Bonn, February 22 – The Mayor of Bonn and the UN awarded a group of young pupils a prize for best childrens’s global climate change song today for a performance that helped build awareness and commitment among young people in the run up to the Paris Climate Change Conference. Their catchy winning song was “Climate Astronauts”!
The children from Gottfried Kinkel Primary School in Bonn, Germany, took home the award for best children’s song in the 2015 Global Youth Music Contest, which was organized by the International Association for the Advancement of Innovative Approaches to Global Challenges, in cooperation with UNESCO and the United Nations Climate Change secretariat.
“The creativity of these talented children from Bonn is a testament to just how seriously youth from all corners of the Earth today take climate change—underlining how music and art has a powerful role to play in forging a better world,” said Nick Nuttall, UNFCCC Spokesperson.
The United Nations awarded the song “Climate Astronauts” the prize for best children’s global climate change song. Performed by students from Bonn, Germany and “Climate Fairy” Bernadette La Hengst, the lyrics include, ‘don’t need no cars’, ‘we go by feet’, and ‘don’t need no bath’.
Selected lyrics:
We are astronauts, and we can see
We are astronauts, what’s good for you
We are astronauts, no plastic bags
We are astronauts, don’t waste the food
We are astronauts, turn out the lights
We are astronauts, in the night
We are astronauts, don’t need no cars
We are astronauts, we go by bikeWe are climate, climate astronauts
We are climate, climate astronauts[…]
Boys and girls around the world
Can you hear us
We are loud
We don’t need no CO2
What we need is me and you
And, our solar rockets
We rocket, rocketWe are astronauts, we plant the trees
We are astronauts, we go by feet
We are astronauts, we save the world
We are astronauts, when we brush our teeth
We are astronauts, don’t need no bath
We are astronauts, at every day
We are astronauts, we love you earth
We are astronauts, and we will sayWe are climate, climate astronauts
[…]
“The competition triggered entries from around the globe with the two youth winners from Indonesia and the United States honoured in Paris. Today, we honour the children and students of Gottfried Kinkel for helping to pen a song that was both super catchy and full of enthusiastic advice on how each one of us can live more environmentally-friendly lives,” he said.
New Mayor of Bonn Praises the Young Climate Ambassadors
Today’s award ceremony took place at Gottfried Kinkel School with special guest Ashok Sridharan, Mayor of Bonn. Mayor Sridharan thanked the school, the children and their teachers: “Children’s voices need to be heard because they are the generation that will be impacted by the effects of climate change.”
“As chairman of the board of the Foundation Bonn Climate Ambassadors, I admire the huge motivation of children to change the world and to take action. These young Bonn Climate Ambassadors help people understand the importance of our global challenge with the power of music. Their testimonial and passion makes me feel hopeful that they will help create a more sustainable future,” he said.
‘Climate Astronauts,’ was the result of an innovative collaboration with the City of Bonn’s Climate Ambassadorsprogram.The song was originally developed and performed with Bernadette La Hengst, the Berlin-based singer/songwriteras part of Theatre Bonn’s SAVE THE WORLD II festival in September 2015.
The winners of the 2015 Global Youth Music Contest were determined by a combination of online voting and a jury composed of representatives from IAAI, UNESCO MOST and UNFCCC ACE. Winners were announced in November 2015 and recognized at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, France, in December 2015.
The foundation Bonn Climate Ambassadors was established in May 2010 and successfully runs the programme “BONNI & Bo – climate drivers licence” with Bonn primary schools since 2012. Four thousand third graders have achieved their certificate to date.
Gottfried-Kinkel-Primary School was the cradle of the climate drivers’ license programme. Teachers from this school were the ones to develop and test the teaching materials together with cartoon artist Özi.
Watch the winning Climate Astronauts video below:
| For more information, please contact:
Nick Nuttall, UNFCCC Spokesperson Sarah Marchildon, UNFCCC Communications Officer Markus Schmitz, City of Bonn Communications Officer Jürgen Reske, CEO, Stiftung Bonner Klimabotschafter |
Related Link:
The Climate Fairy ‘Don’t Need No Cars’: UN Awards Kids For Their Global Warming Song
73 Responses
This is evidence of malpractice in teaching. Without CO2 there would be no life as we know it on this planet.
The insignificant effect of CO2 on climate is quantified at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com with a near-perfect explanation of average global temperature since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+
It is worse than ignorance. It is a pseudoscientific Trojan horse to promote statism and globalism.
That’s right! It’s intentional dishonesty. Mr. Morano is paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.
Are you on the payroll too?
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
So you mount a personal attack on someone who happens to hold a different view rather than studying the evidence and discovering – as you should well know – that all life on earth would be in trouble at 180 ppm CO2 and would probably all disappear at 120 ppm.
Teaching children that we would be better off without carbon dioxide is, in effect, telling them that we would all be better off if we – and all life on earth – were dead.
…so how did all live on Earth today make it through 172PPM of CO₂?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt
And as high as 4000 ppm. Submarines regularly went well over 400 ppm. Grow ops are way way higher because it is good for plant growth. Al Gore’s death and destruction prophecy of oceans flooding New York by 2010 were slightly off. CO2 promotes plant growth which naturally adapt to use and store even more moisture from the atmosphere. Oceans aren’t flooding.
There are remains of native villages in the ocean.off the West coast of Canada and Alaska that are 400 ft deep. Also ancient beaches 300 ft above the present sea level. Climate changes.
No!
No, that’s not what the quote says.
Try reading it again, then point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.
If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice
—Try reading it again, then point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.—
Where’s your science to support that nonsense. NO…don’t misdirect, obfuscate…just provide you science. But you CAN’T, can you CB. If your points are valid, why do you have to exaggerate…or just outright lie, since you KNOW that your ice caps claim is simply BS.
Graves big fibbin! Why big fibbin from Graves? Does it need attention?
Best,
D
Clearly…
Mr. Graves is well-known for lying, but unlike Marc Morano, he’s paid in attention.
…like a puppy!
Awwww…
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148
You’re a special kind of crazy, aren’t you? The article is about the UN brainwashing children with outright lies (we don’t need no CO2) and all you can seem to do is attack those bringing the corruption to light. All those sites you love to link to, nothing put paid shills for corrupt crony capitalists… and I can add links to websites to prove it.
No. Babbling to themselves in public is actually quite common Climate Denier behaviour.
It’s not special at all.
Aquinas, when you run your car, does the exhaust warm the planet?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Just can’t address the topic can you. That is a sure sign of a delusional personality. Anyway, your argument is yet another poorly executed straw man. No one disputes the heat trapping nature of CO2, hence the argument that we can’t live without CO2, contrary to what the UN crazies seem to be teaching the children.
❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!b!638➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsLiving/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:::::!b!638…….
“…so how did all life on Earth today make it through 172PPM of CO₂?”
When I read your posts I am not entirely sure it did.
You are an industrial-grade book, repeating industrial-grade political dogma as fact.
“DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
…according to Poptech, another source of fossil-funded misinformation.
How about science, Odin?
Can you produce any science?
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
All that you have is sneer and smear and appeals to a false consensus. I have told you that I don’t want to deal with you after I caught you misquoting me and calling me a liar. I made an exception when you quoted the smear cite DeSmogBlog. Goodbye.
…and science.
I have science on my side.
Who was the sneering, smearing person you were talking about, Odin?
Is he too close to you for comfort?
berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf
http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2015/09/25/watch-video-of-climate-activists-at-papal-rally-in-dc-reveals-they-dont-believe-in-god-im-more-involved-with-the-nature-religions/
Climate Depot says Climate Depot says Climate Depot says Climate Depot…
Who cares!?
It’s funded by the fossil fuel industry!
Do you have science to back up your claim… actual, peer-reviewed, science?
Do you even have a claim?
If you don’t, why bother posting anything at all?
Do you just enjoy humiliating yourself?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
🙂
I will take that as a yes.
Now why couldn’t you find a less dangerous subject to lie about?
Do you have no sense of self-preservation?
If you really do hate life so much; if it’s just too painful for you to endure, why not end it?
Why would you think you had the right to take anyone else with you?
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheets
Whatever.
No, Odin.
“Whatever” is not the way a person with a healthy sense of self-preservation responds to a threat.
The complete collapse of the polar ice sheets would raise sea levels 75 meters worldwide, destroying the world’s coastal cities and creating billions of refugees.
How could you possibly avoid being affected by such a catastrophe?
If that’s not what we’ve set in motion, just because of the fossil fuel we’ve already burned, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high?
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
Spout whatever you want. Everyone who encounters you considers the source and discounts whatever you have to say because you have a Lysenko view of science.
Right. NASA.
If you think I’m wrong about the history, prove it.
Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have right now.
Why haven’t you done that already?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
LMAO! And who are the CAGW sources funded by? You people really are dupes.
The world’s scientists?
They are funded by the fossil fuel industry, among other funding sources.
Now that the industry has been formally notified by its own scientists that it’s selling a dangerous product, why does it continue to sell that product?
Could it not now be held liable for its crimes against humanity?
berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf
berkeleyearth.org/funders
I see you’ve been duped again.
Moron still drinking the Kool-Aid.
There is a hidden meaning. I suspect that the Koch Brothers hired subversives, to make CO2 haters look bad.
Is that all you have?
How do I get on the fossil fuel industry skeptic payroll??? I’ll work my butt off for that paycheck!
What you pontificate is a laughable parody of rationality and doesn’t count at all in a reality.
You have nothing intelligent to say?
Why are you in denial on anthropogenic climate change?
There is no empirical evidence to substantiate the AGW hypothesis . Provide one or more scientific studies showing , by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming.
Oh dear.
You just admitted to being a climate change denier, given that you admitted to being in denial of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate Change Denialism is the rejection of facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change, in favor of radical and controversial crank theories born in delusion.
Take a few minutes and reflect on what you just admitted to. Unless, of course, you now deny being in denial. Oh, the irony.
There is a well known phenomenon called crank magnetism – cranks are attracted to cranky ideas just like magnets.
Is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Incidentally, in this reality (not your denialism reality) there is evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC):
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Seems like you were wrong. But since in your are in denial, you will deny that fact that the evidence exists and that I pointed you to it. the irony is that you are right, because in your denialism reality there is no evidence for ACC. But where you are wrong, is that your denialism reality is not real, it is manufactured by delusion, your pseudo science.
That is why I said: What you pontificate is a laughable parody of rationality and doesn’t count at all in a reality.
You may think it is not an intelligent to say, because, perhaps, in your pseudo reality opinions are facts.
You had to walk into that, hey!
But come on, please deny that you are in denial. Oh, the irony!
Tell me, honestly, is there a crank theory that you do not believe in?
Straw man. I said that :
“There is no empirical evidence to substantiate the AGW hypothesis . Provide one or more scientific studies showing , by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming. [Emphasis supplied]
The AGW hypothesis is that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming since the early 1950s.
No one claims that there is no climate change or that human activities do not contribute some to global warming, but there is NO empirical evidence that human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) are the PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming since the early 1950s.
You cite to a propaganda cite that provides no empirical evidence of causation. You apparently do not know what empirical evidence is:
“Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”
……
“Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.”
“The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.”
Today many studies and papers are published on line with their data and code so that anyone with the scientific expertise can critique and replicate the study or paper. This helps avoid “pal’ review by a close knit group of scientists and makes it more difficult for scientists who have a political agenda to keep scientists with a different viewpoint from publishing.
Note the the data and methodology have to be made public so that disinterested scientists can replicate the experiment or observation to eliminate the possibility of bias, human error or outright fraud.
The following are NOT empirical evidence :
1. Appeals to authority;
2. Appeals to consensus;
3. Theories or a hypothesis (no matter how elegant);
4. Computer climate models;
5. Evidence of CO2 and temperatures rising at the same time (correlation is not proof of causation and besides studies show that temperatures increase as much as 800 years before CO2 increases- which suggests that the AGW hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing global warming is backwards);
6. Evidence of what happens when temperatures increase or decrease (this may or may not be evidence of the effects of changes in temperatures, but it is NOT evidence of what CAUSED the change in temperatures);
7. Predictions of dire consequences of global warming like increased frequency, duration or strength of climate phenomena (these are based on CCM projections and the assumption that there is global warming as projected by the climate models- no global warming and the dire consequences will never happen
Now quit the arm waiving and the Alinskey style mockery and provide
one or more scientific studies showing , by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming.
Remember, evidence that CO2 might contribute a little bit to global warming is not sufficient as small temperature contributions by CO2 emissions to atmospheric temperatures are easily overridden by natural forcers.
You chose one again not to answer my questions.
Yes, it is indeed a straw man in your delusional pseudo reality given that you are in denial.
But in this reality, you admitted to being in denial.
You now claim:
Oh, so now you accept the evidence for ACC?
Interesting.
So, what human activities are, according to your above admission, are causing some global warming and climate change?
Causes of ACC:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
You claim:
Ok, so you are moving the goal post. Previously you wanted evidence for ACC (AGW in your denialism reality), now you want evidence for the cause of ACC.
Causes of ACC:
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Now, be a big boy and tell me why the above is not empirical evidence?
In stead of claiming it is not, why don’t you demonstrate that you actually know why it is not empirical evidence of causation?
Btw, there is no such things as empirical evidence in science, nor scientific evidence. Science do work on observation and or experimentation, but can accept anything (data, information, facts, concrete objects) as support for assertions. In sciecne, we do not define things by what it is not. You need to educate yourself on the scientific method.
I now see that you are defining your own ’empirical evidence’ by stating what it is not. I can understand that it may be how you guys do things in your delusional denial reality, but in this reality we don’t do it that we.
So, your request to that I should suspend my disbelief in the scientific method is rejected. Your cognitive estrangement did not work, your request to that I should suspend my disbelief in the this reality to enter your pseudo reality is rejected.
Sure, you will not admit any of the above, nor will you answer any of my questions. We both know that.
You are in denial. And we know why: its your greed (it has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of science or its method). I can understand why you would want to try and claim its the sciecne. That’s because you will not admit to your greed. We both know that, and I’m backed by by scientific research on the correlation of ACC deniers and a belief in laissez-faire capitalism.
What I want to know is if you want to get out of denial? Do you want to face this reality and accept it’s principles?
Only you can move yourself out of denial. I can’t do it for you, but I can help you to explain how you should go about it.
You have taken the first major step. You admitted to being in denial and you demonstrated that with your psduo science. That, in itself, is progress of some kind.
Do you want help to proceed, to make a step into reality and way from denial?
What makes you think the previous fact was not intelligent?
“What you pontificate is a laughable parody of rationality and doesn’t count at all in a reality.”
That is not a fact, that is an opinion which is devoid of facts or links to supporting authority. Your post is nothing but an attempt to ridicule and smear. There is nothing intelligent about it.
I responded to your prior post:
You; “Why are you in denial on anthropogenic climate change?”
Me : “There is no empirical evidence to substantiate the AGW hypothesis . Provide one or more scientific studies showing , by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming.”
Why are you and other Believers hiding the empirical evidence that substantiates the AGW hypothesis that humans are the primary cause of global warming since the early 1950s? Believers have spent billions if not trillions on studying anthropogenic global warming. Where is the evidence supporting the hypothesis? Are Believers keeping the empirical evidence a trade secret?
You claim:
You admitted to being in denial.
So, yes, in your denialism reality you would probably be correct; claims do not need supporting evidence, facts are opinions, and appeals to authorities are not logical fallacies.
But in this reality, the one that you deny exists, you are wrong. The science shows you wrong. I for one do not claim that objective scientific theories depend on subjective political beliefs or emotional opinions.
You know, if you’d thought before typing, you could have come up with a cogent reply.
You juts admitted, again, to be in denial.
I mean, what more is there to say?
You have basically admitted that you reject this reality, made your own pseudo reality, because you refuse to deal with the facts in this reality.
At least you are refreshingly honest about it. You admitted that you can’t be reasoned with, because you know that logic contradicts your belief, hence you invented your own fake reality where it does not. You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change (ACC) denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
Evidence for ACC.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Btw, there is no such things as AGW or a AGW hypothesis. You are beating up your own straw man. So, yes, there is no evidence for a AGW or AGW hypothesis since it does not exist in reality.
What we use in reality (real reality not your pseudo reality is):
Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is a scientific theory.
That the earth is heating up is a scientific fact.
Let me explain why your AGW hypothesis does not exist.
The word “anthropogenic” in your “AGW anthropogenic global warming” is wrong given that humans don’t cause warming, CO2 traps heat which causes warming among other things. Human activities, not humans, causes CO2 levels to rise. This rise in extra CO2 is the cause of the extra heat energy on earth and the atmosphere. Some of this heat is transferred to earth’s surface, and warms the surface. We measure this surface warming in temperature.
The word “global” in your “AGW anthropogenic global warming” is wrong as well since the planet isn’t warming uniformly—a few places have a short-lived cooling trends.
The word “warming” in your “AGW anthropogenic global warming” is wrong as well since the word “warming” sounds downright cozy on a cold day, when, in fact, not only ‘warming’, but substantially heating of the atmosphere and ocean is happening.
I mean, you do know the difference between warming, heat and temperature, yes? or are they all the same thing in your pseudo reality?
Lastly, AGW Hypothesis does not exist.
ACC is the scientific theory and explains the scientific facts of a earth that is heating up, and CO2 built-up. ACC is a scientific theory because it graduated from being a hypothesis since the falsifiable evidence could not be falsified.
Can you falsify the evidence for ACC?
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
No, you can’t, because in your reality ACC and the evidence for it does not exist. You admitted that.
What is the cause of your denial? That is what I want to know. The cause it not that there is no evidence ACC, the cause of your denial is your greed. You don’t fear the tax, you fear the economical and political impact of ACC on your greedy lifestyle. You think that we can get unlimited growth from limited resource. Climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total lessez-faire capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
And I’m backed up on this by psychological research — there are numerous studies showing a very strong correlation between global warming denial and belief in laissez-faire capitalism. I for one do not believe that objective scientific facts depend on subjective political beliefs.
My next question is, how do you get yourself out of denial?
I can help you, but you need to be honest, to promise you will do your homework, to be attentive. You admitted to being in denial. That is the first big step that you took. Now, do you want to take the next step?
Want my help?
John, return the computer to your mother and go to bed. In the morning contemplate this:
1. Both of the U.S. satellite data sets for the lower troposphere (RSS & UAH v6) show that there has been no global warming in the lower troposphere in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period equal to 1/3 of the rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times. The lower troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere which the AGW hypothes predicted to warm before the surface of the earth. The lower troposhpere has has not warmed, but the surface station data has warmed during the pause. Why? https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/figure-17.png
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/since-2000-humans-have-put-out-30-of-their-total-co2-but-there-is-nothing-to-show-for-it/
Those who believe in AGW accuse skeptics of cherry picking by using the peak of the El Nino in 1998 to start the graphs of the satellite data showing no global warming for the past 18+ years. Actually, the graph linked to above starts in 1997 and not 1998 and the the start date was not picked, it was calculated. The graphs of the RSS and UAH v.6.0 show the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS and UAH satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend.
Temperature changes for the past 8.000 years in Holocene were about 1.0 degree per century:
Abstract from Lloyd study : “ …Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”
Taking the margin for error into account, natural variation ranged from .71 degrees C to 1.25 degrees C during the 8,000 years covered by the study.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
The IPPC’s claim of temperature increase from 1880 to 2012 is:
“Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012, [132 years or 0.0064 C/ year or 0. 64 C /century] according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
The temperature variation for the past 132 years according is well within the natural variation found by the Lloyd study.
2. Studies show that temperatures rise first, and then atmospheric CO2 levels rise as much as 800 years later. The effect (rising temperatures) cannot come before the cause (rising CO2 levels) unless one has a time machine.
This article has a list of studies showing CO2 changes lag temperature changes:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N28/EDIT.php
Modern time period:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
3. CO2’s ability to absorb and re-radiate radiation is logarithmic and not linear. The CO2 molecule has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. However, the water molecule has many more vibrational modes and absorbs many more radiation frequencies, including some of the radiation absorbed by CO2. As a result, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of 400 ppm, only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image0027.jpg
See also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/10/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-on-temperature/
4. According to all “ general climate models” and to the IPCC reports, the proof of the water vapor feedback amplification of the warming is a “hot spot” in the tropical high troposphere. The hot spot has not been observed and does not exist (except in the models).
The most that AGW supporters have been able argue is that they have been unable to find the ‘hot spot” because of fog in the data or “the hot spot is hidden by the noise”.
5. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or slightly warmer than today. The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time and nature abhors a positive feedback mechanism.
http://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/
http://www.co2science.org/subject/g/globalmwp.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/18/baffin-island-study-disappoints-the-illusive-coup-de-grace-on-the-medieval-warm-period/
Here is an article listing 22 inconvenient truths to the AGW hypothesis (with supporting data and references):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/
BTW, you owe me the scientific paper or papers showing, by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming.
You did not answer any of my questions. I mean, did you even read my post? Or are you a bot? I buried a little surprise in it for you, which you did not find. That is my test I ran on you. And you failed. Therefore I can’t take you seriously, no matter how serious you take yourself.
I checked your url link sources and they are from known pseudo scientific sites. I mean really, a normal person would stop right there and reject the nonsense, but not you. Further, you could not even formulate your own arguments, you had to copy it from those pseudo science sites.
I leave you with this:
You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
And below, for one day when you are ready to move out of denial.
You are in the first stage of accepting scientific knowledge (anthropogenic climate change). You admitted that and are demonstrating it. The stages are:
1) Denial: You deny the science due to your ignorance of science, its method because of your greed.
2) Anger: It contradicts some scripture or your belief (your crank theory)
3) Acceptance: You always knew ACC was not false..
Before you try and understand this, let me explain to you more detail regarding stage 1: denial.
Your denial will always take on 3 basic logical fallacies:
1.1. Appeal to authority.
You will always cite some scientific expert that claims anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.
1.2. Appeal on consequences
You will also state how bad it will be if we accept the science and act. This is merely your outcry to the public and looking for support, hoping that you can spread your ignorance to them, and instill unsupported fear, rather than focusing on the science and trying to falsify it.
1.3. Circular Reasoning
You will offer one canard (false claim) after the other. When we rebut the first, you will not acknowledge that, you will just play the next canard. On and on we go, hey.
I can’t change you, only you can do that. All I can do is explain the facts and the stages of denial/acceptance you are in. It’s your job to understand it; I can’t do your homework for you.
You admitted to being in denial. We now to need let you admit to the reason why you are in denial, namely your greed. You are protecting your greedy lifestyle, but have not admtted to it.
You need to get angry, once you do, then I’ll know that you have admitted to your greed. We can then talk about what belief of your contradict logic. Only then will you be ready to move to stage 3, acceptance of ACC.
What makes you think this is sport where there are 2 sides of equal sides? When I read rubbish such as what you posted then I understand the conundrum:
1) Do I engage and debunk every single false claim you are making? The risk with that is that it could be perceived that there is some legitimacy in your claims and that it’s worth my time.
2) Do I not engage, but refuse to debunk every single false claims you are making? The risk with that is that it could suggest that your claims can’t be debunked and is therefore not false.
And here is the thing; I nor scientists are not required to debunk every false claim; science is not a sport where one side wins by default if the other side doesn’t show up. This is quite common thanks in part to people like you and news media that promotes controversy by assuming every issue always has two equal sides. I suspect people like you and the deniers know this very well. It’s why they constantly challenge 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. You and your deniers will exploit this public misconception to the max because your goal is not to change the scientific consensus (which you cannot do, thanks to the scientific method) but to influence public opinion (of which scientists form a tiny minority). That in turn warps public policy in your favor, which is your ultimate goal, protecting your greed. And promoting Lessez-Faire Capitalism. – the realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
I don’t read Gish Gallop carefully and arm waiving is designed to distract. Did you read my post with the scientific evidence? Obviously not. Since it appears that you don’t have the empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, I am moving on.
So, you don’t read my posts, you don’t answer my questions, but you expect me to read your posts and answer your questions?
How is that logical?
If you don’t read my posts, how will you know if I answered your posts?
Did you have amnesia between these two sentences?
There is no such thing as scientific evidence. What you provided was pseudo science; all conjecture, guess and wishful thinking. Do you know what an appeal to authority is? You should because you you made that logical fallacy. You will always cite some pseudo scientific website claiming anthropogenic climate change is false. You will never point to what the scientific community says, or what the leading scientific theories are, or point to peer review journals.
As stated before, your AGW hypothesis is a straw man. Empirical evidence is not defined by what it is not, nice try.
And I left a little surprise in my previous post for you. Have you still not found it? You need to re-read my posts, all of them. Let me know if you find my surprise. You will know it when you find it, I promise.
You can’t convince an anthropogenic climate change denier of anything; for their denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
Tell me about your greed.
How do you get yourself out of denial?
You have no substantive comment, facts or science. Most of all, you have no empirical evidence. Go troll elsewhere. I don’t have time for Gish gallop and arm waiving.
You admitted to being in denial. So, your rhetoric is based on delusion; can’t be taken seriously.
I want to know, how will you get yourself out of denial?
You have been dismissed. I am ignoring you as a bot.
Your reasoning failed, that is why you are running.
How do you get yourself out of denial, given that you comprehensively admitted and demonstrated that you are in denial?
Or is this a case of:
You can’t convince odin2, a self-confessed anthropogenic climate change denier, of anything; for odin2’s denial is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to deny.
What now?
You were dismissed. Scram.
Re-read my last comment, and then read your comments from the perspective of a third person.
How will you get yourself out of denial?
if you don’t answer that, then I have to conclude that you don’t want to get out, for your denial is based on a deep seated need to deny.
No wonder you think some imaginary supernatural monster exists and commit you of thought crime!
Sock-puppets. Dopes. Morons. Know-nothings.
So, they can see what’s good for us? Sounds to mesh perfectly with the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, which believes in Big Government controlling citizen’s lives.
You are an industrial-grade book, repeating industrial-grade political dogma as fact.
Anthropogenic climate science denial is itself a cult, driven by the ideology of total Lessez-Faire Capitalism. The realization that the earth has limited resources and that some sort of regulation is necessary is simply unacceptable to that ideology, so it must be rejected at all costs.
Subtle brainwashing. Almost child abuse and manipulation. How come they are wearing caps and sunglasses? Is it because of the hot sun??.
But we do need CO2. What a pile of stupidity! Let them do with out baths, cars, plastics, and CO2. Idiots on parade. Why do they lie to children.
Perverting the perception of innocents is a crime.
“If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.”
How much CO2 is a save level for humans?
What is the save temp level for humans?
What is the sensitivity between CO2 and temp?
“Don’t need no CO2”? Stick a plant in a room w/o it and see what happens.
What a group of idiots. Maybe we should cut down every tree in the UK, burn every house to the ground, kill all the vegetation in the area and let the kids find out how toxic our CO2 really is. Maybe start feeding them bugs and insects, too.
Isn’t it strange that a wayward alarmist would have the temerity to come onto this site to try
to take Morano and CFACT to task for being the recipients of modest amounts
of contributions? The Big Enviro organizations like the Sierra Club, NRDC, and EDF
have benefited handsomely to the tune of $100 million each from the largess of several
petroleum companies who may have naively thought they could curry the favor of the hand-biting
ingrates among the climate alarmists.
For their part climate skeptics have fought a valiant battle against well-funded opposition and
its host of the ill-informed followers who are easily led to believe in witchcraft.
Carbon dioxide poses no, I repeat no, material risk to humans or other forms of life on this planet.
The plants love it. If it were true that a CO2 level greater than 350 ppm could pose a risk of propelling the climate into a runaway greenhouse, surely that calamity would have already occurred long ago. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have exceeded the 350 ppm level by some 20X (7000 ppm) in past geologic periods. Carbon dioxide functions most effectively as a green house gas primarily at low temperatures when ambient water concentrations are very low. Without the presence of the quasi-permanent CO2 gas at a few hundred ppm, Earth likely would have entered and remained in a state of deep-freeze sometimes referred to as “Snow-ball Earth” by geologists. As the concentration of CO2 increases its incremental effect diminishes, so that adding another 100 ppm from the current 400 ppm to 500 ppm would contribute less additional greenhouse warming than what was already contributed by the rise from 300 ppm to 400 ppm.
But it is now becoming obvious that the GCMs are overestimating the contribution by a factor of
some 2 1/2 times as indicated by the emerging CO2 sensitivity (defined as the temperature rise attending a doubling of the CO2 concentration).
Proof-texting your way by quoting some dubious publications by NOAA or NASA to support your flimsy argument will not get you very far on this site. Better go post your comments to the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos where the readers are more easily persuaded.
HL
You made up several of these statements. Why?
Best,
D
LOL. So due to the double negatives, they do need CO2, cars, a bath…. Education at its finest. Any wonder they buy into this garbage.
Reminiscent of the Hitler Youth. Their parents must be so proud.
Uh…You do need CO2 and singing your dumb song expelled some more. Environmentalism = Misanthropy.
Huh??
CO2 is the Gas of Life…….
Without it……. Most Life on Earth ceases to exist……
This stuff reminds me of the Hitler Youth…….
So, you don’t need plants to eat and feed ruminants, leaves to give off 02, that whole photosynthesis hubbub….
Science still being taught in school?
How long has it been since the mayor bathed?
Rasputin, call your office.