Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[jem]

there are thousands who are skeptical of man made global warming. and that is the proper scientific position. I don't deny man made co2 is causing global warming... I state there is no science showing man made co2 to be causing warming in our environment.
see some at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

LOL....no they haven't and no publishing climatologist denies man made global warming. None. They did not then and they do not now. Stop lying. Christians shouldn't lie. You won't get into heaven.

 

[jem]

this is a record that is using ocean temps. Ocean temps have gone up since the last ice age. do you think man made co2 travels back in time?

 

[futurecurrents]

there are thousands who are skeptical of man made global warming. and that is the proper scientific position. I don't deny man made co2 is causing global warming... I state there is no science showing man made co2 to be causing warming in our environment.
see some at this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Yes, of course, every expert in the world believes that AGW is real but there is no science showing that it's real.


Do you even stop to consider how absurd your ravings are?

 

[futurecurrents]

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia.

However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

[jem]

perhaps you could post a link which shows the connection.
All the science and data we have shows co2 levels trail change in ocean temps both up and down.

 

[jem]

how many times do I have to prove you are lying til you stop.
here is another well published climatologist... humlum...



http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/geoscientist-explains-why-man-made-co2.html

Geoscientist explains why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming


Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:
1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later.This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.
Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,
"One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change."

Yes, of course, every expert in the world believes that AGW is real but there is no science showing that it's real.


Do you even stop to consider how absurd your ravings are?

 

[futurecurrents]

perhaps you could post a link which shows the connection.
All the science and data we have shows co2 levels trail change in ocean temps both up and down.

You know, intentionally ignorant and self-deluded is no way to go through life.

 

[futurecurrents]

how many times do I have to prove you are lying til you stop.
here is another well published climatologist... humlum...



http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/11/geoscientist-explains-why-man-made-co2.html

Geoscientist explains why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming


Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:
1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later.This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.
Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,
"One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change."

Finally, you found one of idiots that are laughing stock of the climate science community.

He is part of the tiny slice here.

You see, jem, the point of this exercise is to see that deniers of the science of AGW are a tiny fraction of the relevant experts.

 

[jem]

so now that you have been caught lying again you fall back on more lies.

a. if you go over that list... less that .03 percent endorse the agw theory.
we have explained this to you before...and you keep falling back on nonsense.

b. here is a list of 1350 plus peer reviewed articles... supporting skepticism.


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh, and Humlum is not a climatologist, his training is in geomorphology, so he knows what glaciers do but the climate? not so much.

So he is NOT a modern climate expert.