World Leaders Producing 300,000 Tons of Carbon By Traveling To Climate Summit In Paris

[fhl]

The (Lack of) Intelligence of Pseudo-Intellectuals

By Jeremy Morgan - December 4, 20151



When I first heard the purported link between terrorism and climate change, I assumed it was a joke. But now I see it is being treated as social-scientific fact. How did people, many of them regarded as leaders and intellectuals become so stupid?

I’m not sure if Bill Nye “the science guy” completely believes the garbage which is flowing from his mouth is this clip. He states:

“It is very reasonable that the recent trouble in Paris is a result of climate change.”

So the recent terrorist attack AKA “trouble” is the result of climate change? If you aren’t entirely convinced, Nye assures us there is currently a water shortage in Syria, which is of course caused by climate change, and as we know, water shortages (and climate change) naturally lead to terrorism......

more: http://google.com/gwt/x?source=wax&...au/bill-nye/&ei=PJNhVuXVONeUsAXKsZnoDg&wsc=ol

 

[Ricter]

I'm talking about pie. It is obvious to me that he is simply lying. Isn't it to you at this point? This last thing about the "pause in temps" just further confirms that he really has no interest in an honest discussion.

I believe Piezoe has a unifier instinct, so sometimes I think he's just taken his position so he can maintain some traction with the righties here.

 

[gwb-trading]

Excuse me, I guess I'm envious of your patience

I place too much importance on this stupid forum. But the kind of lying piehole is doing is the same as the others, and if it meant little I would not mind, but on aggregate the lies impede progress toward reducing the greatest threat to life on earth.

Those kinds of lies infuriate me.

Have you seen enough to agree with me that he is a liar?

In 40 years "climate change" will be viewed as the biggest scientific fraud in world history.

In no way is there any reasonable evidence that AGW is dangerous to mankind or the planet. The data and facts do not support AGW theory - in fact with each passing year AGW assertions are falling apart.

You can continue to obscenely insult everyone who disagrees with you and re-post the same pictures hundreds of times, but it does not change that there are well-respected scientists such as Dr. Judith Curry who do not support "climate change" -- and believe it is a political farce.

These "deniers" (as you call them) are perfectly willing to let scientific research continue on the subject but they are completely tired of the twisting of the data & the whole-scale fraud that is occurring in support of "climate change" along with the witch-hunt environment of anyone who disagrees with any of the absurd assertions.

You are supporting a cause that silences its critics and forces them out of employment - this is no different than "science" in Stalin's Soviet Union.

 

[gwb-trading]

I believe Piezoe has a unifier instinct, so sometimes I think he's just taken his position so he can maintain some traction with the righties here.

I think you are wrong to simply view issues such as climate change as "right" vs. "left". I know a number of people on the left who do not support climate change - in fact many are much more vocal "deniers" than me.

Similar to other issues - most people in America hold a mix of "right" and "left" opinions on political subjects -- they are the middle who decide elections. There are only 20% of people on the left and 20% on the right who are hard core party wing people in the U.S.

A "unifier instinct" simply means a individual has a mix of political opinions. It does not mean that they are pandering to the right or to the left. These people (including myself) represent 60% of the U.S. population.

 

[jem]

You lefties seem so delusional. For the last 5 years we have been showing your graphs of the temperature records. That was OK all of sudden you now posts graphs which include ocean temps. Ocean temps have been rising for 10000 years. What has that got to do with man made co2.

The temps that matter for this discussion are these...
not change for 21 years. And if you go to the temperture over land records its like 20 years of no statistical warming.

go ahead take el nino out... and take the pinatubo cooling out.
you will probably have an even longer period of no statistically significant change.

Why is this signficant?.... because we have had massive co2 increases and no statically significant warming. That breaks the nutter models which predicted much larger warming.

This means there is no science at all supporting the idea that man made co2 causes warming.

 

[Ricter]

You lefties seem so delusional.

Problem is, no one believes it but you and a handful of far right radicals in the US.

 

[piezoe]

Problem is, no one believes it but you and a handful of far right radicals in the US.

The truth is there are many well trained, experienced scientists that believe the data and observations with regard to AGW are not merely inconclusive but actually contradict James Hansen's, et al., AGW hypothesis. The work of many qualified scientists, who are increasingly skeptical of the Hansen hypothesis, is prominent in the peer reviewed literature, whereas those who are using climate change as a stand-in for the AGW/CO2 hypothesis are feeding the media and hence the public . They are not engaged in science so much as public relations. As I mentioned before, Hansen has even stooped to writing up pseudo scientific articles and giving them directly to the media to be quoted. Most of us real scientists consider this to be malpractice and are appalled. [See for example Judith Curry's comments.] Politicians are creatures of public opinion, I expect them to line up as they do. On the other hand, I'm a scientist. I had a long career in scientific research, and if popular opinion and science are on opposite sides, I'm going to go with the science.

This issue has never been about climate change. It's always been about AGW/CO2. The temperature must go up to be consistent with AGW, but there is a problem. The satellite data does not show a rise within experimental error, and that is by far the most reliable temperature data we have. It may have systematic error, but that does not matter. Furthermore there is now a large body of other observations that is also inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Every conceivable weather event nowadays that can possibly be linked to global warming, is linked, at least in the minds of those reporting or making up the headlines. Never mind that these same weather events have been going on as far back in time as time itself.

What really got Hansen going, years ago now, was the Mann Hockey Stick Graph which appeared to strongly correlate temperature with atmospheric CO2. The odd thing is that back then no one except a few observant scientists questioned the use of tree ring data combined with a far too sparse surface temperature record. The hockey stick graph depended on this now thoroughly discredited data!

Finally let me again mention something that is critical for non-scientists to grasp, and that is that correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to prove cause and effect. When we look closely at the CO2 Temperature data we find that even the correlation is not nearly so good as we once might have thought.

Almost everything about this sad AGW/CO2 episode is disgraceful as far as I'm concerned. That said, I'll be happy if, even for the wrong reasons, it leads to less coal burning because unscrubbed stack gases from coal fired generating plants are major sources of air pollution in many countries. It is an ill wind that does not blow somebody some good.

 

[Ricter]

The truth is there are many well trained, experienced scientists that believe the data and observations with regard to AGW are not merely inconclusive but actually contradict James Hansen's, et al., AGW hypothesis.

Are they attending the Paris climate conferences?

 

[futurecurrents]

The truth is there are many well trained, experienced scientists that believe the data and observations with regard to AGW are not merely inconclusive but actually contradict James Hansen's, et al., AGW hypothesis. The work of many qualified scientists, who are increasingly skeptical of the Hansen hypothesis, is prominent in the peer reviewed literature, whereas those who are using climate change as a stand-in for the AGW/CO2 hypothesis are feeding the media and hence the public . They are not engaged in science so much as public relations. As I mentioned before, Hansen has even stooped to writing up pseudo scientific articles and giving them directly to the media to be quoted. Most of us real scientists consider this to be malpractice and are appalled. [See for example Judith Curry's comments.] Politicians are creatures of public opinion, I expect them to line up as they do. On the other hand, I'm a scientist. I had a long career in scientific research, and if popular opinion and science are on opposite sides, I'm going to go with the science.

This issue has never been about climate change. It's always been about AGW/CO2. The temperature must go up to be consistent with AGW, but there is a problem. The satellite data does not show a rise within experimental error, and that is by far the most reliable temperature data we have. It may have systematic error, but that does not matter. Furthermore there is now a large body of other observations that is also inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Every conceivable weather event nowadays that can possibly be linked to global warming, is linked, at least in the minds of those reporting or making up the headlines. Never mind that these same weather events have been going on as far back in time as time itself.

What really got Hansen going, years ago now, was the Mann Hockey Stick Graph which appeared to strongly correlate temperature with atmospheric CO2. The odd thing is that back then no one except a few observant scientists questioned the use of tree ring data combined with a far too sparse surface temperature record. The hockey stick graph depended on this now thoroughly discredited data!

Finally let me again mention something that is critical for non-scientists to grasp, and that is that correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to prove cause and effect. When we look closely at the CO2 Temperature data we find that even the correlation is not nearly so good as we once might have thought.

Almost everything about this sad AGW/CO2 episode is disgraceful as far as I'm concerned. That said, I'll be happy if, even for the wrong reasons, it leads to less coal burning because unscrubbed stack gases from coal fired generating plants are major sources of air pollution in many countries. It is an ill wind that does not blow somebody some good.

Lies lies and more lies.

You sir are a fucking liar. How do you live with yourself?

 

[jem]

then prove what he said was a lie.
we have produced peer reviewed after peer reviewed article challenging the idea that man made co2 is causing some or all of the warming.

We have produced lists of thousands of scientists question the consensus.
You don't even produce lists of scientists who state that man made co2 is causing the warming. Yet you state that 97% of the scientists state man made co2 causes warming. That is the only proven lie here. it was only 95 of 97 of the scientists in a survey of 10,000 who were considered to have supported the idea you promote.

So how can you call him a liar? should you not produce some proof?

Lies lies and more lies.

You sir are a fucking liar. How do you live with yourself?