When critics trash a film, they’ve usually actually seen it – but, not ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel. So, the filmmaker of movie debunking climate hysteria is challenging Kimmel to attend a private screening.
The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host used seven minutes of his Monday show to mock a climate skeptic’s film he obviously hadn’t seen – since he repeats the very alarmist talking points the film debunks.
Kimmel bashed “Climate Hustle,” a climate skeptic film that aired in 400 theaters nationwide Monday, by making misleading, unsupportable, and inaccurate claims, and personally attacking Gov. Sarah Palin for supporting the film.
He then aired a two-minute climate change advocacy “message” featuring scientists dropping the “F-Bomb” to insult anyone skeptical of man-made climate change.
Kimmel’s rant against “Climate Hustle” displays a complete ignorance of the content of the film – and deploys the same shopworn deceitful and mean-spirited tactics the film exposes and addresses.
In “Climate Hustle”:
- Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. explains how, since alarmists can’t debate the facts, they attack the messenger (as Kimmel personally insults Palin and the scientists drop the F-Bomb on skeptics),
- The “97% scientific consensus” claim Kimmel cites is revealed to be the product of slanted methodology – one of which didn’t even poll 97 scientists,
- Kimmel’s “hottest years ever” claim is dismantled and debunked,
- The Big Money driving climate influence is shown to be on the activist side – in terms of grants, research funding, alarmist advocacy, etc. – not, as Kimmel claims, coming from corporate “polluters,” and
- Renowned dissenting scientists (including a Nobel Laureate and a moon-mission astronaut) share data and analysis debunking climate hysteria – not the ignorant, average slobs Kimmel accuses his dissenting viewers of being.
In response to Kimmel’s uninformed, agenda-driven rant on national television, “Climate Hustle” producer, writer and host Marc Morano is challenging Kimmel to view the film.
Morano tells MRCTV:
“It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.
“Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.
“Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled.
“Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.”
“If Jimmy Kimmel is actually interested in the facts, he’ll step up and watch the film, instead of continuing to recite inaccurate, fear-mongering clichés on blind faith,” Morano added.
#
Jimmy Kimmel Transcript:
“2014 was the warmest year ever until 2015 became the warmest year ever. Now 2016 might turn out to be even warmer than either of those. You know how you know climate change is real? When the hottest year on record is whatever year it currently is.
“A huge majority of climate scientists say climate change is happening. They say we’re causing it and we need to do something about it before it has a terrible effect on all of us. There’s no debate about the greenhouse effect, just like there’s no debate about gravity. It someone throws a piano off the roof, I don’t care what Sarah Palin tells you. Get out of the way, because it’s coming down on your head.
“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree on this. And 97 percent of scientists don’t agree on much. Even one out of five dentists don’t believe in sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum.
But Almost half our representatives in Washington apparently know more about science than our scientists, or they pretend to because big corporations give them a lot of money to make sure they can keep doing the destructive things that they do. And the idea that this is some kind of left wing conspiracy is — what if I decided to deny the existence of yogurt? Think about it. I’ve seen the containers, I just don’t believe there’s anything in them. I believe yogurt is a conspiracy created by John Stamos. You’d think I was insane, and I would be insane, but this is not that different from that. To me the big question is, either you believe in science or you don’t. Why do we believe scientists when it comes to molecules and the speed of light and Cialis, but not this? Because members of Congress, who we don’t even like, by the way, because people who take money from companies that make pollution for a living told us not to worry about it. Now, and I know I’ll get beaten over the head by every wacko website, and I know there will be a lot of what the hell do you know, go back to girls jumping on trampolines. This is not about what I know, this is about what scientists know. So I hope that for the next two minutes, put your political leanings aside, forget about whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, forget the labels, and pay attention to the following message. Decide for yourself, the people you’re about to see are scientists, they’re Americans, they’re not part of some imaginary conspiracy, they’re just a smarter version of us. Watch this, and if at the end you disagree, while we’re all underwater I hope you’ll be that last one that gets a snorkel.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
ARADHNA TRIPATI: Hi, I’m Aradhna Tripati, I’m a paleoclimatologist and isotope geochemist.
ALEX HALL: Hi, I’m Alex Hall, and I’m a climate scientist.
JEREMY PAL: I’m Jeremy Pal, and I’m a hydroclimatologist.
NINA KARNOVSKY: I’m Nina Karnovsky, and I’m a polar ecologist.
CHUCK TAYLOR: I’m Chuck Taylor, and I’m an environmental analytical chemist.
JOHN DORSEY: I’m John Dorsey, and I’m a marine environmental scientist.
KARNOVSKY: Over the past 40 years, thousands of scientists have studied climate change.
TAYLOR: Definitely happening.
TRIPATI: And it’s caused by human beings.
PAL: That’s you and me.
HALL: And the consequences could be extremely dire.
DORSEY: Catastrophic.
KARNOVSKY: Apocalyptic.
TRIPATI: And here’s the thing, when we tell you all this, we’re not f***ing with you.
PAL: We’re not f***ing with you.
TAYLOR: Definitely not f***ing with you.
DORSEY: Why would we f*** with you?
PAL: Think about it.
HALL: If I wanted to screw with people, do you think I would have gone into climate science?
DORSEY: If we were f***ing with you I’m sure we could do a lot better than anthropogenic climate change.
TRIPATI: I’d probably tell you that a meteor was coming, and then try to sell you a helmet.
Related Links:
Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event
43 Responses
The beauty about truth is that eventually it shuts up the uneducated like Kimmy Jimmel.
Well, sometimes.
Actually, rarely of his sort.
You just can’t fix stupid.
No, you can’t fix stupid, but you can certainly jail it for grand larceny,
along with all of its supporters, such as Msrs. Kimmel, Nye, Gore, De Caprio and many other stupidos in Hollywood, the Hocky Stick inventor, et al. Trillions of dollars to be spent to achieve a mere fraction of improvement in CO2 emissions, while termites are busy worldwide producing more and more CO2?
And what about those guys in NISDC (sp?) who erased 5 years of old Arctic ice on official gummint charts yo prove it was gone? The REAL mission here is NWO under the UN, an equally stupid crowd that just wants my hard-earned money to run Agenda 21? Round up that 97% of “consensus” scientists and offer them jail time and find out how quickly that consensus dissipates. I have said all along since 2008 that this is a money gathering campaign on Al Gore’s part. The truth is not in that man or any of his cohorts.
Methinks I would enjoy a cup of coffee with you, Mr. Cumbie.
Wife and I watched Climate Hustle last night. They did a great job.
We hosted the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley when he came to town to spoof the Univ. of Tennessee bestowing a pretend “degree” on Al Gore.
It was good to see him again.
I already knew a lot of the leftist-bewildering facts of the movie because I regularly get Climate Depot to my inbox.
I admit the naturally occurring CO2 was a new one for me though.
How ashamed I am.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
Who on earth is that, besides another climate change denier?
Ahh. Another flat earther.
Monckton has always said the climate is changing.
What you moronic flat earthers need to show is HOW MUCH is it changing.
Droughts. Climate change.
Floods. Climate change.
Earthquakes. Climate change.
Less polar bears. Climate change.
More polar bears. Climate change.
Prostitution. Climate change.
The problem you morons have is, you have not, and cannot, quantify what the hell is “climate change”.
That makes you the science deniers.
And the new flat earthers.
You did not answer my question.
You claim:
And then you destroy Monckton’s claim ->
You claim:
What makes you think climate change has not been defined? Are you now stating that Monckton has no idea about climate change?
That is quite an admission from you. Do you think Monckton is a flat earther similar to you as well? You did admit to being a flat earther in your opening!
I’m getting the popcorn now. It’s going to be fun to read how you try and worm yourself out of this hole you dug for yourself.
Hmmm, you just can’t fix stupid.
But it is fun trying.
Let’s see if i can get this thru your thick skull.
Monckton has always said the climate is changing. All climate realists hold that view.
So the next questions for you idiots are, “how much is it changing?” and “what are the metrics”.
Instead you say, droughts, floods, hurricanes, no hurricanes, tornadoes, no tornadoes. It’s all climate change.
But Climate Hustle showed that there has been NO increase/decrease of either (except that U.S. hurricane land falls have dramatically decreased in the past 10 yrs.)
So, you can’t answer the questions.
So now it’s my turn to go get the popcorn.
You said “what makes you think the climate has not been defined?”.
Hilarious! Now you suppose the climate has been defined! Wow!
Then how is it the climate models are such a monumental fail?
Yes, I know that I can’t fix stupid you. But you are wrong, I’m not trying to fix you, I’m not trying to change you. It must be so hard for you to always be wrong.
You claim:
Yes, he accepts natural climate change, but rejects anthropogenic climate chnage (ACC). He agrees that the earth is warming. He has been caught twisting the facts and contradicting himself many times. Sadly for you, he has no credibility when it comes t climate science. It is irrelevant what he thinks or claims. He is in the same boat as you, the ACC denier boat.
You claim:
That is your classic straw man argument. You start by claiming that I said or asked something that I did not. Then you answer that as if I answered it, and then you beat your straw man by claiming my answer is wrong. You must be having conversations with your straw men all the time, hey!
Do you really get your scientific information from Climate Hustle, a movie?
The movie is a product of ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano and climate denier Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Climate Depot is known for spreading mis-informantion and psedueo-science. A normal person would stop there and disregards any information from Climate Depot and this Climate Hustle movie, but not you. You are attracted to crank theories, similar to how cranks are attracted to magnets.
Climate Hustle, from a cinematic perspective, was graded as “boring” by the New York Times. The Guardian correctly stated that the movie is pontificating a conspiracy theory, not science.
The film uses the Heartland Institute’s paid scientists.
There is a couple of ways how me measure how much the climate is chaining. One measure is to look at the surface temperature over a 30 year period. Another one is to measure the CO2 (both carbon isotopes) in the atmosphere. There is also measuring the temperature and salinity of the oceans using Argo floats. There are more things such as Arctic sea ice, rainfall, etc. Basically it is many instruments measuring things such as, temperature, precipitation, biomass / vegetation patterns, sea Level , solar activity, volcanic eruptions, chemical composition of air and sea water, etc.
Te Global Changes Research Program published a report in 2009 entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the US (http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/previous-assessments/global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-us-2009) stating that heavy rainfall events have increased both in frequency and in intensity by 20%, the frequency of drought has increased in areas such as the Southeast and the West, rising temperatures make droughts more severe and/or widespread, and Atlantic hurricanes have increased both in power and frequency.
You claim:
You did not ask a question. You offered a straw man and then beat it up. I enjoyed my popcorn and watching how you killed your straw man.
However, you have not answered any of my questions. For example what credentials do you have in climate chnage science in order to reject/deny its findings/conclusions?
Here are more questions that you failed to answer:
What makes you think climate change has not been defined? Are you now stating that Monckton has no idea about climate change?
That is quite an admission from you. Do you think Monckton is a flat earther similar to you as well?
you claim:
Not only did you change my question, you did not answer your won changed question. That is your straw man again, in case you missed it.
Which climate models failed? Can you list these models, tell me where to find them, and explain to me exactly why you say they failed? Do make sure that you cite your scientific sources as I will check them.
The premise of your questions contains a claim for which you completely forgot to provide evidence. I’m now asking you for the evidence that ‘climate models failed’. We both know that you will not be able to deliver.
I also want to know if you understand the difference between a projection and a prediction. If so, can you explain it to me in your own words? Can you explain to me if climate models do predictions or projections?
While we are at it, can you answer these 5 questions. And not, there is a difference between a response and an answer.
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC/GW?
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC/GW?
3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?
4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)?
5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC/GW?
“Yes, he accepts natural climate change, but rejects anthropogenic climate chnage (ACC).”
Nope again. I now graduate you from stupid to dumbass.
Monckton has never denied that greenhouse gases impact global warming (now climate change by your side because of the Pause).
Again, the question we ask to you dolts, “HOW MUCH IS IT CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
Once again, you have NO answer. No metrics. No quantification.
Until you do, you have no “climate scientists” on your side.
All you have is your climate faith.
On to your next point.
“You did not ask a question.” Wow. Really
Here it is again.
“HOW MUCH IS IT CHANGING?” “WHAT ARE THE METRICS?”
I used all caps and question marks so that even you can tell they are questions.
You said, “What makes you think climate change has not been defined?”
Great. Show me where your side has quantified “HOW MUCH IS IT CHANGING?” And “WHAT ARE THE METRICS?”
Until you can do so, shut the hell up, dumbass.
“Which climate models failed”?
Only 95% of them. Here ya go. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
Surely you can read a graph.
The models cannot even hind cast the climate. Dumbass.
As for consensus science:
In 1978 it was scientific consensus that the earth was plunging into another ice age wherein millions of people would die and much of the northern hemisphere would soon become uninhabitable.
I leave you with a few other historic debunked consensus science views, not to mention Galileo’s Inquisition that even the Greek philosophers could not abide.
1. Geocentric universe: The concept that the Earth was at the center of the universe dates back to at least 600 B.C. with Greek philosophers who proposed cosmologies of the Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies orbiting the Earth. The most famous contortion of the system was Ptolemy’s epicycles to explain the retrograde motion of Mars. This is a prime example of fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions. The theory was disproven with the publication of Nicholas Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.
2. Miasmatic theory of disease: This theory holds that diseases such as cholera, chlamydia or the Black Death were caused by a miasma (ancient Greek: “pollution”), a noxious form of “bad air”. This concept was not disposed of until the late 1800s, with the rise of the germ theory of disease. Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell.
3. Luminiferous aether: Assumed to exist for much of the 19th century, the theory held that a “medium” of aether pervaded the universe through which light could propagate. The celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was the first to provide hard evidence that aether did not exist, and the theory lost all popularity among scientists by the
4. Stress theory of ulcers: As peptic ulcers became more common in the 20th century, doctors increasingly linked them to the stress of modern life. Medical advice during the latter half of the 20th century was, essentially, for patients to take antacids and modify their lifestyle. In the 1980s Australian clinical researcher Barry Marshal discovered that the bacterium H. pylori caused peptic ulcer disease, leading him to win a Nobel Prize in 2005.
5. Immovable continents: Prior to the middle of the 20th century scientists believed the Earth’s continents were stable and did not move. This began to change in 1912 with Alfred Wegener’s formulation of the continental drift theory, and later and more properly the elucidation of plate tectonics during the 1950s and 1960s.
6. Phlogiston: Arising in the mid-17th century, physicians conjured up the existence of a fire-like element called “phlogiston”, which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. Charcoal, for example, left little residue upon burning because it is nearly pure phlogiston. Experiments in the mid-1700s led chemists to conclude the theory was false, giving birth to the field of modern chemistry.
7. The “four humours” theory of human physiology: From Hippocrates onward, the humoral theory was adopted by Greek, Roman and Islamic physicians, and became the most commonly held view of the human body among European physicians until the advent of modern medical research in the 19th century. The four humours of Hippocratic medicine were black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood.
8. Static universe: Prior to the observations made by astronomer Edwin Hubble during 1920s, scientists believed the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting. Hubble found that distant objects in the universe were moving more quickly away than nearby ones. Very recently, in 1999, scientists unexpectedly found that not only was the universe expanding, but its expansion was accelerating.
9. A young Earth: In the mid-1800s many scientists, including Lord Kelvin, believed the Earth to be just 20 million to 40 million years old. It was around that time that geologists such as Charles Lyell began to believe that the Earth was much older, and this conformed to the views of biologists such as Charles Darwin, who needed a much older Earth for evolution to unfold. It wasn’t until the middle of the 20th century that scientists came to the accepted conclusion today that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.
You’re too easy Dumbass John.
BTW. Really funny you trying to hide behind the IPCC after they have had such a rough ride by their peers.
Ooops. Didn’t you hear.
And, oh yes. In case you have not yet heard. The earth is really not flat.
You replied to yourself.
Am glad that you worked out that the earth is not flat.
You did not answer my questions. What you did was to avoid them, you underscored your Galileo Gambit logical fallacy. Thanks.
You claim:
So, according to you Monckton accepts the scientific theory of ACC. That then, according to you, makes him disagree with you. Oh, the irony, that means all your drivel is pointless as your hero disagrees with you. You walked into that one!
You Claim:
You ask:
I have answered that already, I explained the metrics. It is now up to you to understand it. I can’t do your homework for you.
CO2 levels is above 400ppm now., the temp has risen by more than 1 degC compared to pre-industrialization levels. Sea levels has risen. Most of the Australian Great Barrier reef is bleached. the oceans has acidified, deforestation has increased, CO2 source and synch is out of balance, etc.
You claim:
That is where you are wrong, again. It is not up to me or you do decide on scientific theory – we’re not qualified. ACC is not false, whether you believe in it or not.
And you have shown no attempt to falsify ACC, yet you claim it is false. How absurd!
You ask again:
I find it quite hilarious that you would need to type in capitals. I bet your friend and family also comment on your proficiency in incoherence, given that you can’t express yourself.
The risk assessment is high (dangerous) is we do not act (reduce CO2 levels). Some regions may be have catastrophic consequences if we do not act (reduce CO2 levels).
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Please educate yourself in science and its method. I find your posts quite stifling and your questions pathetic. It’s feels like I’m writing to a 6 year old.
Which climate models failed?
You did not answer that. All you did was post some ‘thumbnail’ that does not work.
I asked you a specific question, and your response did not answer it, sadly for you.
You claim:
That is your assertion fallacy. Care to back it up with evidence?
Do a little bit of research, use Google, its so easy these days to become informed and not make foolish unintelligent statements. So you chose not to, instead you ask me to educate you – and you call me stupid!
And the rest of your 9 points is a classic example of Galileo Gambit. Thanks for underscoring my point for me. You have no idea about the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.
I leave you with this. It is not enough just to go against the establishment, you need to be right as well.
I asked you if you can falsify the scientific theory of ACC. the best you could do is claim that your hero (Minckton) does not agree with you. Oh, the irony!
You failed to answer my 5 questions. Why is that?
I’ll post them again:
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC/GW?
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC/GW?
3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?
4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)?
5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC/GW?
Wow you’re long winded and boring, how about you answer a few questions yourself, pal:
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international
standing that has completely eliminated natural causes for CC/GW?
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies naturally caused CC/GW?
3) Can you present me your climate change model which support this view?
4) How about you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)? (In 10,000 words or less. Lol!)
5) Can you present me your evidence that climate scientists are wrong when it comes to naturally caused CC/GW?
Once you’ve completed these tasks, we’ll still ignore you. Oh and take off that tin foil hat, John. Lol!
Let me remind you why I’m not debating you:
(i) You chose not to answer my simple questions. You are telling me that you have no respect for my time or your own content. That tells me that you are a climate change mis-informer and a denier.
(ii) You demonstrated that you refuse to answer my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. That is a rather illogical request from you. Yet you repeated it again. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective certainty about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between ACC denial and belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific certainty depend on subjective political beliefs.
I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that has completely eliminated natural causes for CC/GW?
No scientific body of national or international standing dissents from ACC.
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies naturally caused CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
3) Can you present me your climate change model which falsifies natural CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
4) How about you present us your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)? (In 10,000 words or less. Lol!)
You can read it yourself. Incidentally, “it’s just a natural cycle” isn’t just a cop-out argument – it’s something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what anthropogenic cliamte change was. Research shows that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.
5) Can you present me your evidence that climate scientists are wrong when it comes to naturally caused CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
Now, as you stated, you will not read this, nor will you answer my questions (the questions in the post that you responded to).
I answered yours, just because you’re stupid. How is that?
You forgot about this, troll.
Let state why I’m not debating you:
(i) You chose not to answer my simple questions. You are telling me that you have no respect for my time or your own content. That tells me that you are a climate change mis-informer and a denier.
(ii) You demonstrated that you refuse to answer my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. That is a rather illogical request from you. Yet you repeated it again. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
The difference between us is whether we accept the scientific method as the best way we have to get at the objective certainty about the physical world around us. I do, and you apparently don’t despite your loud protests. And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between ACC denial and belief in Laissez-Faire Capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific certainty depend on subjective political beliefs.
I do recommend that you learn more about the subject before you invest your ego in a public stand that you may find difficult to reverse later.
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that has completely eliminated natural causes for CC/GW?
No scientific body of national or international standing dissents from ACC.
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies naturally caused CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
3) Can you present me your climate change model which falsifies natural CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
4) How about you present us your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)? (In 10,000 words or less. Lol!)
You can read it yourself. Incidentally, “it’s just a natural cycle” isn’t just a cop-out argument – it’s something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what anthropogenic cliamte change was. Research shows that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.
The findings using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period. Over the most recent 25-65 years, the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades.
5) Can you present me your evidence that climate scientists are wrong when it comes to naturally caused CC/GW?
IPCC AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
Now, as you stated, you will not read this, nor will you answer my questions (the questions in the post that you responded to).
I answered yours, just because you’re stupid. How is that?
Anthropogenic climate change was first denounced as ridiculous by a consensus of the scientific community when Svante Arrhenius hypothesized it in 1896. Thus is the history of science. One radical idea is scoffed at, then lightly regarded, then considered plausible, then supported by some evidence, and then finally supported by overwhelming evidence from multiple, independent converging lines of research.
Thanks for laying out that history so elegantly.
If you want a good read on the history of global warming research start here.
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Man, what a thick, numb skull.
Still can’t answer one simple question.
Before I get to that, let’s correct your mistake one more time.
Monckton ALSO accepts that CO2 does have a warming forcing impact.
So, you are wrong once again.
ALL climate realists accept that CO2 has a warming impact.
The problem is this:
“UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explains the crux of the entire global warming debate and rebuts the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.
Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this point slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.”
This is where you are an idiot.
So, let’s ask you ONE LAST time. This is it. If you cannot answer this time then I win.
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
You appeal to the IPCC as an authority.
They have not and cannot answer the questions.
But, you can, can’t you? You claimed the climate has been quantified. You must surely be the greatest scientist on this earth.
C’mon now.
You can do it.
Nope, you can’t.
As expected, you did not answer any of my questions.
Yes, the most cogent and persuasive assessments of scientific peer review typically begin “Man, what a thick, numb skull.” Your credibility is obviously unimpeachable and your scathing indictment of the scientific establishment has convinced me to join your cult. Where do I mail the check?
You claim:
I answered it. I’m not going to copy/paste that answers again since you are in denial.
In fact, it is you that refuse to answer my questions.
Here is my question again, the central one that you refuse to answer:
Can you falsify ACC? If so, where is url to your published peer reviewed scientific journals that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies ACC?
You have repeatably ignored that, failed to answer it.
You claim:
That is where you are wrong again. Science is not a sport, it does not have two equal sides. That is not how science is settled. I explained this to you, but you struggle, purposely to accept that. All you can do is show your greed by trying to make this a political issue. That’s because you know that you can’;t change the science, so you appeal to the ignorant, wanting to steal their vote in the hope that it will wrap political policy in your favor to ultimately protect your greed.
Monckton are in denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC). ACC explains more than just CO2 levels having a warming forcing impact. It explains the risk assessment if we don’t act (reduce the CO2 levels), ACC states that CO2 is the main (but not only) driver of warming which results in potential catastrophic climate change. That you don’t see the difference shows me that you don’t understand Monckton or ACC (the very thing that you deny exists).
If Monctkton does not accept all of ACC, then he is in denial of it. That is simple logic.
What is a climate realist?
There is no debate, the science is settled. It is people such as you (climate realists, lol) that are in denial.
That’s an argument from authority. Rejected, sorry.
Not only that, but Philip Stott has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, he has no credentials in it. Writying books and making wild accusations without a any evidence has no credibility in sicence. Sadly for you.
You ask:
I answered that already, and no it did not reference IPCC. And no, you have not told me why IPCC is an appeal to authority. Their findings are based on evidence which was collected by instruments from climate chnage scientists all over the world. Unlike Philip Stott who has no evidence, no papers in climate change, just opinion based on wishful thinking.
Am still waiting for you to tell me which climate models failed, and how you know they failed.
You also have not answered my 5 questions.
1) Can you name me a scientific body of national or international standing that maintains a formal opinion dissenting anthropogenic CC/GW?
2) Can you present me your Peer Review scientific report that has been accepted by the scientific community that falsifies anthropogenic CC/GW?
3) Can you present me your climate change model to support your peer review report?
4) Can you present me your review of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)?
5) Can you present me your evidence that the majority of climate scientists are wrong when it comes to anthropogenic CC/GW?
:blockquote>
But, you can, can’t you? You claimed the climate has been quantified. You must surely be the greatest scientist on this earth.
I have not claimed that the climate has been quantified. I merely accept that ACC is not false (meaning that people such as you have not been able to falsify the evidence). Climate change scientists know how to measure climate chnage, they actually know how to read a thermometer, sea level rise, etc. unlike what you think. Nice straw man argument from you. It must have taken you years to formulate it!
Prediction:
You will once again not answer any of my questions. But you will claim that your fallacious straw man questions has not been answered. You will resort to more insults given that your reasoning failed. Are you happy with that?
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
Nope, you still have not answered my questions. Neither has your IPCC.
And I asked you first.
You will not get an answer to your questions until you first answer mine.
Sorry, Socratic rules of debate you know.
You lose.
Lose? For me to lose requires you to win. You have not done that.
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
OK, then.
You quit.
I answered that.
You have not answered my questions.
No. I don’t quit.
You’re wrong again.
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
Your turn.
That was answered. Why don’t you accept my answer?
1. It is changing rapidly, the rate of change is increasing. CO2 levels are above 400ppm, the first time since the start of the industrial age – that is 280ppm to 400ppm in 150 years. Surface temp change over the last century is above 1 DegC now, the rate is increasing.
Read this: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
2. Climate change is 100% anthropogenic.
According to the science, there’s a better than 90% probability that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.
Citation:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
We both know that you will once again deny that I answered it. Go ahead, embarrass yourself again.
Wrong about Monckton and all climate realists. And you STILL have not answered my questions.
1. Nope. Temps have been increasing since the Little Ice Age, even before the industrial age. So rising CO2 concentrations is not climate change. And you claim to be trained in science. Sheesh! How pathetic.
2. 100% anthropogenic? LMAOROTF!!! And then you contradict yourself by saying there’s only a “better than 90% probability”. Rich!
Climate is always changing. Even before the industrial age.
NASA’s Hansen was caught red-handed adjusting GISS temps. So, you’ll need to go sell that down the street because I ain’t buying it.
If CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures, what is? The sun?
When global temperatures are the question, the answer is not the sun or CO2. It is the sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, shifting ocean currents, albedo (Earth’s changing reflective properties), atmospheric dust, atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like carbon soot and volcanic dust, forests and grasslands, urban and other land use changes. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, not just CO2.
As University of London Professor Emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.”
Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, where they said “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”
So, the questions still remain:
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?”
It is changing rapidly, the rate of change is increasing. CO2 levels are above 400ppm, the first time since the start of the industrial age – that is 280ppm to 400ppm in 150 years. Surface temp change over the last century is above 1 DegC now, the rate is increasing.
So, now you accept that the surface temperature of earth has been increasing.
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 the sea levels rising? “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.”
Why is the sea trapping heat energy? “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”
The evidence that CO2 being a driver of this:
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Kiehl_Trenberth_Radiative_Balance_BAMS_1997.pdf and this: ftp://ftp.orbit.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/spb/lzhou/AMS86/PREPRINTS/PDFS/100737.pdf and this: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/bjs0601.pdf and this: http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf After you’ve read those, how about you tell me why you think it’s warming and why CO2 is not the main cause.
There are more ways how we measure how much the climate is changing. It’s all here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Shrinking ice sheets
Declining Arctic sea ice
Glacial retreat
Extreme events
Ocean acidification
Decreased snow cover
HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
According to the science, there’s a better than 90% probability that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Yes, climate change is 100% anthropogenic with a 90% probability that it comes from greenhouse gasses.
That is the same as flipping a coin. It will 100% land on either a head or tail, but there is only a 50% probability that it will be a head landing, and that depends on the number of times you flip it.
Seriously, don’t you understand statistics, probability theory?
In fact, climate change is more than 100% anthropogenic given that the earth should be in a cooling cycle and some of the warming is being offset by aerosols.
I suggest you read up more before you make yourself look silly.
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
CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM. It absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM. Energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above. Energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend. This process is governed by the laws of physics and is not open to debate. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060
Evidence please, or else you’re making it up.
The NASA url links is not only from NASA scientists, it references scientists outside NASA.
You, an anonymous Disqus user, are claiming to know more than the smartest people in the world, yet you give me no evidence to show that. Do you know what an assertion fallacy is? You should ,because you just committed that logical fallacy.
Over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends. Furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we should see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere. Currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles. http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/lockwood2007.pdf
The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html
You fail to understand the laws of physics governing heat transfer in the atmosphere. CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM. It absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM. Energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above. Energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend. This process is governed by the laws of physics and is not open to debate. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060
The mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule constituting that 9 trillion tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
About 7% of total CO2 is from anthropogenic sources, the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Do you know what quote mining (cherry picking) is? You should because you just committed that logical reasoning fallacy.
Science does not say CO2 is the only driver, it says CO2 is the main driver.
Answered.
And the difference is that I backed my answers up with published peer reviewed scientific journals. You did not tell me what is wrong with the science, nor did you give any scientific citations for your drivel.
Well, we see you are better than me at “quote mining”.
Good to know you know how to Google.
Everything you cherry picked has happened before. And even more so. It’s been hotter in the past. Ocean levels have been much higher in the past. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. If you say these facts are not true then you prove yourself blindly ignorant. Since you know how to “Google” you can look it up.
One last thing for you Johnny boy:
“Yes, climate change is 100% anthropogenic with a 90% probability that it comes from greenhouse gasses.”
The fact that you cannot see the stark contradiction of this is stunningly stupid.
You’ve done a great job pointing out the ever continuing changes in earth’s climate. Which will always continue.
But you are a miserable fail in answering the questions:
“HOW MUCH IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?” And, “HOW MUCH CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTED TO GHGs?”
I have proved to anyone reading our pathetic thread here that you cannot possibly answer these two simple questions.
Not even a nice try. Pathetic.
You lose, again.
So, you could not find any fallacies in my post. Thanks for conceding that with your insult. You forget still, for me to lose requires you to win. You have not done that.
Now, lets move on. Let’s get to the real issue why you are in denial. Why you claim that the smartest people in the world got it right, but you, an anonymous Disgus user got it right (but refuse to tell us how you know you are right).
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?
Give me your answers, denier.
Nope, Johnny boy. You’re still a fail.
You still have not answered my questions.
You therefore get squat from me.
The fact is, you cannot answer the questions.
Not one of your Googled articles demonstrate ANY quantifiable link between CO2 and climate change.
Not even one.
As is easily demonstrated, every instance of climate change you pointed out has happened before the Industrial Age.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Correlation is not causation.
The fact that you cannot see that eminently disqualifies you as a scientist.
Here’s to a 800 ppmv CO2 atmospher.
You lose again.
What you fail to understand is that it’s not about your quality of life. It is about technological advancement and stability. You need that first before you can do anything about life style.
Technology advancement will come by investment in green technologies via innovation and new inventions. Do you think coal plants has always existed and is the only source of energy?
Stability comes form we have admit that we need a dictatorship, not a democracy for making decisions. The dictatorship is where falsifiable evidence is the dictator. That is much better than democracy (majority vote of the ignorant and ignoring evidence, I include you here).
But people like you (strong right-wing with conservative libertarian political beliefs) are to greedy. You not only don’t give a f..k about what happens to the earth, you even deny the falsifiable evidence exists.
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
People say lots of things, and there’s no legal requirement to be a scientist to say them or even to speak the truth. Nor are scientists required to debunk every false argument; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up.
Scientists are frequently presented with a conundrum: ignore pseudoscientific claims (your ridiculous claims) and risk being perceived as unable to refute them, or thoroughly debunk them and risk granting a veneer of legitimacy to your illegitimate position. This is quite common thanks in part to a news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. Evolution and climate change deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge real scientists to public debates. The public does not realize that this is not how scientific issues are resolved. They are resolved, over time, through the pages of refereed journals and conference proceedings. They exploit this public misconception this to the hilt because their goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which they cannot do, thanks to the checks and balances of the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in their favor, which is their ultimate goal. That’s why we’ve long had state legislators trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promoting creationism or “intelligent design”. And now some are trying to ban the teaching of mainstream climate science.
Incidentally, I’m educated in physics and chemistry, but not a climate scientist, and suspect neither are you. However, I do try to keep up with important scientific work in other fields, especially when it produces results with significant implications for public policy. I accept the consensus of anthropogenic climate change and that the human extinction risk is high if we do not reduce the CO2 levels immediately. I accept it because I accept the scientific method and I value the truth over what I would personally prefer to be the case. One does not require credentials in a field to understand and accurately summarize its findings. One does require credentials in a field to meaningfully challenge those findings.
“Monckton has always said the climate is changing.”
As if that means it never changes for unnatural reasons?
Defense attorney: “Your honor, my client is not guilty because people have always died.”
I am honored, Sir. But, I must respectfully decline. I am too busy working on projects important to me and mine for the present and future. And I am as old as, if not older than, the Viscount, so my time left on Earth gets more valuable everyday that’s left. Thank you so much for your reply. So many times I feel like I’m talking as of one in the New Dark Age of Climate Warmists.
Yeah. We can start with ExxonMobil.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago
But the truth is NOT on your side, idiot.
When can we this again in theatres or DVD, or Netiflix, or anything? Thanks
Contact the scientists. See if they agree with Kimmel’s “97%” study story. And how much they personally believe cc is manmade.
The film is very shifty.
Also find out who made it. It wasn’t ABC who got these people and filmed them. It looks like it is supplied product.
“my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc15ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars 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 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc15:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMagazineGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc15………a
“my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc26ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars 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 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc26:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc26……
“my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc20ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars 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 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc20:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMediaGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc20……
“my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc22ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars 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 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc22:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBlueGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc22…
All I needed to read was “Sarah Palin backing Climate Hustle film.” I won’t waste my money.