John Rennie, author
It takes a lot of words to defend and spin the indefensible and to protect the lies.
A lot of pseudo-scientific prattle, twaddle, and spewage.
If you really believe in it, live like you do.
Stop driving cars.
Stop flying in airplanes.
In fact, stop doing anything that produces CO2, including breathing.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Step 1: confuse the issue by calling it climate change (which is uncontroversial) from HUMAN GENERATED CO2 climate change (which is what the fight is about).
This misdirection is analogous to their treatment of the stem cell fight. NO ONE had a problem with stem cell research except if you had to kill a baby to get it. But they always ignored the baby killing dimension.
Nice try, Salon.
It’s always enjoyable watching journalism majors deal with the subjects that caused them to sink to the level which forced them to pursue journalism in college.
My short course on your short course:
1. The physics of GW doesn’t work. Not now. Not ever.
2. The models don’t work. Didn’t then. Don’t now.
3. You might try to look up the meaning of “correlation”.
4. You might try to get someone with a little knowledge of math to try and get your little minds to get a grasp on the meaning of “principal component analysis” and why your so-called “climate scientists” evidently skipped - or failed - that class.
5. You might try to explain why periods in which the average temp was much higher than it is now were much better periods for humanity. (Simple summary for libs - warm is better than cold. Much better.)
6. Oh yeah, where’s your reporting on the fact that the so-called “heating” has stopped?
In summary, please, deal only with things you can understand...such as...er...uh...
“It takes a lot of words to defend and spin the indefensible and to protect the lies. “
I was just thinking that seeing the article. Anytime that much has to be said then I know it is a twist of logic and lies.
One way to shut down a climate alarmist:
What are the current calibration standards for climate data collection stations? What percentage of stations adhere to those standards? At what level of uncertainty are the data points measured?
What is the level of uncertainty for data points from 25 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years ago?
How about the guestimates from thousands of years ago?
What, then, is the uncertainty of your predictions given the uncertainty of your data points? Why aren’t those ever included in your predictions?
If your predictions are within the uncertainty of your measurements, then they are insignificant. This is basic high school science.
This reminds me of the Pope commanding Galileo to repudiate his heliocentric beliefs, which allegedly resulted in him muttering “and yet it moves.” And yet, it isn’t warming.
You cant... period. You would have more luck talking to the wall...
Too much CO2?
Grab them by the windpipe til their eyes roll white.
“Better?”
Reddit has banned “climate deniers” from their science forum, even scientific studies on the Mauder minimum causing the recent drop in temperatures world wide.
These recommendations are based upon the false assumption that the liberal would think and act rationally.
The real deniers are the warmists... they try to deny data that shows clearly that despite rising CO2 levels that the world has not warmed in nearly twenty years. Of course this contradicts the predictions of all of their computer models.
Incredibly the data showing the lack of warming comes from government entities who know that their budgets depend on continued warming... so the fudge factor is already being maximized. Which means that we would be several years into a severe cooling trend before that was acknowledged.
2nd biggest argument against it....if it was really happening, then why the need for "talking points" to keep trying to sell it as real?
If CO2 were collecting infrared energy, ambient temperatures would rise.
Since the ambient temperature is well below freezing, there is only one other thing causing the snow and ice to melt. The bright yellow thingy thing in the sky.
It takes energy to raise temperatures in CO2. That's the infrared the article mentions. The problem is, while CO2 is collecting energy, it can warm up. At night, infrared radiation significantly drops. The warming drops. The surrounding gases vastly outnumber and are colder than the CO2, thus CO2 temperature drop to the same temperature as the other gases.
Salon to its readers:
The Earth is still warming. Who are you gonna believe, us or your lying frost-bitten extemities??
It always does.
1)
need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
Because :
natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus
is not correct. The surplus is absorbed as well.
2)
But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted… What of it?
The better question is - “Climate change - what of it?”
Climate change hysterics continue to ignore the contribution of the sun, oribital cycles, and continental uplift, which far exceed any manmade contribution.
Note, geologically, there is a difference between “ice age” and “glaciation”. Ice age is when you have 24x365 ice at sea level anywhere. Glaciation is an advance of glaciers and they occur many times during an ice age.
Believe it or not, we are currently in an ice age and have had 60 glaciations over the past 4 million year. The last being wooly-mammoth time.
Most of earth’s history there has been NO ice cap. This includes the period w/life on the planet which has so far been sea-ice free 75% of the time.
So we are now colder than it would be otherwise. The rates of change that hysterics claim are greaten than ever before presume that all such changes are linear (there’s no reason to think they would be) and we can only compare so far back, since when ice melts a “record” is lost.
3)
Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with statistics
These would be the people that recognize that the warming period that climate hysterics are upset about is ALSO statistically insignificant in geological terms.
4)
sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes
Almost there, don’t forget orbital cycles and continental uplift.
The cycle is called the Milankovich cycle, in case you’re interested, and where we are now in that indicates a warming trend. This started at the end of the last glaciation continues.
Even the sun’s rays will not be able to hold back the next glaciation cycle so expect glacial ice in NY again within 60k years.
5)
Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world
Let it be noted that many climate changes studies are paid for. The beast isn’t fed if there’s nothing to feed.
The thought that “climate change” conspiracy can’t spread is like saying communism can’t spread.
Also, you can tell when there’s “conspiracy” present when you have those who simply disagree are tarred and feathered as the “deniers” are (equating them w/holocaust deniers). Climate change hysteria is more a religion than a science.
6)
angling for more money by hyping fears of climate change, they are not doing so very effectively
Prima facie false. Governments around the world are paying out the nose for this bunk. Don’t forget to include “green” companies (and also don’t forget that green is the new red).
my 7 got cut off.
7)
Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don’t produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable
I know of no one who doesn’t buy man made global warming claiming this. Accepting this as a “solution” means that folks can simply change the climate, which is counter to the claim of one who disagrees, so this whole section is an oxymoron.
John Rennie, author
Whatever it takes to justify chopping up the remaining Eagles and Condors in California, I guess.
He seriously doesn't see any such problems in a regulatory system that tries to accomplish the same thing?