Many of these discussions in the past have looped around the same way -- the climate denial camp presents some supposed support for their view that turns out on closer examination not to be what they claim. Interestingly, almost all of these examples presented by the deniers who complain about publication restrictions end up in good-paying positions on foundations that let them publish what they want. The latest example is Dr. Clauser, who is now on the board of the CO2 Coalition. Those interested can find out more about that group here --
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Again, I've YET to hear anyone deny climate change... including anyone here. What do you propose we do?
Desert Hound
DA
I would recommend dad and espola...and to be honest everyone take a look at this video.
Richard Lindzen well respected climatologist from MIT.
He explains a lot of the problems with the manmade global warming theory.
I suspect neither dad or espola will watch this or the other video. Info that cuts against what they believe. This one is more interesting vs the first.
Richard Lindzen well respected climatologist from MIT.
He explains a lot of the problems with the manmade global warming theory.
I suspect neither dad or espola will watch this or the other video. Info that cuts against what they believe. This one is more interesting vs the first.
Many of these discussions in the past have looped around the same way -- the climate denial camp presents some supposed support for their view that turns out on closer examination not to be what they claim. Interestingly, almost all of these examples presented by the deniers who complain about publication restrictions end up in good-paying positions on foundations that let them publish what they want. The latest example is Dr. Clauser, who is now on the board of the CO2 Coalition. Those interested can find out more about that group here --
CO2 Coalition - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Can you name 1 person here that's denied climate change? Or whatever camp it is you're babbling about?
Should I research Wikipedia articles by climatologist Bill Nye?
Perhaps I should have been more clear -- deniers of the impact of human activities on the obvious climate change,
Would you guys like to take roll call now?
Desert Hound
DA
The climate has always changed.
The way you post it sounds like you expect it to be a constant.
It has always changed. The theory has to prove why this time it isn't a natural cycle.
It also has to prove why higher temps would be bad when we know temps in the past have been far higher and everything was fine.
I know those are deep subjects for you espola. Post another temp chart to prove the climate is changing...which we pretty much all know is the norm.
Desert Hound
DA
By the way the videos I posted which you and dad won't watch are not to say hey the theory is bs. Rather they point out there are many questions not resolved...and some aspects are actually wrong.
But as I always argue one is better informed by being aware and the various points of view rather than blindly accepting the gov position.
Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)
In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.
"Everything was fine" is an interesting observation. Please provide more details that led to that judgment.
See below
That is an example of someone
1: denying that this climate change is different from past climate change.
2: denying the link between industrial CO2 emissions and climate change.
Clear enough?
Desert Hound
DA
Yeah he agrees there is global warming. Thanks for realizing that days later.his argument is we are better off spending money now on the billions that don't have clean water and electricity. He also feels that humans will adapt.Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)
In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.www.nytimes.com
So...thanks for seeing what he says.
whatithink
GOLD
Desert Hound
DA
And watch the video and see what else he says.Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.
Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters (Published 2012)
In recent years, climate change skeptics have seized on one last argument that cannot be so readily dismissed. Their theory is that clouds will save us.
Desert Hound
DA
I accept the climate changes. So your statement is false. You don't read well or understand a discussion.
And again you accept a theory as fact.
Your ability to understand a discussion is weak at best
His last professional work on climate issues was over 10 years ago. In that interval, some of his predictions about the effects of clouds possibly counteracting the effect of CO2 greenhouse warming have been shown to be false. That's all covered in the NY Times article I linked.
Desert Hound
DA
And again to prove it is different from every time before is a high bar.
That is why the THEORY is unproven.
You believe this time warming is catastrophic despite the fact the earth has been substantially warmer in the past. The theory is still just that.
Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the concept of a "theory".
Your persistence in the face of contradiction is amusing. Please continue.
Desert Hound
DA
And again to prove it is different from every time before is a high bar.
That is why the THEORY is unproven.
You believe this time warming is catastrophic despite the fact the earth has been substantially warmer in the past. The theory is still just that.
Desert Hound
DA
So what have you read that is proven that convinces you a warmer plant is catastrophic?
Desert Hound
DA
He is still involved.
But why do you think the most recent Nobel prize winner in physics also believes this is overblown?
Or why is the former provost at cal tech wrong?