Climate Change Claims Nonsense?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Doesn't hurt at all, because I've already answered your question.

[homersapien 11,386]

Doesn't hurt at all, because I've already answered your question.

No you haven't. You can't lie your way out of evading my questions. Citing a web site and insisting I read it ever more carefully hardly qualifies as a response.

You've got nothing but insults. You never do. Your posts can't withstand scrutiny. They are indefensible, as you are now revealing.

1) Is it that burning 20,000 gal of jet fuel is going to have measurable effect on AGW?

2) Or is it you feel that the POTUS should take a sail boat to Paris for symbolic reasons?

3) Or is it something else?

4) What I don't know exactly is the percent of the incremental carbon emissions produced specifically by this conference relative to the total carbon emissions emitted globally over the same period. But you seem to have a pretty good idea of it. How about sharing?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Any burning of fossil fuels adds to the total. You don't like accepting that fact so you attack me and call me names, make false accusations, etc... Doesn't matter how much is added, if the act alone is bad.

Sailing would make a huge statement, even if AGW is s non issue.

[homersapien 11,386]

Any burning of fossil fuels adds to the total. You don't like accepting that fact so you attack me and call me names, make false accusations, etc... Doesn't matter how much is added, if the act alone is bad.

Sailing would make a huge statement, even if AGW is s non issue.

Where did I say the burning of any fossil fuels does not add to the total? Hell just breathing adds to the total. I never said that, so stop lying.

This is not a qualitative issue, its quantitative. (I'll explain that if necessary.)

So in summary, your problem with Obama flying to the conference is that he ignored the sailing option.

5) Do you really think that would impress the world more than a serious commitment by the US to reduce carbon emissions.

So stop obfuscating and please address the questions I posed.

[AURaptor 1,125]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

Isn't amazing how some people don't get this. Is there a pill for delusion?

[homersapien 11,386]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

Well, if you believe global warming is all a fantastic hoax, I understand why you think that.

[homersapien 11,386]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

Isn't amazing how some people don't get this. Is there a pill for delusion?

Are you saying that accepting the scientific reality on AGW is delusional?

[AFTiger 282]

Is it delusional to reject scientific reality that climate change may not be man caused?

[AURaptor 1,125]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

Well, if you believe global warming is all a fantastic hoax, I understand why you think that.

Pollution isn't a hoax. Heavy metals and toxic poison aren't jokes. Excessive CO2 ? Not nearly as much a problem.

[AFTiger 282]

When the left blames everything or make stupid predictions based on the AGW hypothesis (such as AGW created ISIS), one can't help but be skeptical of the entire argument and search for motives behind the hysteria. My theory is that these are the same people who promoted the progressive ideals of Fascism in the 1930s or Communism during the 1940s. The common thread is that government elites know what is best for us and we must defer to their "wisdom."

They continue to trot out flawed science, adjust data and generate some pure propaganda under the guise of science while accusing us of being science deniers. Look up the Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Lysenkoism to understand much of the science behind AGW..uk

The question I have is, when will the left come to acknowledge that their devotion is misguided and just wacky.

Activists go thru 5 stages of grief for the climate change campaign

Anthony Watts / 41 mins ago December 5, 2015

By Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website

Summary: Climate activists have begun to see the failure of their campaign to get public policy measures to fight climate change. Their actions follow the five stages of grief in the Kübler-Ross model. This helps us predict what comes next, and prepare. For example, stage four (bargaining) offers an opportunity to gain something from the expensive policy gridlock in this vital area. This is the third in a series attempting to understand the ending of this 26-year-story and find in it some useful lessons for the future.

“The time for debate has ended.”

— True words by Marcia McNutt (editor-in-Chief of Science, next President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.

The 5 stages of grief in the Kübler-Ross model

The final chapters appear to have come in the great campaign to enact public policy measures against climate change. Twenty-six years have passed since James Hansen’s Senate testimony and ten since Al Gore’s speech (predicting a “time of consequences” with, among other things, more Katrinas). Despite support from the Left, academia, journalists, and the major science institutions — yet after 20 years they had achieved only minor support from most developed nations and almost nothing from the emerging world.

Activists responded with ever-more extreme predictions of doom from climate change. The scientists working with the IPCC refused to support most claims of a certain coming catastrophe, most recently in their 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters and in 2014’s Working Group I of AR5 (e.g., about methane). Activists responded by denigrating the IPCC. From the “gold standard of climate science”, it became “too conservative” (e.g., Inside Climate News, The Daily Climate, Yale’s Environment 360, Naomi Klein). This too had little effect on public opinion.

Climate activists hoped for a boost from either a large weather event or President Obama. Obama did little until this year he then made only a small step with his Clean Power Plan (phasing out coal, but not addressing oil or natural gas). Activists attempted to blame CO2 for several large weather events, but were often frustrated by denials from the major climate agencies (e.g., NOAA about the 2012 Central Plains Drought and the California drought).

By 2015 climate change was moving off the center stage, as it consistently ranked near the bottom of the US public’s major policy concerns. Newspapers reassigned staff to hotter stories (the LAT in 2008, the NYT in 2013). Presidential candidates of both parties muted their climate change policies. The COP21 festival seems likely to produce few results (just like its predecessors).

The death of a large joint effort creates grief, best described (impressionistically) by the five stages of the Kübler-Ross model. This fits the recent actions of climate activists. First there is…

(1) Denial

Activists’ initial reaction was (ironically) denial. They believed that the public supported them, that action was prevented only by shadowy conspiracies and unethical journalists (who reported both sides of the debate), and that strong policy action would happen soon. For decades they hoped that action will come after a disastrous weather event (to be blamed on climate change), the next conference, the next IPCC report, or the next media event.

Most of the 40 thousand attendees at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris work and party in denial about the state of the movement. Attendees who understand this bleak prospect might treat it as a wake.

But continued bad news erodes away denial, leading to…

(2) Anger

For some activists, denial has boiled over into anger. Most notably,James Hansen — who wrote a scathing essay overflowing with anger. Obama would not even meet with him, James Hansen — a star of the CAGW movement! Worse…

“Obama is not proposing the action required for the essential change in energy policy direction” {decarbonization} … How can such miserable failure of political leadership be explained, when Obama genuinely wants climate policy to be one of his legacy issues? … Get ready for the great deceit and hypocrisy planned for December in Paris. … I have suggested, asked, or begged lawmakers, in more nations and states than I can remember, to consider a simple, honest, rising carbon fee with all funds distributed to legal residents. Instead, invariably, if they are of a bent to even consider the climate issue, they propose the discredited ineffectual cap-and-trade-with-offsets (C&T) with all its political levers.”

Also see “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless” by Oren Cass (Manhattan Institute) at Politico (a useful weather vane for opinion-makers’ trends). “The more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be.”

Anger feels good but accomplishes nothing, leaving behind only…

(3) Depression

People move through these stages at their own pace, often skipping one or more. Some climate scientists have moved into depression, and understandable reaction to the failure of the policy campaign to produce the measures they consider necessary for the survival of humanity — and, in many cases, to which they have devoted so much effort for so long.

These stories make anyone sad who has a shred of empathy. See some examples at “Climate depression is real. Just ask a scientist.” by Madeleine Thomas at Grist (October 2014). More recent are the stories at “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job” by John H. Richardson at Esquire (July 2015) — “Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it.” For a in-depth discussion with one scientist see “Is it ok for scientists to weep over climate change?” by Roger Harrabin at The Guardian(July 2015) — “The devastating impact CO2 emissions are having on oceans recently brought one professor to tears during a radio interview.”

Active people eventually recover from their depression, realizing that some valuable steps can be taken. This leads to…

(4) Bargaining

“We don’t even plan for the past.”

— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.

The Bargaining stage might prove fruitful, when activists see the clock running out (especially when funding begins to dry up) and change their tactics from mockery and insults (“Deniers!”) to bargaining. Both Left and Right can find common cause about many public policy measures to prepare for climate change — which both sides agree is inevitable (although in different contexts). Many such measures will require large-scale infrastructure projects, often popular in Congress.

The US public policy gridlock might break during this stage, although achieving on fragments of activists’ goals. See more details here. But the grand hopes for massive policy action will likely remain unfulfilled, especially for those using the threat of CAGW to change our economic and political systems (e.g., Naomi Klein and Pope Francis). Eventually most activists will come to…

(5) Acceptance

Life goes on, even for activists. There is always another campaign, as the coming apocalypse from air & water pollution was followed by the The Population Bomb (1968), which gave way to Limits to Growth (1972), then nuclear winter (1983), then several more campaigns until peak oil, peak everything, and climate change.

Activists will enjoy the certainty that they were correct even though defeated by an ignorant public led by conservatives and oil companies. They will look forward — as did previous generations of such prophets — to the eventual apocalypse that results from the world’s refusal to believe.

Eventually the weather will decide whose science was stronger, that of the “activists or the “skeptics”. It might take years to see decisive results, or perhaps decades (see some scientists’ predictions here). Climate change is a commonplace in history, sometimes destroying entire civilizations. Our refusal to prepare even for the obvious — continuation of the two centuries of warming or, even more irresponsibly, for repeat of past extreme weather — probably will prove expensive in lives and money.

[homersapien 11,386]

Is it delusional to reject scientific reality that climate change may not be man caused?

It is if you understand the scientific position.

[AFTiger 282]

Oh but I do, but I have to question yours. You deny science and project on the skeptics.

[homersapien 11,386]

No credible person has claimed AGW "created" Daesh. That's absurd.

What you may have heard was a reference to the extreme drought in Syria and Assad's response - which was to provide assistance to his cronies and tribal associates while ignoring others groups. I understand it was a major cause of the rebellion in Syria which ultimately allowed Daesh to flourish.

While it cannot be proven that this drought was a direct result of AGW, it is certainly consistent with the predicted effects of AGW, as are other record-breaking storms or events.

Regardless we will see more instability, more refugees and more strife in affected areas worldwide.

Finally, I am not impressed by long tomes written by deniers. As I keep saying, there is a very active political effort to promote denialism. Funny how we are pretty much the only country that has politicized the issue to the extent we have.

But I do agree with the last paragraph:

Eventually the weather will decide whose science was stronger, that of the “activists or the “skeptics”. It might take years to see decisive results, or perhaps decades (see some scientists’ predictions here). Climate change is a commonplace in history, sometimes destroying entire civilizations. Our refusal to prepare even for the obvious — continuation of the two centuries of warming or, even more irresponsibly, for repeat of past extreme weather — probably will prove expensive in lives and money.

[homersapien 11,386]

Oh but I do, but I have to question yours. You deny science and project on the skeptics.

I don't think you do.

[AFTiger 282]

Oh but I do, but I have to question yours. You deny science and project on the skeptics.

I don't think you do.

So what, troll.

[homersapien 11,386]

There is no crisis, and you know it. This massive confab over in Paris was about the wrong issue. It should be Islamic militant jihadists. Not what people exhale naturally.

Well, if you believe global warming is all a fantastic hoax, I understand why you think that.

Pollution isn't a hoax. Heavy metals and toxic poison aren't jokes. Excessive CO2 ? Not nearly as much a problem.

Thank you Dr. Raptor.

[homersapien 11,386]

Oh but I do, but I have to question yours. You deny science and project on the skeptics.

I don't think you do.

So what, troll.

Says the guy who claims I am the one denying the science.

(You need to contact all of the scientific societies and associations around the world and have them pull their official position statements on AGW.)

[AURaptor 1,125]

No credible person has claimed AGW "created" Daesh. That's absurd.

What you may have heard was a reference to the extreme drought in Syria and Assad's response - which was to provide assistance to his cronies and tribal associates while ignoring others groups. I understand it was a major cause of the rebellion in Syria which ultimately allowed Daesh to flourish.

While it cannot be proven that this drought was a direct result of AGW, it is certainly consistent with the predicted effects of AGW, as are other record-breaking storms or events..

Pure rubbish and double speak. These 'record' storms or events aren't in frequency, as claimed by all scientists , after Katrina. If anything, storms are going through a low period.

But this all goes back to the Leftist meme that goes back for decades. Poverty and poverty alone is what drives radical religious zealots. Nothing else. Just give them jobs and healthcare, and they'll settle down.

No, they won't. To them, it's not about any of that.

[Raven_tiger 5]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[homersapien 11,386]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Oh puleeze. Not Roy Spencer again. :-\

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

[Auburn4life 24]

http://abc3340.com/news/local/editorial-james-spann-on-climate-change-politics-and-religion

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Oh puleeze. Not Roy Spencer again. :-\

http://blog.hotwhopp...-deception.html

Why not? Every time the subject comes up you throw the same old turds on the wall.

[homersapien 11,386]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Oh puleeze. Not Roy Spencer again. :-\

http://blog.hotwhopp...-deception.html

Why not? Every time the subject comes up you throw the same old turds on the wall.

Coming after a Roy Spencer reference?

Now, that's irony! :laugh:

[homersapien 11,386]

http://abc3340.com/n...cs-and-religion

This guy isn't too bright if really thinks his argument challenging the scientific consensus is a valid one.