Trump and climate change

WeToddDid2 said:
Trump is going to be a great leader on Climate Change.
More...
images.jpg
 
piezoe said:
So tell us what does this say? How would you likeus to interpret this statement from the American Meteorology Society. ;)
More...


Hey pie, how's things at the think tank? Are they paying you well? Hope so because what you are doing is as immoral as what the doubt merchants that worked for the tobacco companies did. They caused many more lung cancer deaths. The climate change denial machine will cause many more deaths also, not to mention the destruction of natural systems.

I assume it's a liberarian think tank. Which one?
  • Americans for Limited Government.
  • Atlas Economic Research Foundation.
  • Cascade Policy Institute.
  • Cato Institute.
  • Centre for Independent Studies
  • Center for Individual Freedom.
  • Center for Libertarian Studies
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute.



You piece of shit.
 
by definition its a greenhouse gas... but so what it is a natural thermostat and also cools... per NASA.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
==
So being that CO2 also cools and that atmospheric levels of co2 trail changes in ocean temps in the recent data and the historical record... Being that NASA and the scientists admit they have to learn how to model clouds and water vapor and aerosols better...

where is the science based on your "evidence" that says man made co2 is causing warming.


Not that co2 reflects IR back down to the earth... but that adding made made co2 causes warming.




Here4money said:
Best we can do is find an evidentiary link.... like with evolution or the big bang. Or will you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
More...
 
futurecurrents said:
Hey pie, how's things at the think tank? Are they paying you well? Hope so because what you are doing is as immoral as what the doubt merchants that worked for the tobacco companies did. They caused many more lung cancer deaths. The climate change denial machine will cause many more deaths also, not to mention the destruction of natural systems.

I assume it's a liberarian think tank. Which one?
  • Americans for Limited Government.
  • Atlas Economic Research Foundation.
  • Cascade Policy Institute.
  • Cato Institute.
  • Centre for Independent Studies
  • Center for Individual Freedom.
  • Center for Libertarian Studies
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute.



You piece of shit.
More...

How is your non-paid position as a member of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" doing. You are really failing in your objective to "drown them out".

Are you tired yet of continually cross-posting the same stuff across the web and on ET?
 
futurecurrents said:
  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
  • Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
  • Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
  • The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
  • The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
More...

WbNb6b7.gif
 
Mr. Dump has been bought by the fossil fuel industry to say what they want. The US is no longer giving a good lead for the 3rd world to copy.
Mini dumps like Java are like a load of brainless parrots repeating his nonsense.
If he was to say the moon was made of cheese they would probably repeat that as well. lol
 
Last edited:
futurecurrents said:
Hey pie, how's things at the think tank? Are they paying you well? Hope so because what you are doing is as immoral as what the doubt merchants that worked for the tobacco companies did. They caused many more lung cancer deaths. The climate change denial machine will cause many more deaths also, not to mention the destruction of natural systems.

I assume it's a liberarian think tank. Which one?
  • Americans for Limited Government.
  • Atlas Economic Research Foundation.
  • Cascade Policy Institute.
  • Cato Institute.
  • Centre for Independent Studies
  • Center for Individual Freedom.
  • Center for Libertarian Studies
  • Competitive Enterprise Institute.



You piece of shit.
More...
gwbtrading gave a number of links (this thread) to good articles which look closely at statistical studies such as the "97%" study you keep mentioning. You would find these articles worth reading. I will reiterate that one of the most carefully executed statistical studies of the opinions of experts (not scientists in general) regarding AGW, seems to be the one published in the Bulletin of the Meteorological Society. If your going to attempt to make any sense at all from these surveys you owe it to yourself to be acquainted with the many nuances accompanying opinions. To illustrate, some experts are of the opinion that man is probably affecting our planet's climate, but probably in an insignificant way compared to the affects of natural events. And this is just one of many nuances in the opinions of experts in the field. In careless studies, the opinion I just illustrated might be reported as a belief that "man is affecting the climate." I think this example nicely illustrates how easy it would be to mislead a non-critical public if one had a particular agenda. I have no agenda myself other than to do all I can to expose bad science when it could cause harm. Toward that goal, I have stated over and over again that scientific questions can not be answered by survey or questionnaire. I have no reason to think that I am wrong about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top