British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

So are you also suspect of the fact that a huge amount of the anti-climate-change bridgade has been financed by the various fossil fuel industries and people who profit from them. Are you skeptical of Sen. James Inhofe, the primary anti voice in Congress, who is a wholly bought and paid for subsidiary of the oil industry?

Are you skeptical of the Koch brothers, who benefit hugely from oil, who bankroll things like the recent Berkeley study evaluating the quality of climate research, which was funded in large part by the Kochs and chaired by a climate skeptic, which it was widely thought would throw a damper on warming. And then it jumped the reservation and said that the research was right?

0 Replies

Krumple, SOME climate change (in fact, virtually all before we had the capacity to effect it, which largely [tho not entirely] happened in the last century) was natural. Now, NOT ALL climate change is natural. We do have the ability to affect it, and the research shows the effect we now have is far from marginal.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Perhaps you should drop the puerile tactic of attributing to me the need to be tranquil, and accusing me of being irate. You are, essentially, nothing to me. Don't overrate your importance.

You wrote:

Ros is wrong that no one looks at other factors involved or quantifies them.

However . . .

Krumple wrote:

Now I am not saying this is definitely the cause, but I am saying people are ignoring other possible explanations because they are sold on the idea that humans are behind it.

Krumple introduced that idea, not Roswell. Nowhere in Roswell's post #4911314 does he state or imply that "no one looks at other factors involved or quatifies them." You really need to get a grip on what specifically is being posted and by whom.

Finally, let's deal with this last bit of arrogant snottiness on your part:

MontereyJack wrote:

And, set, I was also not talking about you when I was talking about IPCC conspiracy theorists. That would be, obviously, on this thread, Krumple and Gungasnake. Sheesh, Set, it's really not all about you.

This is a lie, flat out. In your post #4912642, which you begin with:

MontereyJack wrote:

Now, let's see, Setanta said:

. . . you finished the post by writing:

Quote:

They can be either anthropogenic or natural. they are, in any case, factored into the results the IPCC summarizes (but is, I reiterate, generated by other sources than the IPCC, which means the IPCC conspiracy theorists are wacked).

So don't give me some snotty bullshit about it not all being about me--nothing i've posted suggests that. You addressed that post to me, what the **** was i supposed to infer from that?

You've got some serious communication problems going on here, and you are dead wrong to impute hysteria to me when you can't even keep other people's remarks straight--and worst of all--can't even keep your own remarks straight.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

If there is a potential for financial gain for the party involved in promoting the awareness I am skeptical of the data they are providing.

Politician aren't doing the science.

Quote:

Here is the thing. If global climate change is a natural occurrence (which it is you can't argue it's not) and the effect humans are having on it is

Naturally occurring climate change is not an exclusive event that precludes anything else changing climate. Some climate change is natural. All climate change prior to humans was natural. The truth of those statements do NOT prevent humans from causing climate change or humans from causing climate to change faster than it would occur naturally.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

They immediately assume that it is human induced and not a natural occurrence that would be happening regardless of human activity.

Complete nonsense on your part. There is no immediate assumption in the science. There is observation and mathematical calculation. If you can provide any science to dispute the science that has been done, please do so. Unless and until you can do that, it is YOU that is making assumptions regardless of facts.

1 Reply

Set, I quoted Ros and addressed Ros's point. I did not quote Krumple.

And I really was talking about Krumple and Snake, not you, they were the people that had introduced that whole rightwing meme of IPCC politicality, and Krumple, if you will go back and see, was also addressed in that post. If you interpreted it as being about you, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. I do in fact regard you as generally quite sane, but with a severely short temper.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You snotty prick. Don't give me that "short temper" bullshit. You have no idea when or if i am or am not angry. That's grammar school bullshit, attempting to suggest that my remarks are motivated by uncontrolled emotion while you are the voice of cool, calm and collected reason. That's bullshit.

You wrote:

Ros is wrong that no one looks at other factors involved or quantifies them.

You wrote it, you own it, it's bullshit. Roswell did not state or imply that. Now you're indulging arrogant and snotty imputations about my state of mind, and i say it's because you've lost your grip here, and can't face up to it or deal with it.

0 Replies

I've been reading your posts for something like five years now, and you have a tendency to get increasingly angry, as you are doing now. I'm far from the first person to tell you this, as you clearly know.

If you object to the "no one" again, so be it. Ros, and it was, Ros was saying that other factors causing climate change hadn't been generally addressed or quantified and I maintained that was wrong, and told him where he could in fact find that evidence and that quantification. And I was right.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
They immediately assume that it is human induced and not a natural occurrence that would be happening regardless of human activity.

Complete nonsense on your part. There is no immediate assumption in the science. There is observation and mathematical calculation. If you can provide any science to dispute the science that has been done, please do so. Unless and until you can do that, it is YOU that is making assumptions regardless of facts.

I gave you the motive. I gave you the incentive. You act as if it is totally impossible and very unlikely that a politician would lie or smudged the science to push an agenda. Like this has NEVER happened.

1 Reply

Krumple: read the science itself. Don't read any politician's interpretation of it. The science itself says that the conclusion that climate change, in this case warming is in fact the case and that the majority of it is human-caused, and that conclusion is based on at this point thousands of studies, in hundreds of institutions, from scientists in dozens of different specialties, in countries around the world. Read the IPCC summaries of those studies. They're only twenty pages or so, and if you're going to argue this, you should know something about what you're arguing.

1 Reply

@parados,

Krumple wrote:

If there is a potential for financial gain for the party involved in promoting the awareness I am skeptical of the data they are providing.

parados wrote:

Politician aren't doing the science.

Seriously? This is your response? Like I actually think politicians do science? Really? If you actually thought that I thought this, you are a moron. There is no other way to put it than that.

You can't read into what I am saying? Of course I know politicians don't do the science. It does not mean that they can't buy the science they want to push. They look for a person who is willing to step up and say they did the science and they falsify the documents to state the claim they want to make.

You all pretend as if this has never happened before. As if I am invention this scenario for the first time. I am not actually saying this is what surely happened. I am saying it is a possibility. When there is incentive and motive the chances become higher that there is corruption involved.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Krumple: read the science itself. Don't read any politician's interpretation of it. The science itself says that the conclusion that climate change, in this case warming is in fact the case and that the majority of it is human-caused, and that conclusion is based on at this point thousands of studies, in hundreds of institutions, in countries around the world. Read the IPCC summaries of those studies. They're only twenty pages or so, and if you're going to argue this, you should know something about what you're arguing.

No there is absolutely zero science that says humans are the cause. This is implied. There is no data anywhere that says humans are the direct cause of current climate change. None. If you say there is, you are perpetrating the lie.

1 Reply

Krumple:Read the IPCC reports. They have citations. Read the citations. You're flatly wrong.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

The only problem Krumple is you can't show the actual science which would refute it. You simply make claims and then get the science so wrong one is left wondering if you even know the difference between science and the propaganda which you seem to believe.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Seriously? This is your response? Like I actually think politicians do science? Really? If you actually thought that I thought this, you are a moron. There is no other way to put it than that.

That is my response because you don't know the first thing about the science.

You are hardly the first person to promote a political agenda in response to science. I doubt you will be the last. Your attempts at obfuscating it by ignoring the science itself only point to you being the one attempting to politicize this.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

No there is absolutely zero science that says humans are the cause. This is implied. There is no data anywhere that says humans are the direct cause of current climate change. None. If you say there is, you are perpetrating the lie.

Let's see if you can answer 3 science questions Krumple

1. Does an increase in CO2 concentration cause an air mixture to retain more heat? (This has been settled science for over 150 years.)
2. Has CO2 increased in the atmosphere in the last 100 years.
(This is also settled science.)
3. Has the amount of CO2 produced by man far exceeded the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years? (Also settled science)

If you agree that the above are all settled science then I would LOVE to here your scientific basis for claiming there is no data that humans are causing climate change.

1 Reply

Krumple, read the IPCC reports, or simply the summaries. The cite the research. Thay list the citations. Read them. Yes, the science says it's mostly anthropogenic.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

Seriously? This is your response? Like I actually think politicians do science? Really? If you actually thought that I thought this, you are a moron. There is no other way to put it than that.

That is my response because you don't know the first thing about the science.

You are hardly the first person to promote a political agenda in response to science. I doubt you will be the last. Your attempts at obfuscating it by ignoring the science itself only point to you being the one attempting to politicize this.

The part you fail to understand, is if the science is not science then looking at it means nothing. You take it to be that it is impossible to create false data. You have absolute trust that the data has not been manipulated? If the data is corrupted then looking over the data would manipulate you into the conclusion they want you to have.

This is not even the problem. The problem is it is IMPLIED that humans are behind the climate change. People take that as the absolute fact and so justly support all forms of new taxation accordingly. I say that the data does not support the idea that it is human induced problem. It could be a natural fluctuation in climate that would have happened regardless of human activity. It has not been shown.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

No there is absolutely zero science that says humans are the cause. This is implied. There is no data anywhere that says humans are the direct cause of current climate change. None. If you say there is, you are perpetrating the lie.

Let's see if you can answer 3 science questions Krumple

1. Does an increase in CO2 concentration cause an air mixture to retain more heat? (This has been settled science for over 150 years.)
2. Has CO2 increased in the atmosphere in the last 100 years.
(This is also settled science.)
3. Has the amount of CO2 produced by man far exceeded the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years? (Also settled science)

If you agree that the above are all settled science then I would LOVE to here your scientific basis for claiming there is no data that humans are causing climate change.

We have data that shows the last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today was about 15 million years ago. Humans have only been around for roughly 100 to 200 thousand years. In the reports that I have read, they state that the average temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees higher than they are today.

1 Reply

So what you're in fact working on is someone somehow is manipulating in some way thousands of research project at hundreds of different institutions in every major country in the world, and somehow getting them to manipulate the data, and cook all the available records of that date, so that it is consistent with the manipulated data that other people are manipulating independently and that all that manipulated data fits together, and that there is no one outside all the manipulators who wouldn't cry fraud in the peer review process, and that somehow politicians have the huge amounts of money it would take to pay off all these people, when if this supposed conspircy were uncovered it would ruin theie careers. And that all this was going on but has left absolutely no trace that anyone has ever been able to find. Does this in just the tiniest degree strike you as being a conspiracy theory, Krumple?

Independent scientists, in different disciplines, using independent methodologies have all come up with results that point in the same direction. Far simpler and hugely more probable to assume that they're all coming to the same conclusion because that's what's actually happening.

And incidentally way way back there I cited some actual research, just a small early smattering that does not IMPLY but SHOWS specifically that humans are mostly responsible for the CO2 increase. And if you deny that increase in CO2 causes more warming, you're overturning the last century of physics and chemistry.

1 Reply

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know