https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEzUWAbvcrE&feature=youtu.be
Fox News Channel – ‘Your World w/ Neil Cavuto’ – Monday May 30, 2016 – Selected excerpts
Marc Morano: “Having just made a movie called ‘Climate Hustle’ featuring former UN scientists who turned against the UN, a Nobel Prize Winning scientist, Ivy League scientists who all come out and say they just have it flat wrong. We have a lot of fun showing the 1970s consensus about man-made global cooling and the coming Ice Age and how even NASA and the CIA got involved in promoting the cooling scare.”
“The idea that kids can’t be told — and by the way, this is worse that they can’t hear anything skeptical, the kids can’t even hear any doubts about the alleged severity of man-made global warming. The kids will be hearing about climate refugees and climate justice.”
Warmist Taryn Rosenkranz Democrat Strategist: “When it comes down to it, much like smoking causes cancer, we know carbon emissions causes climate change. We need to make sure that our students know the facts about what they can do to help.”
Morano: “Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that is essential for life on Earth and you are demonizing it as tobacco, as some kind of cancer causing gas– it’s absurd. The idea that these kids cannot be told that there is an alternative perspective, that the 97% claim of ‘consensus’ is pure myth and fabrication. The 97% claim was ‘pulled out of thin air’ according to even UN scientists. This comes down to conformity must be enforced in the name of diversity. In the name of diversity, you MUST CONFORM! That is what they are doing here, they cannot allow dissent and its very sad for kids.”
#
Related Links:
‘Global Warmists Admit They’re Really Book Burners’
Portland school board bans ‘climate change-denying materials’ – “It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis.” Bigelow is also the co-author of a textbook on environmental education, A People’s Curriculum for the Earth. Asked if this resolution will cause the district to buy new textbooks, such as his book, Bigelow said ReThinking Schools is a nonprofit, not a money-maker.
Actual Portland resolution: – “Citizens of the world.” – “Climate change is already having an enormous negative impact on nature and people around the world—which will only become worse—including present and future Portland Public Schools students…There is overwhelming consensus…to build climate justice curriculum—especially inviting the participation of people from “frontline” communities, which have been the first and hardest hit by climate change—and people who are here, in part, as climate refugees…The implementation plan should include a review of current textbooks for accuracy around the severity of the climate crisis and the impact of human activities. PPS will abandon the use of any adopted text material that is found to express doubt about the severity of the climate crisis or its root in human activities…climate literacy.”
Scientists slam Bill Nye: He ‘has dangerously misled the whole generation of younger minds’
Children win Climate Change legal case: Lose future economy
Warmist teenagers win ‘historic victory’ in global warming lawsuit – Four Massachusetts teens who say they were sick of watching the state drag its feet on global warming went to court — and yesterday came away with a historic victory that could have lasting effects for decades. The Supreme Judicial Court has sided with Olivia Gieger and Shamus Miller of Wellesley High School, and Isabel Kain and James Coakley of Boston Latin School — high school kids who sued the Department of Environmental Protection. The court agreed with them that the state has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
LA Times Gets Story About Portland Banning Climate Doubt Almost Right
115 Responses
Typical progressive/leftist: “Only our point of view is worth hearing. All others must be suppressed!”
The appearance of idiots like Taryn Rosenkranz don’t concern me, the world is full of fools.
What should concern us most is the 100% agreement of the of the school board members who have so little education or even common sense that they are also duped by UN and other politicians who have totally economic power incentive to promote AGW through MSM print and broadcast.
I live in Oregon, you must conform or else.
Heard the same from a conservative in Hawaii. Evidently you all are outnumbered by the lumbering masses. Gotta fight it though. This is a public school doing such a thing. Scarey cause this is the way Hitler did it. Can’t trust the liberals on inch or give em that one inch.
I just heard yesterday that Hawaii is in search of teachers, because they are really short of them.
They are looking to Portland and many other stateside school systems for new teachers.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract
Finds/concludes:
Anthropogenic climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love & beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Psychology is not considered one of the hard sciences. Indeed psychology is less ‘settled’ than climate change science.
That does not imply that the research I linked to is false or did not follow the scientific method.
Maybe you should attack the research and not the field of ‘soft’ science.
I’m an engineer as such I’m based heavily in math. I have no desire to delve into the non-math based field of psychology. Climate science is supposed to be based in math not psychology.
Engineering is not a science, it uses science, so does psychology.
Climate change science is based on evidence, so is the research that I linked to.
Math, data, information, facts, etc. can all be evidence once it is shown to support an assertion (hypothesis).
Why would you not be interested in finding out why people are in denial of settled science (aka ACAA)?
John, your last comment betrays you. Science is never “settled” only understood based on our current knowledge. If “settled science” were allowed to end the discussion then we’d still be living with the belief that the earth is at the center of the universe, and Jupiter has no moons.
I can understand your ignorance here. As engineer, you were not taught what science is all about, nor how to go about it.
Science is a process, a method used to accumulate knowledge about the world. This knowledge takes the form of facts, laws and theories. The aim is to file them, make it available to the public, which means it confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. Any future reference to it is by verification, not confirmation. For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you come up with a hypothesis that contradicts that law, it is regarded immediately.
The way to settle science (filed 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? Saying that the 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 (is not settled) is a message that is profoundly anti-science. Science promotes how to think, not what to think. Settled sciecne exists, if it did not, then engineering would not exist. Engineers use settled science all the time, without it, you would be an artist.
The personal attacks on engineers aside, I do agree with you that science is a process. However, I don’t think you understand that process. To say that science is “settled” and therefore cannot be challenged is dogma, not science.
Getting back to the original point of this article, why are you opposed to people pointing out that the science isn’t settled, that there is no consensus, that the current state of our knowledge into climate science doesn’t allow us to accurately model the climate? Why are you against teaching this in schools?
I never said that settled science can’t be challenged. I specifically said: its confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
I also said that settled science exists. You seem to reject that, which implies your reject E=mc squared, 2nd law of thermodynamics, SI units, etc. How absurd.
Where did I say ACC is not settled science? There is a 97% consensus for ACC, that’s good enough to call it settled.
Climate models do projections, not predictions. They are the tools to understand the data, not the evidence for ACC.
Against teaching what in schools? I’m opposed to teaching “creationism’ in the science class, and against teaching “smoking does not cause cancer”. I’m all for teaching ACC and climate change science in schools. Don’t straw man me. Read my posts again if you don’t understand what I said.
Okay, this has gone on far enough.
You are accusing me of things I never said or implied (“your reject E=mc squared, 2nd law of thermodynamics, SI units, etc”).
The 97% consensus (and it’s many sources, which one are you referencing???) has been thoroughly debunked. You have inserted your own standard for what is “settled science” and want that standard accepted by others, that’s authoritarian.
Given the climate data for all but the last 5 years, the climate models can’t accurately predict/project those last 5 years (i.e. the models don’t work).
“I’m all for teaching ACC and climate change science in schools. Don’t straw man me.” Yet you just straw manned me. That I call hypocrisy.
I’m done here.
If you reject settled science, then you reject the above. Do you still reject settled science?
Nope, scientific knowledge is settled science, that is the goal of science. ACC is settled science. ACC is a scientific theory, similar to Gravity and Evolution.
Don’t blame your ignorance on me.
That’s your crank theory. And you completely forgot to cite your scientific sources for that.
Remember: Anthropogenic climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love & beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Models do projections, not predictions. The models are used to understand the data, the evidence. It is not the evidence. Similar to how an engineering drawing is the design, but not the evidence for a theory. Similar to how a transistor is the component of a board, and not the magnetic/electrical field for the Maxwell equations. How can you be this ignorant and be an engineer? You must be a psduo engineer.
Here is the evidence for ACC. Tell me where they list climate models as the evidence? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But run away, denier. You could not defend your crank theory, but your ignorance of science were exposed. Do you, as an Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denier also pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism?
If you reject settled science, then you reject the above. Do you still reject settled science?
Nope, scientific knowledge is settled science, that is the goal of science. ACC is settled science. ACC is a scientific theory, similar to Gravity and Evolution.
Don’t blame your ignorance on me.
That’s your crank theory. And you completely forgot to cite your scientific sources for that.
Remember: Anthropogenic climate change deniers pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and are attracted, love & beget conspiracy/crank theories.
Models do projections, not predictions. The models are used to understand the data, the evidence. It is not the evidence. Similar to how an engineering drawing is the design, but not the evidence for a theory. Similar to how a transistor is the component of a board, and not the magnetic/electrical field for the Maxwell equations. How can you be this ignorant and be an engineer? You must be a psduo engineer.
Here is the evidence for ACC. Tell me where they list climate models as the evidence? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But run away, denier. You could not defend your crank theory, but your ignorance of science were exposed. Do you, as an Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denier also pontificate free-market ideologues such as Laissez-Faire Capitalism? You do, all conservative/rightists do.
ACC science is settled, there is consensus. Even if we had no climate models, it would not challenge the consensus, nor render ACC un-stetted. You don’t understand falsification or what constitutes evidence. It is wrong to teach your psduo science in school, similar to how it is wrong to teach that your Christian deity created everything from nothing and that a school child should simultaneously love and fear your imaginary supernatural monster.
Run denier, run.
The woman should be on a comedy show.
doing what? holding up the LAUGHTER sign?
No, laughing at you.
We must make good little social communist. Group think is the only allowed thought.
Union of Socialist Portland.
We are the Portland Public School System,
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyenRCJ_4Ww&sns=em
It’s actually sad, that this woman thinks this way. It sheds a light on how Germany was seduced by Hitler. yeah, yeah Godwin’s law.. Blah Blah.
No, I agree. This is how it starts and we must fight back and kick their dumb asses to the middle east where the other dumb asses reside.
All she did was repeat the same sentence: ““When it comes down to it, much like smoking causes cancer, we know carbon emissions causes climate change”. Like a brainwashed drone.
she is on someone’s payroll for sure.
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 anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/25/0956797612457686.abstract
she’s not a critical thinker, but rather a naive idiot
We had a cockatoo who was more of a thinker than her .
No she is just stupid, not naive or lacking grey matter. She simply can not facilitate other ideas, that indicates low IQ.
But she’s a teacher, I’ll bet she gets paid more than you.
She will increase her income when school boards start using the book she wrote instead of science textbooks.
She is the personification of the typical far left know no nothing person who believes in this fable about CO2 causing the earth’s climate to do anything.
She is a “useful idiot”.
“The term “useful idiot” is thought to have been coined by communist mass murderer Vladimir Lenin. It describes naive communist sympathizers in the West (liberals). While Lenin and the Soviets held these stupid liberals in utter contempt, they also saw them as useful tools for dispensing propaganda.”
She is a stupid communist. If we allow people like her to continue what the hell will they ban next…..conservatives?? God????? Children???? just when will Americans say enough is enough??????
Um, ct help but ask what’s the difference between banning books and burning books?
There is no soot!
But the books are still gone.
Fahrenheit 461…the book burns but not the story
God has been banned from public schools since the early sixties. He doesn’t fit their Darwinian ideology. Creationism isn’t allowed. It has been banned, in other words. There is only one side to each coin in the minds of leftists. Their way or no way. The easiest way to ‘win’ any argument is to ban all discussion/debate.
Those ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance-peddling’ leftists are without a doubt the most intolerant blokes on the planet.
So here we are in the early sixties again. The matter of global warming is set in granite, even if the data suggests otherwise. God is dead. There will be no further discussion. The left has spoken. Case closed.
Ignite the furnaces! Let the burning resume!
<"my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr"…..!td40u
two days ago grey McLaren. 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 hours 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
!td40u:
➽:➽:.
➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsAuthorityGetPay$98Hour…..
★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★✹✹★::::::!td40x….,…
Seems like the Nazis did about the same thing back in the thirties and from my reading of the history of Germany, this did not turn out well for them.
Here’s the origin of the “97%”:
“The Doran paper has been criticized by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of skeptics might agree with.”
Can we all say flawed poll? As usual the left is using garbage to prove their point.
nah, let’s leave it as intentional bovine excrement
As I am sure you are aware that Oregon has always been a leader in inventing new ways to tax the people.
The instituted the very first gasoline tax in the early part of the 20th century.
I have figured out how they intend to burn books and keep their air smoke free.
Glad we get to comment about these climate morons. Can not tolerate another view and let the facts on both sides determine the truth? I had heard Portland was full of fools but this is beyond fool’s territory. Facts will speak for themselves and a lot of these folks in Portland have to be followers. Stand up for common sense. This is about truth and freedom to determine that truth. I don’t take well to being told what to believe. This is feeling more and more like Germany when Hitler took over. Brainwash the youth, etc.. Time to fire these idiots and take back our country. Then see about pressing charges against the little Hitlers in the various regimes around the country.
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 anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
I think the “trace gas essential for life” meme doesn’t personalize the fact that all life is built on CO2 and H2O in equal molar amounts and thus so is every bite of food she has ever eaten and thus so is she . We are carbon based life . Where does she think the carbon comes from ?
I have always wondered how the English language came up with the word ‘ASSinine.
I spelled wrong for emphasis.
adjective stupid, silly, foolish, daft (informal), senseless, goofy (informal), idiotic, inane, fatuous, moronic, imbecile, gormless (Brit. informal), brainless, imbecilic, braindead (informal), dumb-ass (slang), dead from the neck up (informal), thickheaded, dunderheaded, halfwitted, thick-witted.
There is plenty of carbon on Venus. And there was once plenty of water.
So why not life?
“We are carbon based life .”
Matters not at all. Atmospheric carbon warms the planet. In the ocean it acidifies it. Both a threat to life.
These morons keep bringing up CARBON, seems that the last I was taught that PLANTS and TREES take in CARBON and then give off OXYGEN. Without CARBON you have no plants and trees and you have no oxygen.
all of life is based on carbon atoms
And adding CO2 and CH4 warms the planet. What’s your point again?
Best,
D
Crazy warmist Taryn Rosenkranz, Democrat Strategist, is totally out of touch with the FACTS and simply spreads the lies that she has been given. There are NO scientific facts that show the man-made CO2 is even a dominant cause of global warming and in fact the latest data shows that it may be as little as 10% of the total. It is man-made CO2 that is being claimed to be the cause of climate change, not carbon as she state in her arguments. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that CO2 causes climate change. The primary driver of climate change is the sun and the climate always changes and will always continue to change. CO2 is a gas and carbon is an element and appears as a solid on earth and as soot, it is indeed a pollutant, not CO2. As a gas, CO2 is the fertilizer of earth and distributes relatively uniformly over the agricultural regions of the earth and is responsible for all life on earth. Current CO2 levels even at the current 400 ppm are near the lowest that earth has seen in its history. CO2 is responsible for the current greening of the earth and is responsible for more than a 17% increase in food production around the world!
There are NO scientific facts that show the man-made CO2 is even a dominant cause of global warming
Hoot! I LOLzed!
The primary driver of climate change is the sun
Whoa. So decreasing solar output is increasing earth’s temperature?!?!?! What magick is this, good sir?
Best,
D
This information comes from Solar Scientists, not me. With relatively easy searches on the internet, you can find vast supporting information for this. This can only be analyzed over fairly long time periods since the sun have 11 yr, 22 yr, 40 yr, 60 yr, 200 yr, 1000 yr, and 100,000 yr cycles that relate directly and indirectly to the earth’s temperature. In fact we know that the sun has even more cycles than this, with the key in understanding which are the most dominant and why. CO2 does not show such cycles. There is no direct evidence of CO2’s relationship for cause and effect on global warming AND global cooling. The models show warming, but the have been off by a factor of 2.5 in the last 10 to 20 years and they cannot even tie back to the historical temperature records. When data does not match models, the models must be thrown out and started over. Most people do not even know that the average high temperatures in the United States have been decreasing for more than 50 years.
What do solar scientists have to do with GHG physics in planetary atmospheres?
And why can’t you answer how decreasing solar output is increasing earth’s temperatures?
(BTW, I already pre-bunked your The models …have been off by a factor of 2.5 in the last 10 to 20 years upthread).
My, my.
Best,
D
You question shows that you have not studied the issue. Simply review the attached chart below and tell me how you have “pre-bunked” the model issue or show me your data.
Regarding solar, it is very simple, if the sun is responsible for most of the global heating and cooling, then is it clear that all other effects are minor including GHG. The simple answer to your question on solar output and temperature is that there are time delays and the second attached graph shows the integral (over time) of sun spot numbers (SSN) and temperature. The SSN ties directly to the sun activity.
The 3rd point is that most people do not know that there has been no significant global warming or cooling for the last 19 years except for El Nino and La nina years for which both warmists and skeptics agree are not related to CO2 (AGW). Although CO2 has continued it rise, there has been no corresponding warming (see 3rd attached chart).
The last point is that the entire U.S. has not shown any significant warming in the last 100+ years. Although there are many other plots by six different regions across the country, the fact is highlighted by the 4th graph that shows that the U.S. historical maximum temperatures (above 100 deg F) have been declining since the historical highs of the 1930’s (our dust bowl days). A similar trend shows up in the plot of the 90 deg F days. If you have data contrary to this, please show me.
A fallacy that many people are “sucked into” is that the major sources of temperature data do not treat the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect correctly. It appears that much of the “reported temperature rise” may be due to the effects of population density around the urban areas with the associated siting of the thermometers. The only way to totally solve this is to use only satellite data or to move the thermometers to totally rural areas of the world, not even close to cities or developed regions that can affect the temperature around the thermometers. One test above the Arctic circle in the middle of winter when the sun was not shining at all showed as much as an 8 deg F UHI effect!!
Your Christy chart lets me know you get your information from disinformation sites, as does the cherry-picked satellite dataset. And your clownical ‘Arctic circle UHI’ lets us know you probably are in junior high school.
GHGs are the reason the earth’s heat doesn’t escape into space. You’ll learn that in 10th grade physics.
Best,
D
Clearly insults are your only tool. In my message, I simply asked if you disagree with the data, just show me the data that refutes this, which you have decided NOT to do. This should be very simple for knowledgeable folks.
You cannot cherry-pick satellite data since it is global, is correlated to balloon data, has two sources (RSS and UAH) that correlate, and is not adjusted by site location, only by government approved equipment variations. Simply show me your non-Christy chart.
The UHI data was taken in Russa because a large portion of the WW temperature rise is due to the increased temperatures in the arctic. I’m sure you already know this. Also, there are very few locations of the temperature measurements in the arctic, so any single site such as a single city in Russia or Barrow, Alaska show an extremely, unreasonable temperature due to UHI (8 to 10 degrees), it skews the entire data set.
If you disagree with the above, state this and show how it is invalid with “your information sites,” not just your opinion. Thanks.
You Gish galloped with irrelevant charts not found in the scientific literature.
Your claims upthread are hilarious and you can’t support them.
Best,
D
Thanks for your response. I don’t need to support them since our government already does this. I’m sure the rest of the readers will appreciate your technical information (we are still waiting). All of the information is relevant, can be supported through multiple sources, is published in the peer reviewed literature, and nearly all of the information is available from governments around the world (including U.S. NOAA and NASA) or IPCC, not me. A little research will show you this is factual but is quite often ignored by folks who are not interested in the truth. There are other peer reviewed papers by folks outside the government. You can see the historical temperatures (from state records) for California in the attachment. The UHI is strongly influenced by thermometer “site locations”. Note that even the lowest California numbers are not truly rural. How would you calculate the temperature increase for California for the AGW reports? Also, you can see the history of Reno, Nevada has a shape (nearly a 10 Deg F rise from 1976 thru 2001) remarkably similar to the Hockey Stick publications, nearly all due to UHI. How does HADCRUT and GISS correct for this UHI error? This same type of population affected UHI is reported around the world for all metropolitan regions, particularly China and India where population growth has been exceptional. This is all relevant if you believe that CO2 is the dominant cause of the Global Temperature increase, since CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and should therefore show uniform temperature rise in most locations.
The government did not support that deceptive chart Christy made. You can’t ululate and flap your hands to hide the deceptive charts or to hide the fact you can’t support your assertions (using LoWatts disinformation gives you away).
Plus, this new laugher: This is all relevant if you believe that CO2 is the dominant cause of the Global Temperature increase
I don’t have to believe anything. I just have to look at the science and accept it.
Run along now, little one.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a0605fad625d3d4c7e4498f39c5b563acfac237bca887c1ded6857ca42c09bbb.png
Everyone knows that the earth heats and cools, the significant question is what are the primary causes of this heating and cooling. If this is all you have, then you are a long way from reality. Clearly you totally “buy in” to the IPCC and their discredited periodic reports (even by their own people). By definition, science is skeptical and continues to ask questions when the data does not match the models (which is what science is all about). So far, for ALL of the models, none of the 102 averaged models match real data (reality). Your little chart shows a fair amount of variation (0.5 to 2.5 W/m2) and over-all the level of understanding for each RF term is quite low for most and even the two “high” levels of understanding are missing some very significant pieces of information. Also, its treatment of water is nearly silent except for Stratospheric water vapour. Many people have analyzed this chart, cited this chart, and although interesting have found that it is missing some very important information as well as “TOTALLY MISUNDERSTANDING” of the solar contribution with its variability, various sources of radiation (UV radiation), magnetic fields, and galactic contributions.
Due to the weakness of our sun today (zero sunspots yesterday), there are strong predictions (including NOAA) that we are at the very beginning of a global cooling phase that will hit the minimum by the 2030’s.
https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf
Still more Gish gallop and then a link to a fossil fool PR firm.
Aren’t you special?
Best,
D
True, in fact there was a study last year of ice core samples from the antarctic that shows CO2 increase lags temperature increase by about 80 years if memory serves. Several time periods have been tested and the results are the same. Solar activity causes temperature increase, 80 years later CO2 levels increase. When the earth cools the oceans begin to take up more CO2 and atmospheric levels decrease with an offset of about 80 years. That disproves the whole theory that rising CO2 is going to cause runaway global warming. The CO2 levels were 1700 ppm in the past when the earth was considerably warmer and plants flourished. There was no industry producing CO2 then and the oceans didn’t boil away either. The AGW crowd is a mixture of loons and hucksters feeding the loons a continuous diet of BS.
We travel through our galaxy at 100800 mph in temperatures that freeze water instantly and people fear warming. The world is getting dumber not warmer.
Remember, religion (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Citing your denial to defend your greed seems strangely odd though.
This woman is a complete moron, mindlessly spewing unscientific nonsense. There is NO proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. If it has any effect, it’s minute. The fact is the warmists cannot isolate carbon dioxide from all the natural forces that have always driven climate. Indeed, the U.N. has never established a baseline of NATURAL climate variability before it set off to prove that carbon dioxide is the primary climate driver. Why? Because climate dioxide can be used as an instrument of control and worldwide income redistribution. It is a totally unscientific agenda which is driving the debate.
There is NO proof that carbon dioxide causes warming.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
I needed that, thanks!
Best,
D
Mark should have jumped all over his opponent the moment she brought up ‘proven’ science. Everybody needs to learn that the scientific method works by disproof not by proof. I have found that warmistt’s lack of knowledge of the scientific method is their Achilles’ Heel.
Exactly, scientists are supposed to be skeptical, they’re paid to be skeptics, that’s their job.
This anti-science woman hasn’t the slightest clue.
This is a communist plot. It’s not settled science. These people need to be shot.
How do you know that?
I’m getting to the point where I can’t abide these lying dolts. When they start arresting people for having an opinion they disagree with I’ll have my limit.
The appropriately named Loretta LYNCH is ready to do this.
Yeah, several Democrat governors as well proposing to use RICO statutes against ‘deniers’. Then there’s people like Bill Nye the pseudo science guy and Al Gore, both clapping stooges cheering them on.
Morano: 1 Taryn Rosenkranz: 0
She has been sold a bill of goods and that is all there is. Can’t change her mind even if you introduced her to reality. Problem is that she is taking our children down the same road of ignorance. These people are forcing their unproven ideas down our throats and eliminating anyone or thing which proves them to be liars
Remember, religion (anthropogenic climate change denial) should be a personal thing, so keep your pseudo-thumping to yourself. Admitting your denial to defend your greed and love of crank theory seems strangely odd though.
Lot of big words John! None of them suggest that I have the right as a American with service time to free speech. We are on a public site that thrives on input and opinions so I don’t believe I need to keep my “pseudo-thumping” to myself. But thank you for you opinion!
The USA is secular, so you need to keep your religion (ACC denial) out of politics. Unless you are rejecting your secularism. Are you?
If you pontificate that the science of ACC is wrong, then you need to back that up with evidence, not your greed and love of crank theory. If you can’t then it will remain as your opinion, born in fideisim and fabulism.
The USA is built on Christian principles, however, after reading through these postings, I am not sure where you find that I was pushing a religious agenda. Climate change has been going on for thousands of years and mankind was not even in the picture for many of those years. And the only time you were right in your attempt to overwhelm me, was when you stated, “it will remain as your opinion”. That opinion is based on reading both pro and cons on the subject which you may have done or may not have done because you have already bought into one side already. I did need to consult an Oxford dictionary to address “fideisim” and “fabulism” (maker of fables??). Could not translate the first word. I am still attempting to understand why I have to “…back that up with evidence, not your greed and love of crank theory.” These latest attempts to stifle free thought with threats of fines or imprisonment are really the big issue here. We will probably never know which side is right and to what extent they are but I think that there are enough intelligent people who are not buying into the fear factor espoused by the “believers”.
If you want me to accept that claim that ACC is false, then you need to show me the evidence that supports your claim.
The evidence that ACC is rue is here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Now, where is your evidence that ACC is false?
Or is this a case of you are relying on your fideism and fabulism, and that’s how you know ACC is false?
And no, the USA was not built on Christian principles. What principles is that: love my enemy for me? If that as so then it would not be secular. You have yet to tell me if you reject your secularism? Do you?
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: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost.
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.
Check this:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
Heresy against the Church of Climate Change will not be tolerated!
Heresy against the Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change Denial will not be tolerated!
There, I fixed it for you!
EVERYTHING has consequences, and the only constant is change.
That confused Taryn should consider these two factors before implying only man is involved when the climate changes……..as it’s been changing for billions of years.
Agree, the climate has been changing for billions of years!
No one disagrees with this. What the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance. The climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Why is that?
She drew a circle that shut books out…..
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout;
But sense and I had wits to win
We drew a circle to keep books in.
with apologies to Edwin Markin
God is already pretty much banned…He can’t be mentioned in public school,Chistmas is now called Winter Holiday,at least in Ca. This is the main reason I sent my kids to Catholic school!
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 anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
“>>> Rosenkranz: When it comes down to it, much like smoking causes cancer, we know carbon emissions causes climate change. <<<"
She is a fanatical, ignorant woman. She knows nothing. There is no "climate change" above and beyond natural climate variability. None is seen–by science. The natural climate variability swamps human impact.
The fact that the fanatics resort to such measures–as in this case, indoctrinating children; as in California, attempting to impose a state cult by force and punish free-thinkers–is a proof that the ground is beginning to burn under their feet. Science is turning away from CAGW. People, including scientists, are openly becoming critical of this fanatical imposition. More than a half of our nation's representatives have turned their back on this ideology in defiance of the President's policies. We need a GOP President who will withdraw the US from Paris and UN's "Climate" activities.
I have just found a new use for duct tape………HER.
“at least I’m not a book burner you NAZI cow.”
the Old Communist Party is the new DeGrowther in Green.
a mental midget
nothing but a facist.
Why are you a fascist?
No, I allow free speech and ideas without being turned on like a wolf pack…You?
You should not then announce that you are a fascist.
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
― Oscar Wilde
anyone have her email?
Teach the controversy, yo.
Best,
D
CO2 is critical for life of all kinds. These people are idiots. And they have been proven time and time again to be liars. But they push the Communist agenda so they get heard and the truth/facts get stifled. GET YOUR DARN KIDS OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. Can’t you see how bad these schools are for our children? How can you get up each morning and put your children into these cess pools??
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 anthropogenic climate change denial and the presence of a general conspiratorial ideology?
Also, it has been proven the SUN controls the climate. We had higher levels of CO2 when dinosaurs roamed the earth than we do today.
Correct, the sun does have some control of the climate.
Also, we did have higher levels of CO2 when Jesus wrote the dinosaurs.
But how does that falsify anthropogenic climate change is my question to you?
Whoa. So the sun’s decreasing output proves it is the reason for the planet’s warming??????????????????????????
Best,
D
A finer example for homeschooling can’t be made than to listen to this vacuous woman drone on.
Morano Vs Moron
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/11/coal-made-its-best-case-against-climate-change-and-lost
Come on!!! Even the corrupt media fed, brain dead IDIOTS know that the Global Warming Hoax is the SCAM of the century!
There are some very deep psychological issues with these climate alarmists. Millions of people crying the sky is falling, and all willing to bully anyone into silence who doesn’t believe them. Of course, saving the planet is the ultimate guilt trip with which to beat others into submitting to their psychological delusion that they are saviors of the planet. Next, they’ll probably claim to be saving the entire solar system.
this woman is a commy and trying to brainwash the masses into thinking that co2 is a cancer causing element. if it weren’t for co2 we would all die, because we get oxygen from plants which get their life from co2. case closed!