my basic question. What do you have to fear if ACC is true? Think about it. Answer me when you are ready to admit to your greed and your crank theories.

                  I can very easily accept that I can be mistaken, fooled by my own wishful thinking, by con men selling pseudoscience or by the manufactured doubt industry promoting AstroReality, etc. This is exactly why I accept the scientific method and its results over my own intuition. It was created specifically to detect and correct these very human mistakes, and it has been shown to work extremely well. What I’m not so confident about is the ability of the scientific process to withstand relentless, heavily funded, bad-faith attacks by those who stand to have their livelihoods impaired by the results of the scientific process. We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it’s still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we’re seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

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

                  There is no such thing as scientific proof, my dear. We don’t prove or disprove anything in science. You are demonstrating your ignorance of science and its method.

                  ACC is a scientific theory, it explains the heating of earth due to the rise in CO2 levels. It is settled science. You cant change that, you’re not qualified.

                  Claiming that it is not supported by evidence and citing no scientific literature to back that up shows me that you should not be taken seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.

                  Changing the “cause” of the day from AGW to ACC – that is merely your straw man, your misunderstanding of science. ACC is not a cause. Warming of earth due to rising of anthropogenic (humans activities, not humans) CO2 levels is a case of CC. That is what ACC explains. Your ignorance of science is stifling.

                  You did not tell me what you fear of ACC is true. Why is that?

                  That you think this is human ego mixed with government funding underscores the fact that you believe in conspiracy theories and cements your desire for Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

                  Please continue to underscore that point for me.

                  • You have not answered my question wingnut, how much more are you willing to pay?

                    Let’s hypothetically say the sky is falling….0.1C….what are willing pay as Government “fights” global warming?

                    Kill coal? 33% of power. Sucks to live in the North East.
                    $8 a gallon gas? Sucks to have to drive or heat your house with heating oil.
                    Live in the South? Hope you didn’t mind $1000 power bills for your A/C

                    What? Did you think the battle came without a cost? Even if Government “bills” the gas and power companies that just gets passed on to you….your smart enough to read a financial statement…

                    Why are all the IPCC predictive models wrong? What don’t those pretty little graphs show you? 95% confidence limits – all band partially a zero to negative temperature change window – meaning they are not 95% confident that the temperature will change at all. All the actual number have been leaning to the no change side of the confidence interval. Stick that in your tin foil hat.

                    Come on wingnut…put up … how much are willing to pay to “fight” global warming?

                    Barry’s “Clean Power Act” says you’ll save money ($85 by 2030) over the cost…off course remember saving $2,500 on health insurance? The savings? You’ll save because of the “social cost” of Carbon (they can’t predict the temperature change…but can accurately predict a hypothetical social cost) meanwhile the cost you pay to heat your home and get your gas and buy your latte – those wingnut, are REAL.

                    You will ultimately foot the bill for these rising costs, which include double-digit electricity price increases in 41 states, with 28 states potentially facing peak year electricity price increases of at least 20 percent.

                    and that’s not even the cost the UN would like to impose on industrialized nations

                    SO HOW MUCH ARE WILLING TO PAY?

                    • I wonder how much deforestation will be acceptable, as people chop down trees to heat their homes and cook their food.

                    • The UN leaders want this….

                      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-22508439
                      “UN urges people to eat insects”

                      UN Leaders will, however, continue to eat steak and lobster and and enjoy a fine port wine.

                      Even worse…

                      From the UN Climate Chief, Figueres:

                      “From a global perspective, we need to understand that we are today already beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. We’re already beyond what we can produce with food. We’re already beyond the water that keeps people healthy. So you have to balance out on the one hand, the natural resources, and on the other hand, population.”

                      Read into that what you will.

                    • It’s not so much eating insects that you fear, you fear the economical and political impact on your lifestyle, hey? It’s about your greed. At least, that’s what you are demonstrating, that’s what I get from your posts, correct?

                      I don’t know how much insects to eat. I don’t know is that’s the right thing given that it can’t fix the atmosphere. Using less fuel in a step in the right direction and it does not cost you anything.
                      You reject the science, so what do you care for a solution anyway? Oh, it’s not about the solution, it’s about protecting your lifestyle at any cost.
                      You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resources. And any regulations if that is simply unexpectable – it should to avoid at all cost.
                      Now that we know that, know about your greed, let’s move on.

                      Tell me about your desire of conspiracy stories. ACC is a government or world order UN conspiracy, hey? Like the moon landing and evolution, facepalm. There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      That’s why you fear ACC. You have to much to lose. That’s why ACC can’t ever be true for you. You have too much to lose.

                      And I’m backed by scientific research on this. There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism. Look it up, don’t take my word for it.
                      That’s what going on here. It has nothing to do with the science.

                    • >>”There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism. Look it up, don’t take my word for it. ”

                      post that link troll. go for it. adjust the straps on your tin foil hat and go find it…. you made the claim…back it up…..

                      f

                    • Great, you agree then:
                      There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism.

                      Fantastic. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                      I don’t understand your request.
                      Remember, I’m stupid. I was the dumbest in my class. I’ve always been open about that.
                      However, my stupidly is no excuse for your ignorance and denialism; your greed and belief in crank theory.

                      One does not need credentials in a field of study to accept its basic findings. You, however, need credentials in that field of study to meaningful challenge those findings.

                      I see no point debating the ACC science with you or taking your word for it or studying your material (doing homework). You’re not qualified. Also, as you can tell, teacher, I’m able to educate myself on any subject of my chosing.

                      Incidentally, I told you before “use Google, it is so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish and unintelligent statements”. You chose not to, yet ask me to educate you, but you call me stupid! I’ll be in real trouble if you really though I was stupid!

                      Absolutely logical, the logic is so obvious it dissappeared for you!

                      At least now you know why you’re in denial. It’s about your greed and love of crank theory.

                    • I’ll give you as many opportunities to demonstrate your denial as you would like. One should have been sufficient, but you’re obviously a very slow learner.

                    • Why are you talking to yourself, troll?
                      On one side we have science with a vacuum of agenda-driven dishonesty. And, on your side, you have agenda-driven dishonesty, with a vacuum of science.

                    • At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects.

                    • Ah, back with your canards again. Don’t you have anything intelligent to say?

                      I’m interested in your crank theories. Tell me if there is one that you don’t believe in.

                      I also want you to tell me how your greedy lifestyle will be impacted if ACC is true for you.

                    • Why are all the IPCC models wrong? How can it be “settled science” when all the predictions based on “settled science” have been demonstrated wrong?

                    • More canards, more crank theory from you.

                      Tell me if there is a crank theory that you don’t believe in.

                      I also want you to tell me how your greedy lifestyle will be impacted if ACC is true for you.

                    • Again, how can this be “settled science” if the models are all wrong?

                      I find it amazing, religious fanatics such as yourself that scream the loudest generally have the least understanding of science. The simple parrot their masters.

                      So tell me what are your fanatic religious proposals for the sinners to repent? (mind you you are talking to me on a computer infrastructure that obtains two thirds of it’s necessary resources from fossil fuel, probably drinking a coffee that made it’s way to your table via a logistics infrastructure 100% dependent of fossil fuel)

                    • Answer.
                      If you have nothing to lose if ACC is true, why do you harp on about the tax?

                      It’s not so much the tax, it’s more about the economical snd political impact on your lifestyle, hey? It’s about your greed. At least, that’s what you are demonstrating, that’s what I get from your posts, correct?

                      I don’t know how much tax to pay. I don’t know is that’s the right thing given that your tax money can’t fix the atmosphere. Using less fuel in a step in the right direction and it does not cost you anything.
                      You reject the science, so what do you care for a solution anyway? Oh, it’s not about the solution, it’s about protecting your lifestyle at any cost.
                      You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resources. And any regulations if that is simply unexpectable – it should to avoid at all cost.
                      Now that we know that, know about your greed, let’s move on.

                      Tell me about your desire of conspiracy stories. ACC is a government or world order conspiracy, hey? Like the moon landing and evolution, facepalm. There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      That’s why you fear ACC. You have to much to lose. That’s why ACC can’t ever be true for you. You have too much to lose.

                      And I’m backed by scientific research on this. There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism. Look it up, don’t take my word for it.
                      That’s what going on here. It has nothing to do with the science.

                    • You are truly an idiot….but your great leader is pleased…common core and the best 2nd rate associates degree you could finance make him happy

                    • Thanks for conceding with your insult.

                      Climate change deniers, such as you, pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                    • What makes you think that your money can fix the atmosphere?
                      You are merely verifying that climate change deniers such as you believe in free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and your are attracted and love conspiracy/crank theories.

                      I rather pay a tax now, to stop idiots such as you, than pay 10x that in insurance when catastrophes strike. Dude, you should re-look at your greed, you forgot to apply future and risk to it. Pathetic.

                      Become a credentialed and published climate scientist and your opinion about what is proper climate science will actually be worth considering. Until then, you’re just another of the many people who deny climate science because they don’t like its political and economic implications. If you were to say instead “Yeah, we’re warming the climate but I just don’t give a damn”, I’d disagree but at least I’d respect you for your opinion. But denying the science itself so you don’t have to admit your greed is just plain dishonest.
                      I’m glad you’re wanting to pay a tax, but the real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

                    • So why do you ask me how much tax I’m willing to pay?

                      So, now you don’t want to pay a tax? I know what this is about/. It’s about your lifestyle, protecting it with your greed. And this is about your love for a great crank theory hey. Yes, the UN believes that your tax money can fix the atmosphere. You walked into that one, hey!

                      The real answer will come from carbon-free (or at least very low carbon) sources. That includes wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and yes, nuclear. That’s what really mystifies me about climate change deniers. They all hold strongly right-wing and libertarian political views (I have yet to see an exception), and should therefore favor nuclear power just to annoy the liberals. But instead they deny the science and look ridiculous. Why?

                    • Great, you agree then:
                      There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism.

                      Fantastic. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                      I don’t understand your request.
                      Remember, I’m stupid. I was the dumbest in my class. I’ve always been open about that.
                      However, my stupidly is no excuse for your ignorance and denialism; your greed and belief in crank theory.

                      One does not need credentials in a field of study to accept its basic findings. You, however, need credentials in that field of study to meaningful challenge those findings.

                      I see no point debating the ACC science with you or taking your word for it or studying your material (doing homework). You’re not qualified. Also, as you can tell, teacher, I’m able to educate myself on any subject of my chosing.

                      Incidentally, I told you before “use Google, it is so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish and unintelligent statements”. You chose not to, yet ask me to educate you, but you call me stupid! I’ll be in real trouble if you really though I was stupid!

                      Absolutely logical, the logic is so obvious it dissappeared for you!

                      At least now you know why you’re in denial. It’s about your greed and love of crank theory.
                      QED

                    • Remember, religion (anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself.
                      Pontificating the espousal of un-regulated free markets to defend your ACC denial seems strangely odd though.

                      And your “image” are denialist claptrap crank theory.

                    • Dear Troll,

                      Your programmers need to write some new responses. The same four have gotten tedious and obvious.

                      Your welcome.

                      The Troll-bot committee

                    • In 2009 NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered,an 880-page report on scientific research that contradicts the models of man-made global warming.

                    • Inane blather and invective without evidence has no basis in science.

                      You accept assertions without question and expect others to do the same. Shame on you.

                    • Read the report. With every year the IPCC models are wrong..and every year that the sky doesn’t fall this “settle science” will finally be replaced by true unbiased scientific research.

                      and Gore and Barry can fly off into the sunset…

                      you certainly remember Gore, nobel prize winner, telling us the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013….

                    • Read what report? Want me to do your homework for you? No, you’re the one that claims ACC is false, you therefore need to provide the evidence to support your claim.

                      With every year the IPCC models are wrong..and every year that the sky doesn’t fall this “settle science” will finally be replaced by true unbiased scientific research.

                      Another one of your crank theories. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      and Gore and Barry can fly off into the sunset…

                      you certainly remember Gore, nobel prize winner, telling us the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013….

                      That is your an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.

                    • Are not the models wrong? Over a decade of missed predictions? The have missed trend as consistently as they have missed the target. Your dear leaders travel to and fro on great giant steel birds that produce more green house gases in 2 hours than a dozen and half car produce in a year.
                      Why are the world leaders solution to global warming a economic system whereby the industrialized countries pay to non-industrialized countries huge sums of money through carbon credits? Why do you pray to false gods? Why have the only beneficiaries of Government investment in “green energy” been predominantly members loyal to your dear leader’s political party? Why do you support such people that force you to worship false gods?

                      Again, why are the models wrong? Why do you believe everything your dear leader’s preach without question? Were you rendered incapable of independent thought by your religion?

                    • More crank theories from you. More evidence that you want a complete free open market with no government regulations because of your greed.

                      That’s why you fear ACC. It will take your greedy lifestyle away.

                    • Admit it, late at night you are plagued by doubt, but dear leader demands your blind compliance so you fabricate positions your detractors never put forth and attack them for that is that he only way you can justify your commitment. Meanwhile while your knowledge of the shortcomings of your religion grow.

                    • You have yet to provide a shred of science. Why are all models wrong for this “settled science” – A simple question, yet you are incapable of providing a scientific answer. You simply take it on faith based on your religious leaders say-so and attempt to shout out and drown any questioning opinion. That, dear apostle, is the definition of a religious fanatic. Why are you so tied to your religious dogma?

                    • You have no credentials in climate change science. So why would I waste my time talking about the science, shooting down your canards.

                      I want to talk about your beliefs. About why you love crank theories and why you’re so greedy.

                      What do you fear if ACC is true? Do you fear the tax? Do you fear energy prices will go up? Do you fear government regulating coal ?

                      Talk to me.

                    • You have no understanding of science or math, nor of my background or current energy consumption base. Your blind faith in a religion that has been consistently wrong demands you continue to live in ignorance and create false opponents as a coping mechanism, and means to fight your growing doubt.

                  • but i will answer your question….i have nothing to fear….if all the power goes out…not much of my ability to eat, heat my house or live changes. I lose the ability to chat with wingnuts. But it’s a small price to pay.

                    • If you have nothing to lose if ACC is true, why do you harp on about the tax?

                      It’s not so much the tax, it’s more about the economical snd political impact on your lifestyle, hey? It’s about your greed. At least, that’s what you are demonstrating, that’s what I get from your posts, correct?

                      I don’t know how much tax to pay. I don’t know is that’s the right thing given that your tax money can’t fix the atmosphere. Using less fuel in a step in the right direction and it does not cost you anything.
                      You reject the science, so what do you care for a solution anyway? Oh, it’s not about the solution, it’s about protecting your lifestyle at any cost.
                      You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resources. And any regulations if that is simply unexpectable – it should to avoid at all cost.
                      Now that we know that, know about your greed, let’s move on.

                      Tell me about your desire of conspiracy stories. ACC is a government or world order conspiracy, hey? Like the moon landing and evolution, facepalm. There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      That’s why you fear ACC. You have to much to lose. That’s why ACC can’t ever be true for you. You have too much to lose.

                      And I’m backed by scientific research on this. There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism. Look it up, don’t take my word for it.
                      That’s what going on here. It has nothing to do with the science.

                    • >>”Using less fuel in a step in the right direction and it does not cost you anything. ”

                      President Obama has just the idea for you. In his final budget request, he will include a call for an additional $10 in taxes per barrel of oil. That’s 22 cents per gallon more. The president’s plan for this new windfall is to fund a “21st century clean transportation system.”

                      Environmental Protection Agency’s power plan comes with a hefty price tag that could approach $300 billion and raise electricity prices in each of the 47 states subject to the new regulation. Despite these enormous costs, the rule does nothing to prevent global climate change.

                    • Thanks for underscoring my point for me that this is about your greed, and about your love for conspiracy theory (predicting Obama’s budget, and that Environmental Protection Agency does not do it’s job).

                      Are you for real?

                      There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets. Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                • When it comes to climate change, Scientific consensus and opinion are obtained via

                  A) Synthesis reports,
                  B) Asking scientific bodies of national or international standing to issue a formal opinion (A statement that you can read on their websites or brochures)
                  C) Surveys of opinion among climate scientists.

                  *A) Synthesis reports*
                  Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature, not of the opinion of scientists.

                  And no, It’s *not* 97% of scientists agree: climate change is not false, anthropogenic, irreversible and incredibly dangerous, it’s 97% of *climate science papers* agree on anthropogenic climate change. There’s a big difference.

                  It means 97% of _all_ the papers written by experts in the subject, and had these peer reviewed and published in long standing well recognized scientific journals of note; (and understand what that implies); agree on anthropogenic climate change and that it explains the fact of global warming (earth surface temperature, heat in the oceans).

                  The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

                  Sources:
                  a) Oreskes 2004 “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
                  b) Doran and Zimmerman 2009 “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
                  c) Anderegg tal 2010 “Expert credibility in climate change”
                  d) Cook et al 2013 “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

                  *B) Scientific Opinion of scientific _organizations_*
                  No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these 5 points;

                  1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
                  2. Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities,
                  3. Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale,
                  4. The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time,
                  5. The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

                  Source: Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

                  *C) Scientific Opinion of climate change scientists*
                  This was obtained via the sources below. 98.4% endorsed the consensus. Another survey showed over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. However, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

                  Sources:
                  Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (Cook et al., 2013)
                  The scientific consensus on climate change (Naomi Oreskes, 2004)
                  The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we’re not wrong? (Naomi Oreskes, 2007)
                  Examining the scientific consensus on climate change (Peter Doran & Maggie Zimmerman, 2009)
                  Expert credibility in climate change (William Anderegg, James Prall, Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider, 2010)
                  Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement (Ding et al., 2011)
                  Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA (McCright et al., 2013)

                  Nobody said it is proof or confirmation or truth. It’s you that is beating up your straw man and trying to hide your mistakes.

                  98% of Scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is not false.
                  97% of Scientific papers states that anthropogenic climate change is not false.
                  100% of scientific orgs/institutes/bodies of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion not dissenting from anthropogenic climate change.
                  50% of the general public think that climate scientists have not reached consensus.

                  Where in the above do you see anything that says anthropogenic climate change is 100 %?

                  The first (98%) and last (100%) are scientific opinions. The 97% is consensus. Do not confuse consensus with opinion. That can be different, but in the case for climate change, they are basically the same.

                  The 50% includes you, and your opinion is wrong.

                  I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                  What now?

                    • Thanks for conceding with your insult.

                      Had you thought before you replied, you could have come up with a cogent post.

                    • You copy and pasted that already…you really have to keep better track of your stupid repetitive posts.

                    • Now you want the conversation to be as meaningless as possible, to hide your vacuum of knowledge, to conceal your intellectual incapacity. You just gave away your exist strategy, your plan to admit how your reasoning failed.

                      You, the Climate change denier pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                    • It’s not.
                      There is no such thing as scientific proof. We don’t prove or disprove anything in science.

                      Your claim that some “scientific proof” exists/ that ACC is proven is your crank theory. Thank you for providing that as evidence that you love your crank theories.

                      Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      Tell me more about your greed, about your fear that government regulations of ACC will impact your lifestyle. Tell me about your desire for a Laissez-Faire economy.

                      Remember, climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love, beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                    • Anthropogenic climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total Laissez-Faire Capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
                      Anthropogenic climate science denial rests on a strong deep seated belief in crank theory ideology.

                      Thank you for demonstrating that.

            • The science is not up for debate. — actually it is … scientists can’t prove man made CO2 vs climate change causality…just like scientists can’t prove evolution. They are both theories

              You are correct. There is no such thing as scientific proof. We don’t prove or disprove anything in science.
              http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b11

              Both Evolution and ACC is a scientific theory. Don’t confuse the English word theory meaning conjecture, guess, idea, hypothesis, premise, assertion, wishful thinking, etc with a scientific theory.
              A Scientific theory is well defined:
              A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

              http://undsci.berkeley.edu/faqs.php

              This is how we know that ACC is not false:
              http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              You see, in science we make all our information available to the public for free.
              What reason (besides your greed and love for crank theories) do you have now to still deny ACC?

              One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings. What credentials (qualifications, publications, citations) do you have in climate change sciecne to meaningful challenge the findings of ACC?

              • authors used a statistical operation to generate the graph that does not yield a simple average of the proxy data but emphasizes any data with a hockey stick shape, placing up to 390 times more weight on some data than others.

                From a 2007 IPCC report “there are far from sufficient data to make any meaningful estimates of global medieval warmth,”

                From another IPCC report in 1995 “data prior to 1400 are too sparse to allow the reliable estimation of global mean temperature”

                A 2013 IPCC report states that challenges persist in reconstructing temperatures before the time of the instrumental record “due to limitations of spatial sampling, uncertainties in individual proxy records and challenges associated with the statistical methods used to calibrate and integrate multi-proxy information.”

                A 2011 paper in the Annals of Applied Statistics found that “the most comprehensive publicly available database” of “proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature.”

                “[T]he raw data are generally subjected to some form of statistical manipulation, through which only part of the original climate information can be retrieved (typically less than 50%).”

                As statisticians we can only be skeptical of such improvisation, especially since the instrumental calibration period contains very few independent degrees of freedom. Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable. …Annals of Applied Statistics, May 12, 2011.

                MBH99 [Mann Bradley, Hughes, 1999] acknowledged that the bristlecone series are flawed and need an adjustment to remove the CO2 fertilization effect. But they only applied the correction to the pre-1400 portion of the series. When we apply the correction to the full series length the hockey stick shape disappears regardless of how many PCs [principal components] are retained.” Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Group, Conference on “Managing Climate Change—Practicalities and Realities in a Post-Kyoto Future,” Canberra Australia, April 4, 2005.

                Emails released (Snowden style) from the CRU

                “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike [Mann] appears to … and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene [11,000 years ago to present] that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.”[133]

                writing, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.”

                “In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

                “planning to have the editor of a scientific journal “ousted” if he exhibits skepticism of global warming.”

                instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.

                “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate.” One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, overturned mainstream climate science thinking by declaring even slight changes in solar output have a considerable impact on climate. Kopp conceded, “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined.”

                The full report by Dr. Tony Phillips is available from the National Academies Press. The news story reveals NASA’s upper management was barred from stopping climate activist, James Hansen, head of NASA’s research on climate, from promoting a political agenda. The NASA climate retreat signals that a paradigm shift is now in full swing and the discredited claims of man-made global warming alarmists are being tossed aside at the highest levels of government.

                SO YES THE SCIENCE IS UP FOR DEBATE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS TAINTED BY POTENTIAL POLITICAL BIAS…

                QUICK TELL ME ALL THIS IS CONSPIRACY THEORY AND GOVERNMENT WOULDN’T LIE TO US (AND NSA DIDN’T SPY ON AMERICANS…THERE WERE WMD IN IRAQ…..)

                • So, you have not given me any reason why your reject the evidence for ACC.
                  I specifically asked you for a reason (besides your greed and love for crank theories) do you have now to still deny ACC?

                  The best you could do it copy/paste some denier website information. You could not even make up your own arguments.

                  I’m not interested in your canards. You present me with a conundrum: ignore your pseudoscientific claims and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position.
                  This is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals via attempts of falsifying the evidence.

                  You went and quote minded IPCC, the very body that agrees with ACC. Gee man, you’re not very smart.

                  Then you offered an appeal to authority. You cited some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You never pointed to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.

                  You’re not the first to try to trump science with your own uninformed “gut feeling”. The name for this fallacious thinking is “arguing from personal incredulity”. Look it up. It’s a way for people with no understanding of a subject to share their ignorance around.

                  And as I commented before the same ignorant attitude can be applied even more strongly to the idea that 10ppm of ozone in the stratosphere is blocking 97-99% of incoming UV. Do you have a problem with that BTW? Any personal incredulity there? Then there’s the fact that this tiny smidgen of CO2 is essential to the maintenance all life on the planet. No personal incredulity problem there? The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by 40% over the last 150 years. Ice core data show that until that time it had been pretty stable at around 200-250ppm for at least 800,000 years. Now it’s at 400ppm. We know the extra CO2 is related to human activity carbon because:

                  a) there has been a commensurate drop in the concentration of O2 as CO2 has risen. This shows that the CO2 is from oxidation of carbon. C + O2 -> CO2. Have a look: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00175.x/pdf

                  b) then there’s the changing ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes (13C/12C; 18O/16O) in the atmosphere over the last 200 years. Read this: http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
                  I don’t know what peer reviewed research backs up your odd claims that ACC is false. You didn’t say. Anyway, show me this research you think backs up your claim and we’ll find out where you went wrong.

                  • I didn’t say it was false…I said it was it is unproven. If it was proven all the models wouldn’t consistently be horribly wrong…but keep listening to you dear leader…he is pleased with your obedience.

                    • So, you have not given me any reason why your reject the evidence for ACC. I specifically asked you for a reason (besides your greed and love for crank theories) do you have now to still deny ACC?
                      ————————–

                      What’s the difference between false and unproven?
                      Where is this study that says ACC is not false, but is unproven?

                      Bejesus man, we don’t prove anything is science. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b11

                      What is wrong with you?

                    • If you remotely understood the principles of uncertainty that would be interesting. Take some basic probability and statistics .

                    • So, you could not defend your crank theory that says ACC is not false, but is unproven.

                      Great, you agree then:
                      There is a very strong correlation between climate change denial and a belief in conspiracy ideology and a belied in complete laissez-fair capitalism.

                      Fantastic. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.

                      I don’t understand your request.
                      Remember, I’m stupid. I was the dumbest in my class. I’ve always been open about that.
                      However, my stupidly is no excuse for your ignorance and denialism; your greed and belief in crank theory.

                      One does not need credentials in a field of study to accept its basic findings. You, however, need credentials in that field of study to meaningful challenge those findings.

                      I see no point debating the ACC science with you or taking your word for it or studying your material (doing homework). You’re not qualified. Also, as you can tell, teacher, I’m able to educate myself on any subject of my chosing.
                      Principles of uncertainty? That’s from quantum mechanics, not climate science – stop demonstrating your crank theories.

                      Incidentally, I told you before “use Google, it is so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish and unintelligent statements”. You chose not to, yet ask me to educate you, but you call me stupid! I’ll be in real trouble if you really though I was stupid!

                      Absolutely logical, the logic is so obvious it dissappeared for you!

                      At least now you know why you’re in denial. It’s about your greed and love of crank theory.

                    • What you pontificate is a laughable parody of rationality and doesn’t count at all in a reality.

                      Ironically, you are providing more crank theories. As if we don’t already know your love of it!

                      When climate deniers cannot reject the facts, they smear and sneer. It is a a crank theory ploy and an admission of their failure of reasoning.

                      If the you (a self-confessed climate change denier) did not have double standards, you would have no standards at all. How greedy Lessez-Faire Capitalist of you!

                    • Dear Troll,
                      Your programmers need to write some new responses. The same four have gotten tedious and obvious.

                    • “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

                    • PRINCETON, NJ (January 3, 2011)—S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now.”

                    • Am I to take your word, a guess, the word of an anonymous Dusgus user, that your above claims are true? Where did you get that………..Belay that, I’m not that interested. You don’t explain anything, refuse to search for your answers in reality. I don’t need to counter your un-evidenced claims considering you provided no source either.

                    • You did not answer my question. I’m not interested in your canards, and I told you why not.
                      Tell me why you fear ACC being true? Why do you reject ACC?

                    • You’re so greedy. It’s all about you, hey?
                      Why should I answer if you don’t answer me?
                      Why should I answer if you don’t understand science?
                      Why should I answer if you deny the science?
                      Why should I answer if you love crank theory?
                      Why should I answer if you are so greedy?

                    • Given I never proposed a theory it would hard to dispel it. You know nothing of my background therefore you have no basis to judge understanding. You are simply plagued by your religious fanaticism. Again, why are all the models wrong? If it is settled science why have prophets predictions bomber the past twenty years been demonstrated false? Do my simple questions create that must fear and doubt in your mind? Late at night, while you bask in your massive energy consumption, do you feel guilty?

                    • I don’t know why they’re wrong. But the scientists say ACC is real and I believe them, are you satisfied now?

            • Let me think about that…………. got it,………….. a date with Catherine Many Stuart, the late 80s version…………. can you arrange that?

              Afterwards I’ll sit back while you make your argument. 🙂

              • No need for any argument. You did well. You answered my question thoroughly. Thank you.

                You can’t convince a climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.

                Numerous scientific studies show that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change. They also show that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.

                You supported that conclusion. You support the fiding that climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted and beget conspiracy/crank theories.

                Thanks for your attention. You are dismissed. I have no further use for you.

                  • You’re in denial, so you reject facts. Why would I want to converse with you?
                    Denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

                    • So you’re not done with me then. And I never said I was a climate change denier, the fact that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can be demonstrably shown to trap heat in a closed system is settled science. However, the Earth is not a closed system, meaning that the debate is over the feedbacks which I’ll assume that you know about.

                      But first, a couple of questions. Do you agree that human beings respond to incentive? And do you agree that there is a positive correlation between advocacy of anthropogenic climate change and belief in socialist ideology?

                    • I thought that I was done with you. Naturally, however, you are begging me for help, asking nicely. I’m responding in kind.

                      You are right, you never wrote that you’re a climate denier. Your answer to my question was enough to infer your deep seated denial. That why I asked it. I dont quite know why you felt the need to explain your climate denial to me. I honestly don’t care. You’re in denial, science explain why you’re in denial – your greed and conspiracy theory attraction. Only you can get yourself out of it. I can’t do it for you. I can help you, but it would be hard work, extremely hard work in your case given that you don’t even want to admit to being in denial.

                      “Do you agree that human beings respond to incentive?”
                      Depends. What do you mean by respond? What are included in your incentives?
                      Do I like free money? No, not always. I like to be paid fairly for work.

                      “And do you agree that there is a positive correlation between advocacy of anthropogenic climate change and belief in socialist ideology?”
                      My default reply to any questions that I don’t know the answer to is: doubt. But I’m open to be convinced. Do you have some scientific reseach on this?
                      Incidentally, there are people from the USA (capitalist/socialist), Russia (communist/socialist), Norway (democratic socialist) that advocate the acceptance of all any any science (incl ACC). Why do you ask?

                    • “Naturally, however, you are begging me for help, asking nicely.”

                      I’m not begging for help, I’m just seeking entertainment, but you are helping with that so I guess a ‘thank you’ is in order.

                      “Depends. What do you mean by respond? What are included in your incentives?

                      Depends on what the definition of “by” is.

                      “I’m not aware of any 100% socialist country. Do you know of any or how that will work?”

                      Depends on how many licks it actually takes to get to the center of a tootsie-pop, you don’t happen to know do you?

                      “Don’t you like those people or professions?”

                      Depends on what day of the week it is, excluding any day that falls on the 13th of course, for obvious reasons.

                    • So, your questions back fired on you.
                      You don’t want help to get you out of denial? Are you still denying being in denial?

                      Write me wgen you are willing to admit it and want to get help for your condition.

  2. Oh Lord now they are blaming climate change on Trump this really makes the left so believable, they sound like a bunch of little kids who can’t come up with anything to deter him. The Climate changing has been around for a long time centuries eons, and no man has been able to control it even with all our technology. Grow UP!

  3. This is part payment for being an over tolerant society where anything is accepted and everything is fair game.
    People like Tom Burke, the former head of Friends of the Earth UK use to be placed behind walls and treated with proper medications. Now, we have to put up with their nonsense while they still take medications but run around saying whatever. The difference between then and now is that they make good money at selling shuck and jive.

  4. I’m 62. When I was a kid my 4th grade teacher taught us about Chicken Little and “The sky is falling!, The sky is falling!” She also taught us that the sea level was rising! She sounded just like Chicken Little! Years later other Chicken Littles said that entering a new ice age. That subject go tired so new Chicken Littles fretted about our ruination due to acid rain. That got old and so the Chicken Littles began cried about ozone hole. That got old too, and so they began to talk about global warming. That got worn out so they renamed it climate change. So it is, the “Chicken Little Syndrome” is still with us! They really stretch to “prove” their point. For example, lately they blame the inundation of certain Pacific Island nations on sea level rise, due of course to man-made global warming. But they don’t admit that all Pacific Islands get smaller and smaller with erosion until they return to the sea. Its called erosion! Its not sea level rising, it is island shrinking. Don’t get trapped by the Chicken Little Syndrome. Those who would try to lead you into this type of brain malady only want your money and power over you.

      • I know you want to answer:

        Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

        Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

      • I know you want to answer:

        Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

        Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

                    • Ma’am, you’ll have to find someone else to try to force to give a ****. I’m largely unaffected by lunatics’ delusions, at least until their delusions start reducing my quality of life.

                    • Did you read this: I don’t contend that you’re wrong because you disagree with me, pathetic gas bag; you are wrong because your position is incorrect, erroneous, and without merit. I don’t contend that you are intellectually inept and dishonest because you dispute with me; you have demonstrated nothing but intellectual ineptitude and willful ignorance, and are simply being laid down in the bed you made. It’s nice that you admire me and envy my vocabulary, but what you should admire strive toward is a worldview based upon critical thinking, sound reason, and conclusions derived from demonstrable evidence and sound logic. I’m sure you are bored. There was no in-flight cartoon and or talking animals to captivated your infantile mind.

                    • It’s ok, denier. You’re safe here. You don’t have to accept what the courts say http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost.
                      Nor do you have to accept that anthropogenic climate change is true because the evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
                      As yet….

                      According to the Kübler-Ross model people go through stages when in grief, in accepting reality. You’re in stage 1 denial. You have learnt to lie to yourself about it. Well done! Denial is an immature developmental defense to make yourself believe crank theories for your own selfish greedy benefit. It’s your coping mechanism. You have to understand your denial and how it’s different to your lack of knowledge. I have calmly repeated the facts and it does not harm me when you still remain in denial. You need to talk about ACC and why you are in denial of it and why you deny legal court verdicts. I’m here for you, talk to me, get angry. That way you can move to stage two of your journey in accepting scientific and legal findings. Denial means avoiding the factual realities because they are simply too painful to behold for you. But you need to have hope and understand the difference to denial. Hope means moving forward based on a clear grasp of factual realities, it’s a commodity most people feel is a help, not a hindrance, and one that shouldn’t be abandoned. Without the willingness to own one’s own actions, you cannot change for the better, you can’t get out of denial.
                      But some people can’t get out of denial due to the boogeymen: narcissism and psychopathism. Due to that, you can’t convince a denier of anything because your denial is not based on evidence but on a deep seated need to deny. I think that’s you, although I hope not. Only you would know.

                      I typed the below in hope that you would understand it if I repeat the facts of this reality and how it’s different to your manufactured pseudo reality. You also need to talk to others that are not in denial of reality.

                      Correction to your post content:
                      It’s argument from, not argument to. Similar, it’s appeal to, not appeal from.

                      At least try to formulate your crank theory properly. That way people can take you more seriously.

                      How do you think that will go down with the judge, any judge, when you are denial of a verdict? You probably never pay your traffic fines or utility bills – because it’s an argument to authority. Bejesus man.

                      In that case, to use your askew reasoning: you made a bad argument to pseudo science. But you have to admit even you should be shocked by your argument to crank theory on a scientific consensus. Or was that an argument from?

                      Your first response to the court case link was a massive red herring. Your second response was vapid of an answer and contained an appeal to personal incredulity and emotion. Your third is a statement of denial and reasoning failure. Welcome to your museum of mistakes.

                      Remember, I made no argument.
                      I offered you the courts decisions. That’s the law, it is binding. There is no argument over that, denier. And the evidence for ACC makes ACC not false.

                      Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?

                      Be honest now:
                      Why are you in denial of ACC? It can’t be the science because the courts found that the deniers had no science, only lies. There is no scientific body of national or international standing that denies ACC. None. Are you seriously trying to claim that the smartest people in the world are all wrong, but that you, an anonymous Disgus user with no credentials in climate change science, is right? But you fail to tell me how you know that, you fail to show me your work. That’s not smart at all, denier. It’s a kindergarten cry.

                      What do your have to lose if ACC is true? What do you fear about the economical and political impact on your lifestyle if ACC is true for you?

                      We have done scientific research on ACC deniers and we know that answer. Is about your greed and love of crank theory. Do you want this research citation?

                      Please answer each question. If you fail to answer then this discussion is over. I then suggest you seek professional, expensive help, because I can’t help someone that willingly want all life on earth to go extinct.

                    • I have not denied being completely apathetic about your delusions and I stand by my non-position!

              • Why are they stupid questions? This a case of your crank theory: you accept assertion without question and expect others to do the same.

                If they are stupid questions, why not answer no then? What are you scared of? Because you know it’s not what the scientific research found. They found a yes answer to both questions.

                Do you agree that there is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change?

                Do you agree that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?

              • Well as many of you know, I do date several supermodels. Yesterday, at the Golden Corral, one of them made a snide comment about the Rambler. I pointed out to him that it is a classic, but still I think it may be time to upgrade. After all
                I am quite wealthy. Have I told you that?

                • Why yes, yes you have told me that and I’m infinitely happy for you because, particularly in a capitalist society, wealth is synonymous with freedom and mobility!

                  Regarding the car? It seems to me you’re dealing with someone who suffers from the Snotty/UppityLittleBastard Syndrome. Have you considered going with a nicely restored Javelin? They’re, essentially, Ramblers but, as we used to say in high school about such things, really cock!

                  Really, a car called “Javelin?'” How can you lose?! :o)

    • Buck is a nickname I picked up in the military because of partial Native American Heritage. (Indian Buck) After several fistfights, I simply accepted it.
      Did you post as “Gadfly the cross eyed bear”

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Western Hudson Bay polar bears: still some out on the sea ice, some causing trouble

As of Monday (19 July), more polar bears had come ashore near Churchill and on the shores of Wakusp National Park but some are...

Claim: Covid-19 Spread by Farting in a Confined Space

Fart of death? British Politicians are allegedly concerned about a case of Covid-19 transmission apparently caused by someone passing wind in an adjacent toilet...

Veteran Swiss Meteorologist Calls Germany’s Natural Disaster Protection “A Failed State”

It’s not the first time the seasoned meteorologist has railed against Germany’s ineptitude when it comes to issuing storm warnings. In 2018, he criticized German...