Trump railed against the “totalitarian tactics” of the Environmental Protection Agency. He pledged to dismantle the EPA entirely in an April town hall, although he referred to it at the time as the “Department of Environmental” and “DEP.” He assailed Hillary Clinton for saying in March that fracking projects would be unlikely to pass muster under her environmental regime.
“Hillary’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation,” Trump said.
He railed against “draconian climate rules” and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in the past…”
#
Flashback January 14, 2016 – Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on dismantling UN/EPA climate agenda:
Morano: “President Obama laid out his final vision in the State of the Union address. Republicans need to get their act together quickly in order to prevent Obama’s climate legacy from being cemented.
Morano: “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;
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.
End Morano excerpt.
162 Responses
Was that Trump in the bear suit behind Marc at the Paris Cimate Hustle premier?
Trump is our man to shut down environmental extremists.
You said it, Clinton is proper corrupt, took millions in bribes through her foundation, Trump generates jobs and money, Clinton does not
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?
You sounds like Bill Nye, the answer to either is irrelevant.
“Do you agree it CO2 has increased”
“Do you agree it has got warmer”
That is Nye’s climate change argument, and the answer to either tells us nothing.
Pseudo argument, it’s a ploy used by lawyers in court to sway a jury
So, you refuse to answer it. And your best reason what because you want the answers to be irrelevant.
Well, my dear denier. We have been studying you. And we found:
An inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change, and a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
Let me dumb it down for you:
We know that people like you (deniers) are greedy and are in love with crank theories. That is why you reject settled science.
Look it up, don’t take my word for it.
I refuse to answer what? You Bill Nye argument, why not ask me about the moon landing, it’s about as relevant to “man made climate change” as your question.
I answered your m0ronic post. Now you show your colour and go full r3tard with “deniers” you religious m0r0n.
You obviously dont know anything about anything otherwise you’d not be A saying “denier” and B not asking me mutton head questions about conspiracy theory, who brings conspiracy theory to a science fight? You m0ron. Off you go chicken little
Ok, I hope that you rant and you insults makes you feel better.
Can you now answer my 2 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?
————————
Let me deal with your red herring as well, given that I have some time to waste.
The Bill Nye is your argument, I never offered it. It’s your straw man, stop beating it up.
The moon landing is relevant to your cliamte change denial, since you probably think that was a hoax too!
You did not answer my questions. You responded to them with an assertion fallacy – claiming they are irrelevant without stating why.
Your last paragraph is merely conceding give that you revert to insults.
If you refuse to answer my questions, then I’ll conclude that the science was right about you:
This is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change, and a positive correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
Meaning:
Climate change deniers, such as you, pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love and beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Agree? No response from you means that you agree. If you disagree, then tell em what you have to lose if ACC is true, tell me why you fear ACC being true?
“Let me deal with your red herring as well, given that I have some time to waste.
The Bill Nye is your argument, I never offered it. It’s your straw man, stop beating it up.”
>>>False paraphrase, I used Nye argument as analogy, your argument was m0r0nic “conspiracy theory) when the question is scientific. You think the answer to either question matter concerning climate science, the answers add no value to the debate.
“The moon landing is relevant to your cliamte change denial, since you probably think that was a hoax too!”
>>>More “denial”. Your m0r0nic claim of what I think, can’t spell climate. I never used the word Hoax, you are talking about conspiracy theory not me, irony
“You did not answer my questions. You responded to them with an assertion fallacy – claiming they are irrelevant without stating why.”
>>>Because your question was not related to climate science, but conspiracy theory and as such were m0ronic
“Your last paragraph is merely conceding given that you revert to insults. If you refuse to answer my questions, then I’ll conclude that the science was right about you:”
>>>No, I am amused by your idiotic questions, you might as well ask me is butter really made from martians for all the relevance it has to climate science
This is an inverse correlation between espousal of free markets and belief in the scientific consensus on climate change, and a positive
correlation between climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology.
>>>Because you have no idea about climate science, scientific method or the published science, you digress into this useless fruitless line of debate, and I am not interested in it, conspiracy theory of talk of conspiracy theory is useless.
Meaning:Climate change deniers, such as you, pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire
Capitalism, and are attracted, love and beget conspiracy/crank theories.
>>> The fact you keep talking about nonsense like this shows you are not actually debating, you are here to force your crazy ideas onto other people and label them, I wont play ball and it annoys you.
Agree?
No response from you means that you agree. If you disagree, then tell
me what you have to lose if ACC is true, tell me why you fear ACC being
true?
>>>> Actually nothing I do means anything relative to you, yet you think it does, you may be “intelligent” in your little pool, but today you have met a thinker, a philosopher, a logical person. You are inferior and your “rationale” is just that, you are trapped within the confines of your own thinking, and cant see outside.
Now, if you read the article or any of my posts, the issues at hand are AGW and CAGW, and the validity of those theories and nothing you have said at all works toward that end.
Or in short, you are a m0r0n. No logical thinker uses “denier”, it has religious connotations and labels are of ideologues and politics. Another is the abuse of meaning of words “climate change” is natural, yet your “cause” has abused that meaning into something else.
Lastly, you deny scientific debate and use terms like conspiracy theory hoax and deniers. B A H A H A H AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
You did not answer any of my 2 questions. You did not tell me why you fear ACC either.
You did admit to your Bill Nye fallacious straw man. Good.
You made more atrocious spelling mistakes. Some of your grammar are illegible; bad structure. I can’t be bothered to point them out.
You offered two crank (conspiracy) theories – AGW and CAGW. Did not take you that long to offer them, hey. Right after you offered your moon landing hoax rubbish and refusal to answer my two basic questions. You are demonstrating your correlation between climate denial and love of crank theories.
ACC is the scientific theory. It explains the scientific fact of a warming earth, CO2 rise, etc. Your AGW and CAGW are your crank theories, they don’t exist in science or reality.
That’s why it’s not worth it to discuss the science with it. You’re not qualified. You have not credentials in climate change science. And you know even understand the very thing that you deny exists. You’re in denial. Thanks for that piece of compelling evidence.
Philosopher? Oh, another philosorcerer. Welcome to your museum of mistakes. Philosorcery belongs to antiquity. It’s rubbish and dying. Good. The only thing philosorcerers agree on is that they disagree. What nonsense. You start with conclusions and try to justify it with un-falsifyable assertions. How absurd. Philosorcery has not invented or discovered anything. The only thing philosorcery do is reflect on other fields of study.
Tell my what you are so scared of ACC? Why can’t it be true for you?
Do you fear the tax? No.
You fear the political and economical implications on your life style, correct?
You want unlimited growth from limited resources, yes?
And any regulation (government intervention) of that should be avoided at all cost, yes?
I don’t want to discuss the science with you. You’re too predictable. You will play your canards, present your crank theories, show how little you know about science and even less about its method. Then you’ll try to make it a political issue.
One does not require credentials in a field of science to accept its findings. You do need credentials in a field of science to meaningful challenge its findings. Do you have credentials in climate science? No. So why do l should I discuss a subject with you that you don’t know anything about?
My two questions are relevant to your beliefs. I want the actual reason why you are in denial of science, why you invented your own pseudo reality, why you fear the truth of ACC. If you don’t know the reason, then I want to share it with you. I want to help you.
We have done some research on you, the anthropgenic climate change deniers, and we now know why you suspend your disbelief in reality. It’s because of your greed and your love of crank theory. We know that some of you have an extremely deep seated need to deny and will never get out of denial. Are you that type, or do you want a cognitive estrangement to knock down your suspension of disbelief in reality?
Talk to me son. I’m here to listen, to help you.
Answer my questions. Admit to your denial. Getting angry about it is good. It meams you want to get out of denial.
Btw, your insults don’t work on me. I know you offer then because your reasoning failed you. Please continue to underscore that point for me.
You completely forgot to answer this post:
You did not answer any of my 2 questions. You did not tell me why you fear ACC either.
My two questions was a yes / no answer. You could not even do that. You have a deep seated need to deny, that’s what you’re demonstrating.
You did admit to your Bill Nye fallacious straw man. Good.
You made more atrocious spelling mistakes. Some of your grammar is illegible; bad punctuation and structure. I can’t be bothered to point them out.
You offered two crank (conspiracy) theories – AGW and CAGW. Did not take you that long to offer them, hey. Right after you offered your moon landing hoax rubbish, refusal to answer my two basic questions and your Bill Nye crank theory. You are demonstrating your correlation between climate denial and love of crank theories. Roll eyes.
ACC is the scientific theory. It explains the scientific fact of a warming earth, CO2 rise, etc. Your AGW and CAGW are your crank theories, they don’t exist in science or reality.
That’s why it’s not worth it to discuss the science with it. You’re not qualified. You have not credentials in climate change science. And you know even understand the very thing that you deny exists. You’re in denial. Thanks for that piece of compelling evidence.
Philosopher? Oh, another philosorcerer. Welcome to your museum of mistakes. Philosorcery belongs to antiquity. It’s rubbish and dying. Good. The only thing philosorcerers agree on is that they disagree. What nonsense. You start with conclusions and try to justify it with un-falsifyable assertions. How absurd. Philosorcery has not invented or discovered anything. The only thing philosorcery do is reflect on other fields of study.
Tell my what you are so scared of ACC? Why can’t it be true for you?
Do you fear the tax? No.
You fear the political and economical implications on your life style, correct?
You want unlimited growth from limited resources, yes?
And any regulation (government intervention) of that should be avoided at all cost, yes?
I don’t want to discuss the science with you. You’re too predictable. You will play your canards, present your crank theories, show how little you know about science and even less about its method. Then you’ll try to make it a political issue.
One does not require credentials in a field of science to accept its findings. You do need credentials in a field of science to meaningful challenge its findings. Do you have credentials in climate science? No. So why do l should I discuss a subject with you that you don’t know anything about?
My two questions are relevant to your beliefs. I want the actual reason why you are in denial of science, why you invented your own pseudo reality, why you fear the truth of ACC. If you don’t know the reason, then I want to share it with you. I want to help you.
We have done some research on you, the anthropogenic climate change deniers, and we now know why you suspend your disbelief in reality. It’s because of your greed and your love of crank theory. We know that some of you have an extremely deep seated need to deny and will never get out of denial. Are you that type, or do you want a cognitive estrangement to knock down your suspension of disbelief in reality?
Talk to me son. I’m here to listen, to help you.
Answer my questions. Admit to your denial. Getting angry about it is good. It means you want to get out of denial.
Btw, your insults don’t work on me. I know you offer then because your reasoning failed you. Please continue to underscore that point for me.
No need, this did it: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
“In an application filed this month in County Clare, Ireland, the Trump International Golf Links and Hotel cites the threat of global warming in seeking a permit to build a nearly two-mile-long stone wall between it and the Atlantic Ocean. The beach in front of the 18th green is disappearing at a rate of about a yard each year.”
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/trump-cares-about-climate-change-when-it-affects-his-golf-course
From erosion not climate change. Trump is smart and using the non climate change to his advantage
Ah, so you think he’s just lying then.
Yes in a way to get around the same people who want nothing done to stop erosion.
So lying is OK then…. got it.
Playing the game fool, you would do the same if you were smart
he never lied apparently, he’s one of those deluded moralists who dont judge themselves by the ethics they apply to everyone else
Like global warmunists, they scream at exxon then fly half way across the country, or drive, go home use fossil fuels and enjoy a modern fossil fuel life.
This “president” represents the “mass” not the individual.
Also, it is the PRIVATE sector that creates JOBS, the government creates more GOVERNMENT…think about that.
You are an enabler…or a shill..$$$$$
you stupid cnt.
Trump creates jobs because he create businesses, he is private sector you stupid cnt.
Trump in case you didn’t know is NOT president, he is still a private citizen.
How fkn stupid are you
Call me a shill, when you cant even figure out something so simple, go vote for rape enabler Hillary then you mor0nic cnt
Oh we are talking present tense…ok, I will make it simple for you. IF this idiot becomes president ALL HE CAN CREATE IS GOVERNMENT JOBS…gads.
Marty, you have problems, really, what is your malfunction?
I am disgusted with Hillary and Trump, equally. So that makes you equally disgusting.
Rape enabler Clinton?
That’s a beauty Marty. How do you come up with these crank theories?
List one crank theory that you don’t believe in, can you?
Consider:
User Marty Gwynne loves his crank theories.
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
Marty refuses to tell me if there is a crank theory that he does not believe in.
Incidentally, scientific research has found a very strong correlation between climate change denialism and a belief on conspiracy (crank theory) ideology.
Marty is providing additional evidence to cement that correlation.
Science also found an inverse correlation between the espousal of free open markets and a belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
That’s about Marty’s greed. About his love of laissez-faire capitalism. The notion that you can’t get unlimited from limited resources and regulation of that should be rejected at all cost. At any cost: Marty’s response is to deny science by substituting his crank theory.
This is not about climate change science or ACC. This is about Marty’s beliefs. That is what needs to be discussed.
Marty has no credentials in climate change science. So why bother talking to him about it when it’s about Marty’s belief in crank theory and greed (laissez-faire economics).
And I’m backed on this by scientific research.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Question his beliefs, don’t debate the science.
More crank theory from you. This time it touches on your greed. We’re naking progress philosorcerer, Marty.
Ah, a logical fallacy.. good show, and a tip o the ol tophat.
User Marty Gwynne loves his crank theories.
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
Marty refuses to tell me if there is a crank theory that he does not believe in.
Incidentally, scientific research has found a very strong correlation between climate change denialism and a belief on conspiracy (crank theory) ideology.
Marty is providing additional evidence to cement that correlation.
Science also found an inverse correlation between the espousal of free open markets and a belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
That’s about Marty’s greed. About his love of laissez-faire capitalism. The notion that you can’t get unlimited from limited resources and regulation of that should be rejected at all cost. At any cost: Marty’s response is to deny science by substituting his crank theory.
This is not about climate change science or ACC. This is about Marty’s beliefs. That is what needs to be discussed.
Marty has no credentials in climate change science. So why bother talking to him about it when it’s about Marty’s belief in crank theory and greed (laissez-faire economics).
And I’m backed on this by scientific research.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Question Marty’s beliefs, don’t debate the science. Question your own beluefs too denier.
planning permission is almost impossible to get for thins like that in county Clare. My mate has his house plans rejected twice purely because the people reviewing seen his house would be nicer than theirs
You think he wrote the application himself?
His company. And the company he keeps.
that’s erosion mor0n not sea level rises, I am from Ireland, EROSION, they used MMCC to get past stupid regulations, you need planning permission to fart in Co Clare
So he’s basically lying on his application.
“he”, the Hotel did, of course yes, not Trump you retard
And , here we are, on the playground…. “..you retard” .
that’s irrelevant, you are wrong, that is relevant
Thanks for conceding! We all know you’re wrong Marty, why do you feel the need to announce it?
say stupid things and get called stupid, stupid
“..called stupid, stupid”
the fact you think Trump personally dealt with that situation is hilarious, it was a m0r0nic comment
And so it is OK for his company to do the lying.
Got it.
Ireland is notoriously corrupt, if you want to play the game, pay up. It’s the real world, as if you never lied you fkn m0r0n lol
“fkn m0r0n lol”
you spent 5 minutes typing that?
they might have also slipped the planning people a few euros too no doubt. Do you know how the world works? I dont think so
Ah, …
So now your argument is that both lying and bribery are ok….
So quote where I said that you false paraphrasing m0ron
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/bravo_trump_echoes_climate_depot8217s_morano_call_to_dismantle_038_defund_unepa_climate_agenda/#comment-2698399692
“they might have also slipped the planning people a few euros too no doubt. Do you know how the world works? I dont think so”
Nowhere in there did I say Bribery and lying is OK.
You illiterate m0r0n, but you believe in man made climate change.you are obviously mentally challenged
I’ll go with what the science says.
“… you believe in man made climate change.you are obviously mentally challenged”
Not someone who is defending a Corp by saying lying and bribery are ok.
Going with what the science say is
We note you haven’t supported any of your claims with references.
Why is that?
You read like your artificial intelligence…you analyze and belittle. I bet you graduated very low in your class. Out of 250 (+ or -) you were 246 maybe. You have a difficult time “relating” to people if human. IF.
Both deb and Johnny make the same basic orthography eror; perhaps they are clonebots….
Now look who’s at personal attacks after whinging about same.
You are inconsistent, like lumpy porridge
Pointing out how two denialists can’take spell or follow basic grammar is not equal to your string of namecalling. So we can add using logical fallacies to your list.
OK “denialists” is enough, you’ve gone full retard.
Bye.
You see, I NEVER liked the subject of english. As a child I could hardly keep my eyes open. BORING. To this day, I could care less. But, since you perform so well, would you like a cracker? Who gives a F*ck! Really?!
I started to read at 3, I have always been a subject oriented reader. I have read hundreds of books in my life. I like subjects not how to speak to anal retentive, snobs.
Your comment is also, boring. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Thank you for your continuing examples…
Jebus the few remaining right wing predatory capitalist nutters are showing just how unhinged they are. Think about it. Every single credible science institution in the World vs. the far right wing political party’s conspiracy tales.
“Evidence” is one of those Wingnut Kryptonite words, which is banned from all discussions within their ranks because it stinks up their conspiracy BS.
You may wish to consider this capitalist solution to predation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoMpbL_Fsig
Very interesting Bart and I wasn’t aware of that.
Howerver, that could be extremely difficult to implement, given the state of the right wing in the U.S currently IMO. However, we desperately need to get on with talking about solutions rather than denying it. Specifically the right wing of the U.S. is desperately trying to prevent any and all such mitigation from being taken.
But, that may be more to my point about predatory capitalism. We must come to agreement first, that capitalism needs controls. We must correct the notion of “free” markets will solve all problems which the right wing has sold to the teabillies of their base.
People must recognize businesses need to have sensible boundaries or they will quickly go to the lowest common denominator. Nearly all Americans are good with Capitalism as long as there are controls. Actually, what is happening now is a great deal of industry privatizes the profit and socializes the cost. Such as the case with the fossil fuel industry, just as it was with big tobacco and asbestos industry.
The right wing think tanks and blogs and deniers don’t want to regulate things like waste products from tobacco, the burning of fossil fuels and asbestos. They will happily poison anyone and anything if it makes their share price go up a point in the next fiscal quarter. What they want to do is to continue to pass all those external costs on to the backs of the rest of us and keep the public misinformed about the dangers of their by-products.
Advocates of capitalism understand that it cannot account for waste by-products. However, the “path of least resistance” is to allow the 0.01% ruling class to continue doing whatever they want, while also giving them a tax cut.
What is it that the Crash of ʼ08, Global Warming, and Iraqistan and the rest of the sick, criminal bloodbaths America has created have in common? What is the single, indisputable force behind the perpetration of these horrors? It is not poor people, not bogus science, not bad religions, and not mysterious and unfathomable forces beyond human control.
It is Predatory Capitalism. And it must be eradicated and replaced by a system that nurtures, nourishes, and supports humanity and all life.
These companies not only produced false and/or misleading information for public consumption, they also made sure (through their lobbyists) that lawmakers and politicians were given the same misinformation.
Couple all that with the U.S. taxpayer has spent trillions on war for oil, and you have a government controlled by predatory corporations, that is just paying “we the people” lip service.
/rant off 🙂
Everything is difficult to implement, unless you can negotiate it. The system you want to replace what you hate with, is what you hate with better adherence to its first principles.
I recommend learning from the great persuaders of the world, people like Denyin’ Donald Trump, the King of Climate Walls. Understand what will gain buy-in from your audience, and then call whatever it is you intend to do by that name, no matter how little the one resembles the other.
Sadly, I observe you have scruples, integrity and honesty.
True, something that is going to require a global response is going to be difficult to implement and negotiate.
If every marketeer was an honest broker, and there was no such thing as greed, there would possibly be no need for controls, sadly that is not the case.
🙂
Perhaps, instead of personal attacks, you could try bringing your best resources forward in support of J.J.’s assertions.
Ah Amnesia, you made bogus assertions about what I said and used dishonest paraphrases.
It went downhill from that moment but you cant accept responsibility for your own words, ever since your argument was picked apart like a lego class action suit, there has been an inherent whiny element in everything you’ve posted thereafter.
If I took your arguments seriously, which I did initially, and you also make a coherent argument, it would not have resolved to the present mockery, that’s the key, your arguments are flaccid, and yet you just keep going.
Just accept you were originally wrong, and end this slaughter baaahahahahahaha
Point 1. Trump did not get involved in the planning permission application
Point 2 The planning application has nothing to do with whether Trump believes in “man made climate change” or not.
You implied and outright stated both. You were wrong and not being able to accept you were wrong is why you have a broken bottle in your behind.
And what I cited came from sources citing the appkication.
He’s a little bit sensitive Deb. Too sensitive, as if someone on the internet calling him a m0r0n matters in the grand scheme of things.
When people lose a debate they often pick at things like this because they haven’t a leg to stand on, so they try take the moral high ground, but the only high ground that matters is being accurate on what you say regarding the topic
Deb,
What are you in denial of ACC?
Deb, what do you think of this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
you are hilarious. Keep going, you are a great advertisement for family planning
Thank you for showing us your level of expertise in this discussion.
Attempts at playground taunting and ….
Oh stop you moany clown, it doesn’t matter, it’s an online comments section not a classroom.
If you dont like it dont log in. Otherwise being an adult, if you are an adult, you can choose to ignore the insults.
The internet is not a “safe space” 😉
Dont indulge the fool, he has no clue about any science relating to “climate change”
Why are you in denial of ACC?
“I’ll go with what the science says.” Whose science? Ah, the 97%.
IPCC has a series of reports.
If you have something you consider better, show us.
Did you ever read those reports?
Duh data actual data is key, not “reports” you clownfish
Actually, yes. If you can say the same, then point to the data you think proves their conclusions are wrong.
Or do you not understand how those reports came about; methodology, consilience, analysis.
Where in the reports do they point to what I am saying, is wrong?
No info just drivel, back it up you loser baaaahahahahah
Ah… wuhtistic!
“baaaahahahahah”
And still, days later, more attempts at insults than producing an analysis from somewhere besides, ‘it’s OK to lie’.
actually no, you haven’t, on page 224 of the 1990 IPCC reports it shows NASA is lying, and that in 1975 arctic ice was as low as it is today
Go check it out
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screenhunter_1445-jul-30-09-15.gif
And, pray tell us why you need to link to a graphic from data more than a quarter century old?
Data that happens to be cited on a denialist blog….
“1990 IPCC reports ”
Check your calendar
You dont know what the science says you m0r0n lol
Point us to your best sources.
There is data above which destroys your bogus myths
Link?
Nope.
I just pity you now, totally and utterly destroyed, you are too stupid to see how utterly mullered you’ve been.
Yup. “Destroyed” by lies and namecalling. /s
It’s about data not sources m0r0n
Yup. Sources of your data.
Facts
Evidence
Causes
Effects
Scientific Consensus
Vital Signs
Questions (FAQ)
Climate change: How do we know?
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise. Credit: Chumash Maxim/Shutterstock.com
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7
+Facts
Evidence
Causes
Effects
Scientific Consensus
Vital Signs
Questions (FAQ)
Climate change: How do we know?
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
– Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7
+ EXPAND
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8
+ EXPAND
Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
+ EXPAND
Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9
+ EXPAND
The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10
+ EXPAND
Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11
+ EXPAND
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Decreased snow cover
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades..
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Decreased snow cover
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Massive copy paste from the very fraudsters committing the fraud.
NASA are directed to come up with “proof” not find out the truth. Their bogus adjustments to data since 2001 shows this
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-12-07-08-37-47-1024×584-1024×584-1-1024×584.png
Source for your knowledge?
“NASA are directed to come up with “proof” not find out the truth.”
the fact they have altered their data to match the scam is proof enough as in the chart above
Lame trolls always keep repeating “proof?” while never offering substance to their own arguments. Cos it is easier to throw stones than deflect them
“Lame trolls” isn’t actually supporting your claim.
“Lame trolls always keep repeating “proof?””?
Oh Marty, you crack me up. Your crank theories are gorgeous. Wink!
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
Let us know when that blog gets published in a journal.
The data is from NASA, GISS, you retard is not published in a journal, it is published on NASA’s website you complete retard
You have NO idea what you are talking about, it’s like trying to argue with a cloud, you m0r0n
NASA are directed to come up with “proof”?
That’s more crank theory from you Marty. Well done.
There is no such thing as scientific proof. We don’t prove or disprove anything in science.
Global warming, then why is the US heatwave index showing this?
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/high-low-temps-figure1-2015.png
Weather is not climate….
Oh sweet jebus, data from 1890 to 2015 is not weather you retard. If the world is getting warmer, why are most heatwaves not in the late century instead of 1930s?
Answer on a postcard
You reply is so lame
If drought is increasing why is there less than 80 years ago?
Every summer you freaks say “ooh global warming” and go silent every winter.
Every hot day is “global warming”.
All you freaks talk about is weather not climate
Huh. Cherry pick is not citation:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html
Your source answered your question:
“An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value.”
The Dust Bowl featured heat wave conditions across the USA, an extraordinary excursion to be sure but one that had little global significance compared to global warming since.
It’s Figure 1; Figure 4 shows “.. changes in the total number of days per year that were hotter than the 95th percentile. Red upward-pointing symbols show where these unusually hot days are becoming more common. Blue downward-pointing symbols show where unusually hot days are becoming less common.”
Global warming is pushing the general jet stream trend so that more Arctic influence affects the northern states, while heat waves continue to become more common both worldwide in general and in the southern US in particular.
US drought 1936
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/conus_palmerindex_june_1934.png
US drought 2015
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/drought/2015/05/20150602_usdm.png
Global?
But global warming is global, so the US must see an increase in drought, how after 50 years of global warming is there less drought, when the warmunists claim drought in increasing?
hardly any change in global drought in all the years of “global warming”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/images/nature11575-f1.2.jpg
Since 1982, global
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/sdata/2014/sdata20141/images_hires/m685/sdata20141-f5.jpg
Precipitation index
http://sac.csic.es/spei/img/fig5.jpg
Explain, how is there much less drought and heatwaves BY FAR than 80 years ago?
And your data?
Your sources?
Gone missing.
11 Yr olds know not to do that.
You really are a muppet. Go talk about lego or my little pony, adults are speaking here
Yup. Because adults use insulting and namecalling to ‘prove’ they are right.
If, by adult, you meant school kids over by the fence during recess….
Why do you concede eoth an insult?
Is that how you do it in denialism reality?
Talk to me Marty. Twll me about yiur beliefs.
Tell me about your greed.
Where is your data?
you just wont face the reality, all this data can be found on US gov websites.
Then it should be quite easy for you to prove me wrong.
Rather than toss out insults.
I have but ironically you “deny” the facts. Funny you should use the term “denialists” << that's not a word by the way.
"Denier" has religious connotations. You m0r0n.
“I have” Then point to the post.
OED says you are wrong….”that’s not a word by the way.”
Why do you pontificate your denialism?
How about answer my two questions – so that we can get the real reason for your denialism of ACC. Tell me about your beliefs.
You aleady demonstrated your love of crank theories (AGW / CAGW rubbish, moon langong hoax, your Bill Nye footle argument, asnx now your conflation of ‘denier’).
Tell me about your greed, philosorcerer. Do you fear the carbon tax? Do you fear that your government will regulate limited resources and that we would impact the rconomy and therefore your lifestyle?
Tell me all your ACC fears. I want to help you, son. Why do you deny being in denial?
Talk to me. Open. Up.
Anther one of your crank theories: “You illiterate m0r0n, but you believe in man made climate change.you are obviously mentally challenged”
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
User Marty Gwynne loves his crank theories.
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism; cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
Marty refuses to tell me if there is a crank theory that he does not believe in.
Incidentally, scientific research has found a very strong correlation between climate change denialism and a belief on conspiracy (crank theory) ideology.
Marty is providing additional evidence to cement that correlation.
Science also found an inverse correlation between the espousal of free open markets and a belief in the scientific consensus on climate change.
That’s about Marty’s greed. About his love of laissez-faire capitalism. The notion that you can’t get unlimited from limited resources and regulation of that should be rejected at all cost. At any cost: Marty’s response is to deny science by substituting his crank theory.
This is not about climate change science or ACC. This is about Marty’s beliefs. That is what needs to be discussed.
Marty has no credentials in climate change science. So why bother talking to him about it when it’s about Marty’s belief in crank theory and greed (laissez-faire economics).
And I’m backed on this by scientific research.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Question his beliefs, don’t debate the science.
I don’t think any science was proffered…..
Mostly namecalling…
The earth warms and hiatus/coolist panic alarm.
When climate deniers cannot reject the facts, they smear and sneer. It is a propaganda ploy and an admission of weakness, cemented with logorrhea.
I found Marty’s comments confusing and inconsistent with his devotion to pseudo science information – it was not even a good attempt at pseudoscience. It’s all crank theories and political desire for a laissez-faire economy.
Anther one of your crank theories: “they might have also slipped the planning people a few euros too no doubt. Do you know how the world works? I dont think so”
Is there a crank theory that you don’t believe in?
Planning permission is a scam all the world over, everywhere it is corrupt.
Did you ever hear of politics? Are you a Hillary voter? She takes epic bribes
Thanks for the efforts to derail the conversations, use playground behavior, and logical fallacies.
conversation is over, you are wrong on every count, so I got bored
What? “derail the conversation”…shit, I thought that was a conversation. Oh, so sharing thoughts is derailment? Wow…I see how Marty got so bored. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ROFL deb, obviously you can think and apply logic, Robert.. arguing like him is like arguing with a tube of toothpaste
More drivel, more vague abstract references and no substance.
You cant fix stupid
“…cant fix stupid “
His agent is doing what everyone else does to get approval. If you think he is lying, then so are all the others and “climate change” is shown up for the fraud it is.
So you are arguing that lying is OK.
Thanks. Got it.
names that start with the same letter for both name and surname is a typical bot thing.
It’s what any agent pushing a planning proposal would use these days. Stick “global warming” aka “climate change” into any proposal these days to guarantee approval.
Sand dunes eroding with sea inundation? When didn’t they?
Your point? You are repeating the same old tripe, what is your POINT?
That the sources say you don’t even have a talking point.
This a good point, please use it: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
You failed to notice that not Trump, but an environmental company filed an environmental impact report to build a wall consisting of rocks to protect from further erosion. And missed a few key words in the study from the Politico article … “if” “prove” “correct” as in: “If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of
global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a
corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just…”
And that’s how the media spins a non-story into an exaggerated hit piece.
And the oceans rise and they fall over the millennia ! As the earth turns beginning 4.5 billion years ago ! ” it began with the formation of the planet and ended at 4.0 billion years ago as … in turn, to produce significant effects on the atmosphere and other systems of …”.
Scientific poll:
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?
Do you agree that focusing on motives more than science is a life-saving diversionary tactic for those with poor science?
You did not answer my questions, but you expect me to answer yours? What is wrong with you?
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’ll answer yours, just so that you can demonstrate that you will not answer mine.
Some what. I would not say life-saving though, it’s more saving their greedy lifestyle.
That is exactly why I asked you the two questions. You basically rephrased my questions into one. Fine.
The scientific results so far shows that decimate deniers focus on motives outside science (aka, their greed, lifestyle, politics, and love for crank theories) because they have a poor understanding of science. In fact, they know very well that they can’t change the science because they have no credentials in cliamte change science. That is why they divert the subject.
We found that:
Climate change deniers (such as you) pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are extremely attracted, love and beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Don’t take my work for it. Look it up, educate yourself.
Now, can you answer my 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?
Oh, you weren’t answered. Poor baby – you’ve been wronged. You must need some reparations.
Thanks for conceding with your insult.
You know, if you’d thought before typing, you could have come up with a cogent reply.
When climate deniers cannot reject the facts, they smear and sneer. It is your propaganda ploy and an admission of weakness.
Climate change deniers (looking at you Duke) pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez -Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love & beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in, Denier Duke?
Do you agree: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
Pronunciation: /dəˈnīələst/
NOUN
A person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier:
the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists
[AS MODIFIER]: the denialist view
More example sentences
To the skeptics’ discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists.
Thank you for Talbot’s excellent series of articles debunking the myths propagated by the AIDS denialists.
The denialist side was actively subverting
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/denialist
Why don’t you go look up “Skeptic”? Nobody denies climate changes.
Nice attempt. But a strawman argument.
No, this is a straw man:
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/files/2014/01/StrawMan2.jpg Have a good day
Strawman. Nobody is arguing that climate doesn’t change except by human influence . No one is arguing that humans are the only driver.
Wrong. The EPA & IPCC focus is all on man-made CO2 emissions.
Yes. The “focus” is on our contribution to the climate forcings. Because the profligate burning of fossil fuels is adding co2 to the atmosphere. And no other forcing accounts for the observed changes to our atmosphere.
Solar variations? Show us the math.
Orbit? Show the math
Volcanoes? Show the math.
Cosmic rays? Show the math
Your choice; pick a natural forcing and show us the math that fits.
Alternately, show us the meta-meta-analysis of the body of literature that supports your claims.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The Best Visualization of Climate Change isn’t a Graph—It’s a Death Spiral
If you think you’re hot right now, just wait.
By Jessie Guy-Ryan
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-best-visualization-of-climate-change-isnt-a-graphits-a-death-spiral
Yea that grand ‘ole’ Sun just keeps producing radiation in all bands 24/7 365/yr. !!!! The only thing in a death spiral is your brain…
Oh, a real zinger . . .
THE “GREATEST HOAX” Ever Perpetrated on the American people.
The Catalyst to the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Deindustrialize then Depopulate
A Plan, an Agenda to kill off millions of people! Starve them, freeze them, ban air conditioning, you that have fallen for this junk science for failure to investigate its purpose shoul be charged with conspiracy to commit GENOCIDE. The UN IPCC and all of its members and sponcers should be charged with TREASON, and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!!
You are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!