"The ugly delusions of the educated conservative." (Or, AGW deniers explained)

[AURaptor 1,123]

"We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness."

You know, somehow " I told you so " just doesn't quite say it.

[Grumps 3,704]

So better educated people are more likely to question the things they read. And Homer thinks that is a revolutionary concept. Hmmmm.

[AURaptor 1,123]

So better educated people are more likely to question the things they read. And Homer thinks that is a revolutionary concept. Hmmmm.

Homer thinks only what he's told to think. That's the sad part.

[cooltigger21 0]

True science is about always questioning things and testing previous conclusions and results. Einstein was always going back and questioning and testing his theory of relativity along with everything else.

[tgr4lfe 220]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

NASA satellite measurements show the polar ice caps have not retreated at all.

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

[homersapien 11,373]

Another climate expert with a BA and JD degrees. :-\

http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor

James Taylor is a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute and managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News......

Skeptical Science has also compiled a large number of arguments common to climate change skeptics. Among these are refutations to many of the arguments that Taylor uses most in his Forbes post: [26]

Skeptic Argument: Climate change isn't bad.

Response: Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

Skeptic Argument: Extreme weather isn't connected to global warming

Response: Global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events - and that is all that Climate Science claims.

Skeptic Argument: CO2 is Plant Food

Response More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.

Skeptic Argument: CO2 Levels were higher in the past

Response: The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

Skeptic Argument: Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated

Response: Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous century, and could rise between 50cm to 1.5 metres by 2100

Skeptic Argument: Ice Isn't Melting

Response: Arctic summer sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and might be all gone in a decade.

Skeptic Argument: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated

Response: Wu et al (2010) use a new method to calculate ice sheet mass balance. This method, like all new methods will improve and be revised with time. Although, it does not agree well with most other measurement techniques, Wu et al's (2010) estimate is still at the upper end of IPCC predictions for ice losses and shows extensive land-ice losses from both Antarctica and Greenland.

[AFTiger 282]

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ – ‘Leading us down a false path’

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotNovember 19, 2015 6:10 PM with 2787 comments

Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet’world premiere in Paris.

#

From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore

AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.

The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”

“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.

Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.

“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celsius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.

“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues)

“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW

Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”

“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,”

Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006.

“The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.

“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.

Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.

“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.

Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.

Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’”

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”

“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.

“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”

“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.

“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.

Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.

“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.

Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.

“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.

“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.

“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.

“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3t0ZclJDa

[homersapien 11,373]

So better educated people are more likely to question the things they read. And Homer thinks that is a revolutionary concept. Hmmmm.

This ain't about questioning. This is about outright denial. Hmmmmm.

[homersapien 11,373]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

[AFTiger 282]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

Funny how the government funded scientists are so alarmists but the skeptics cannot get government funding.

Your argument is specious.

[Auburn4life 24]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

Funny how the government funded scientists are so alarmists but the skeptics cannot get government funding.

Your argument is specious.

I like what you did there

[homersapien 11,373]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

Funny how the government funded scientists are so alarmists but the skeptics cannot get government funding.

Your argument is specious.

That's BS. Show me one skeptic or denier who's had their work suppressed due to lack of funding.

The reason it seems that most researchers who receive federal research grants support the AGW thesis is because that is the way the science is falling out.

But if you don't like relying on publicly-funded research, I hear Exxon funded a lot of research in the field.

[AFTiger 282]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

Funny how the government funded scientists are so alarmists but the skeptics cannot get government funding.

Your argument is specious.

That's BS. Show me one skeptic or denier who's had their work suppressed due to lack of funding.

The reason it seems that most researchers who receive federal research grants support the AGW thesis is because that is the way the science is falling out.

But if you don't like relying on publicly-funded research, I hear Exxon funded a lot of research in the field.

To quote Homer

[homersapien 11,373]

True science is about always questioning things and testing previous conclusions and results. Einstein was always going back and questioning and testing his theory of relativity along with everything else.

Correct. Are you assuming that process has been suspended in the field of climate research?

[homersapien 11,373]

Funny how sites that promote the scientific reality are loaded with references to actual research findings, while the sites that are being funded by the denier industry rely on rhetoric by people directly on their payroll.

Funny how the government funded scientists are so alarmists but the skeptics cannot get government funding.

Your argument is specious.

That's BS. Show me one skeptic or denier who's had their work suppressed due to lack of funding.

The reason it seems that most researchers who receive federal research grants support the AGW thesis is because that is the way the science is falling out.

But if you don't like relying on publicly-funded research, I hear Exxon funded a lot of research in the field.

To quote Homer

(Hint: If you don't have a rational response, it's less noticeable if you just don't post one. )

[AFTiger 282]

It was a quote, Homer, to your irrational response. Denial of truth is not rational.

http://marshall.org/climate-change/funding-flows-for-climate-change-research-and-related-activities/

Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities

Jeff Kueter

02/26/2015 Climate Change

A little over four hundred years after the Salem witch trials, witch-hunts are still used as a tactic of social persecution and a vehicle to censure those who do not conform to a special interest agenda. From Salem to McCarthy to today’s attacks on so called “climate skeptics,” witch-hunts tear the fabric of a free society.

In the past week, Greenpeace initiated an attack on Dr. Willie Soon, a scientist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, because of his research on climate change and now several members of Congress have sent letters to 100 organizations that either raise questions and doubts that human activities using fossil energy are causing catastrophic climate change and/or might have provided funds to scientists who are labeled “skeptics.” Letters also have been sent to at least seven universities where some “skeptic” scientists are affiliated. These letters request a lot of funding information.

The misguided assumption, behind what appears to be a politically orchestrated attack on the credibility of those who question the climate orthodoxy, is that their findings and science-based beliefs are insincere and for sale to the highest bidder. The problem with this assumption is that it implies that scientists and researchers who rely primarily on public funding for their climate work are not motivated to tailor their research to the beliefs and policy views of their funding sources.

In 1994, Nightline anchor, Ted Koppel ended a program dealing with climate skepticism this way, “… issues have to be debated and settled on scientific grounds, not politics. There is nothing new about major institutions seeking to influence science to their own ends. The church did it, ruling families have done it, the communists did it, and so have others, in the name of anti communism. But it has always been a corrupting influence, and it always will be. The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.”

In 2005, then President of the George C. Marshall Institute, Jeff Kueter, wrote a Policy Outlook on the issue of climate funding. Ten years later Jeff’s analysis and conclusions are every bit as relevant as they were then.

Today we republish Jeff’s Policy Outlook. What is apparent is that in the climate change debates of 2005 and 2015 the tendency is to smear and demonize those whose views don’t conform to the prevailing climate orthodoxy.

[cooltigger21 0]

Disagreement is not allowed on this. We've got people calling for "deniers" to be jailed. The top weatherman in France was fired because he wrote a book challenging climate change. He's now employed by Russia. http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/01/frances-top-weatherman-hired-by-kremlin-after-being-fired-for-questioning-global-warming/

[homersapien 11,373]

It was a quote, Homer, to your irrational response. Denial of truth is not rational.

"We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness."

Sorry, but you are hardly the one to be judging what's rational and what isn't.

[AFTiger 282]

It was a quote, Homer, to your irrational response. Denial of truth is not rational.

"We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness."

Sorry, but you are hardly the one to be judging what's rational and what isn't.

You are a troll.

LDCs (least developed countries) have forwarded an invoice for $1 trillion dollars, to be paid between 2020 – 2030, in order to meet their climate goals.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/01/developing-countries-we-want-a-trillion-dollars-to-sign-your-climate-agreement/

[homersapien 11,373]

It was a quote, Homer, to your irrational response. Denial of truth is not rational.

"We understand that the entire AGW theory is a wealth redistribution scheme by people who hate our success and our freedom to pursue happiness."

Sorry, but you are hardly the one to be judging what's rational and what isn't.

You are a troll.

LDCs (least developed countries) have forwarded an invoice for $1 trillion dollars, to be paid between 2020 – 2030, in order to meet their climate goals.

http://wattsupwithth...mate-agreement/

Sorry, but you need to explain you're point. Are you saying the climate scientists world wide are colluding to take money from the rich and give it to the poor?

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, you ignorant slut.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I just heard Bill Bennett actually get angry on the radio this morning, which is very rare. He was asking in harsh tones,' How can this President, with a straight face, talk about climate change being a threat to the world, when we're being attacked at home by militant Muslims? '

Guy's got a valid point.

[homersapien 11,373]

I just heard Bill Bennett actually get angry on the radio this morning, which is very rare. He was asking in harsh tones,' How can this President, with a straight face, talk about climate change being a threat to the world, when we're being attacked at home by militant Muslims? '

Guy's got a valid point.

Well, let's unpack that logically.

Does having a threat posed by Islamic terrorists necessarily negate all other threats?

Can two threats exist simultaneously?

[homersapien 11,373]

Homer, you ignorant slut.

You are obviously projecting. At least on the "ignorant" part.

[AURaptor 1,123]

I just heard Bill Bennett actually get angry on the radio this morning, which is very rare. He was asking in harsh tones,' How can this President, with a straight face, talk about climate change being a threat to the world, when we're being attacked at home by militant Muslims? '

Guy's got a valid point.

Well, let's unpack that logically.

Does having a threat posed by Islamic terrorists necessarily negate all other threats?

Can two threats exist simultaneously?

It's about priorities. 50,000 show up in Paris for climate change? Really? 130 JUST died at he hands of Muslim terrorists.

Obama skipped the last march for unity , but sure as hell made it there for this.