• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate[W:376]

The paper was published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The paper is here: Pronounced differences between observed and CMIP5-simulated multidecadal climate variability in the twentieth century - Kravtsov - 2017 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
The SI is here: https://people.uwm.edu/kravtsov/files/2016/05/Supporting-Information_AGU

Plain Language Summary
Global and regional warming trends over the course of the twentieth century have been nonuniform, with decadal and longer periods of faster or slower warming, or even cooling. Here we show that state-of-the-art global models used to predict climate fail to adequately reproduce such multidecadal climate variations. In particular, the models underestimate the magnitude of the observed variability and misrepresent its spatial pattern. Therefore, our ability to interpret the observed climate change using these models is limited.
Abstract
Identification and dynamical attribution of multidecadal climate undulations to either variations in external forcings or to internal sources is one of the most important topics of modern climate science, especially in conjunction with the issue of human-induced global warming. Here we utilize ensembles of twentieth century climate simulations to isolate the forced signal and residual internal variability in a network of observed and modeled climate indices. The observed internal variability so estimated exhibits a pronounced multidecadal mode with a distinctive spatiotemporal signature, which is altogether absent in model simulations. This single mode explains a major fraction of model-data differences over the entire climate index network considered; it may reflect either biases in the models’ forced response or models’ lack
of requisite internal dynamics, or a combination of both.



And yet you choose not to post this link originally. You choose to post the version, with the editorial by the High Schooler. It's a broken record. I've lost my interest.
 
Um, hang on a second. Are you under the impression anyone is suggesting that fossil fuels are the only thing that has ever affected climate at any point in all of history?
No, and that was exactly my point 2 posts ago. How do you know how much warming can be attributed to just fossil fuels, and how much warming is because of earth's natural warming/cooling cycles?? We just dont know. If fossil fuels only add 10% to a 100% natural warming cycle then AGW has been greatly exaggerated and earth probably has at least another 200 to 300 years before we really need to seriously think aboot getting off fossil fuels and find a clean energy instead. Of course it would be great if we can find a clean(er) fuel before that, and I'm all for that

Because let me help you out with a really, really big thing you've missed: Nobody is arguing that. In the past, climate has absolutely changed through natural means, for a variety of reasons. Feel better now?
Great, I'm glad we agree.

One more thing, back in the 1990's China and India entered their own little industrial age. They tripled or quadrupled their CO2 output from the 1990's up till now. So during that 27 year period earth should have seen a drastic increase in global warming if the entire AGW hypothesis is correct. Newsflash: earth did NOT warm up drastically, only a tiny littlebit.

Explain that please
 
And yet you choose not to post this link originally. You choose to post the version, with the editorial by the High Schooler. It's a broken record. I've lost my interest.

This link, and the text, are all within the WUWT link I posted.

If you lose interest that will be addition by subtraction.
 
No, and that was exactly my point 2 posts ago. How do you know how much warming can be attributed to just fossil fuels, and how much warming is because of earth's natural warming/cooling cycles?? We just dont know.
You are incorrect in your assumption that the distinction cannot be calculated. As I said a couple posts back, these are all measurable and testable factors. We can measure what the sun is doing. Agree?


Great, I'm glad we agree.

One more thing, back in the 1990's China and India entered their own little industrial age. They tripled or quadrupled their CO2 output from the 1990's up till now. So during that 27 year period earth should have seen a drastic increase in global warming if the entire AGW hypothesis is correct. Newsflash: earth did NOT warm up drastically, only a tiny littlebit.

Explain that please

You're trying to do math with your gut, without any data to do the math with in the first place. And that's always a bad idea.

monthlyco2large.jpg

As you can see, CO2 levels have risen more or less steadily. No drastic jump. (the little wiggles are the yearly plant growth cycle, every spring nature nabs a bunch of CO2)

Furthermore, I'd point out some more things:
1) As you've agreed, there are other factors. Example: over the last decade or so the sun has dropped in output. I'm sure you'll agree that less solar output provides a cooling influence that balances against any warming influence of CO2
2) The earth has a lot of thermal inertia, largely thanks to having massive amounts of water on its surface. There's a lag time to reach a new thermal equilibrium.
 
You are incorrect in your assumption that the distinction cannot be calculated. As I said a couple posts back, these are all measurable and testable factors?
No, they are not. You CANNOT take a 150 year sample size, and then measure it against earth's 4 billion year history.
Any good statistician who's worth his salt will tell you that

As you can see, CO2 levels have risen more or less steadily. No drastic jump. (the little wiggles are the yearly plant growth cycle, every spring nature nabs a bunch of CO2)
Your graph is wrong. It has to be.

How can CO2 levels remained at an almost constant rise if China and India entered their industrial age around 1990 and tripled their CO2 out put. Also earth's population has risen from 6 billion in 1999 to 7.6 billion in October 2017. This means 1.7 more billion people, surely that had to increase CO2 levels by a lot more then what your graph shows.

Again, your graph is wrong

Furthermore, I'd point out some more things:
1) As you've agreed, there are other factors. Example: over the last decade or so the sun has dropped in output. I'm sure you'll agree that less solar output provides a cooling influence that balances against any warming influence of CO2
2) The earth has a lot of thermal inertia, largely thanks to having massive amounts of water on its surface. There's a lag time to reach a new thermal equilibrium
There's also something called "atmospheric escape". You might wanna read up on that someday
 
No, they are not. You CANNOT take a 150 year sample size, and then measure it against earth's 4 billion year history.
Any good statistician who's worth his salt will tell you that
This isn't coming from statistics. It's physics. Do you agree that solar output is measurable?

Your graph is wrong. It has to be.

How can CO2 levels remained at an almost constant rise if China and India entered their industrial age around 1990 and tripled their CO2 out put. Also earth's population has risen from 6 billion in 1999 to 7.6 billion in October 2017. This means 1.7 more billion people, surely that had to increase CO2 levels by a lot more then what your graph shows.

Again, your graph is wrong
You're denying the data because you don't like what it says. Look at any source you like. They say what they say. Denial is boring, if you have nothing else I guess we're done here.

There's also something called "atmospheric escape". You might wanna read up on that someday
I'm familiar with the concept, I'm not sure why you think the concept of atmospheric escape somehow proves anything I've said wrong.
 
This isn't coming from statistics. It's physics. Do you agree that solar output is measurable?
Over 100 years it is, but it tells you nothing because you cannot compare it to the remaining 3,999,999,900 years since earth and the Sun existed

You're denying the data because you don't like what it says. Look at any source you like. They say what they say. Denial is boring, if you have nothing else I guess we're done here
Dont whimp out now.

How can that graph you posted show a perfect straight upward trend when earth's population grew by 1.7 billion since 1999, and obviously contributed massively to CO2 output??

I'm familiar with the concept, I'm not sure why you think the concept of atmospheric escape somehow proves anything I've said wrong
A certain amount of CO2 escapes from the atmosphere out into space. Nobody knows exactly how much
 
Over 100 years it is, but it tells you nothing because you cannot compare it to the remaining 3,999,999,900 years since earth and the Sun existed
No, you don't get it at all. The idea that CO2 is responsible for warming isn't derived purely from statistical analysis of temperature charts.


How can that graph you posted show a perfect straight upward trend when earth's population grew by 1.7 billion since 1999, and obviously contributed massively to CO2 output??
Because you're inventing... not even numbers. You're just inventing what you think the trend should look like based on a bunch of nonsense. You're not remotely familiar with CO2 per capita numbers, or total emissions numbers. Look closely. You'll see the slope of that chart HAS gotten steeper. The Y-axis scaling just makes it not look that dramatic.

You're the only person on this entire message board disputing these numbers. Look at any official source. Here are more:

https://www.google.com/search?q=CO2...97nXAhWn44MKHbBZA1EQ_AUICygC&biw=1380&bih=978

A certain amount of CO2 escapes from the atmosphere out into space. Nobody knows exactly how much

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a known quantity and has been for a very long time.
 
No, you don't get it at all. The idea that CO2 is responsible for warming isn't derived purely from statistical analysis of temperature charts
What does this have to do with anything?? You still havent answered my question, how do you know how much warming can be attributed to CO2's and how do you know the warming isnt 90% caused by natural warming/cooling cycles that earth goes through.

Better yet, give me exact percentages, lets say for example earth warmed by 1 degree last 50 years, exactly what percentage of that was caused by CO2's and what percentage by earth natural cycles

Because you're inventing... not even numbers. You're just inventing what you think the trend should look like based on a bunch of nonsense. You're not remotely familiar with CO2 per capita numbers, or total emissions numbers. Look closely. You'll see the slope of that chart HAS gotten steeper. The Y-axis scaling just makes it not look that dramatic
You're the one who doesnt get it, if that CO2 chart of yours is correct, then earth should have warmed up considerable since 1990, and yet it hasnt.

Here, read this: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online

My official position is that I believe earth is warming a bit, but I dont believe all the hype that we're all gonna bake, fry and die from the heat or that the poles will melt. I also believe earth and mankind are resilient and soon enough some genius will invent a better fuel source and everything will be OK again.

I also believe in atmospheric escape, so if everyone stopped putting out CO2's tomorrow, the planet's atmosphere would recover fairly quickly by pushing the excess CO2 out to space.

So stop it with all this fear-mongering, guys like you arent helping the situation
 
What does this have to do with anything?? You still havent answered my question, how do you know how much warming can be attributed to CO2's and how do you know the warming isnt 90% caused by natural warming/cooling cycles that earth goes through.

Better yet, give me exact percentages, lets say for example earth warmed by 1 degree last 50 years, exactly what percentage of that was caused by CO2's and what percentage by earth natural cycles


You're the one who doesnt get it, if that CO2 chart of yours is correct, then earth should have warmed up considerable since 1990, and yet it hasnt.

Here, read this: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online

My official position is that I believe earth is warming a bit, but I dont believe all the hype that we're all gonna bake, fry and die from the heat or that the poles will melt. I also believe earth and mankind are resilient and soon enough some genius will invent a better fuel source and everything will be OK again.

I also believe in atmospheric escape, so if everyone stopped putting out CO2's tomorrow, the planet's atmosphere would recover fairly quickly by pushing the excess CO2 out to space.

So stop it with all this fear-mongering, guys like you arent helping the situation

It is impossible to shake the faith of a religious zealot. You will never get anywhere with him regarding the facts. He and others are deniers of science. Their faith in the dogma of CO2 will never be shaken.
 
It is impossible to shake the faith of a religious zealot. You will never get anywhere with him regarding the facts. He and others are deniers of science. Their faith in the dogma of CO2 will never be shaken
Thats exactly what it is, its become a religion to these people. Its the same as telling a muslim Allah might not exist. They'll just get all angry and possibly violent if you push it hard enough
 
Thats exactly what it is, its become a religion to these people. Its the same as telling a muslim Allah might not exist. They'll just get all angry and possibly violent if you push it hard enough

I found a forum where an alarmist was professing the accuracy of a 50 year old paper, for claiming computer modeling was good. This is the link:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-ba...-global-warming-almost-perfectly-3c0854932a4a

It has a 19 page paper attached:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2

Yes, the modelling is better than anything the IPCC et. al. comes up with. It was made before the AGW crusade began. Funny how the faithful to the dogma, only listen to what a pundit says about something. They fail to even read what the end of the abstract says:

"Our model does not have the extreme sensitivity of atmospheric temperature to changes of CO2 content which was adduced by Möller."

Under conclusions, it speaks of a 1.3 C for a CO2 doubling using realistic distribution of H2O feedback on absolute humidity. It speaks of the stratospheric H2O changes of five times increasing surface equilibrium 2C, and in the body of the paper speaks of high stratospheric increase of H2O due to jet flights.

This paper is gold!

It does not give the alarmist community anything to bite their teeth on.
 
Last edited:
If I get back to the thread title, here is something that represents the direct and indirect changes from TSI changes of the sun:

Wiki greenhouse model modified for 1750.jpg
 
What does this have to do with anything?? You still havent answered my question, how do you know how much warming can be attributed to CO2's and how do you know the warming isnt 90% caused by natural warming/cooling cycles that earth goes through.
No, what you did was declare that it's impossible to know. You didn't ask how one might know.
You do it by measuring the known factors. We measure the sun's output, for example. And we measure volcanic activity. And we measure orbital factors.
Better yet, give me exact percentages, lets say for example earth warmed by 1 degree last 50 years, exactly what percentage of that was caused by CO2's and what percentage by earth natural cycles
Here's a simple version to start you off. Truly answering this question is complicated and lengthy, something I suspect you will immediately flee from and declare to be propaganda.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/b...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/

Asking for "exact percentages" is absurd, because all of these calculations have a margin of error. You wont even admit to that fact, and will continue to make absurd demands in a dishonest fashion. Because your opinion is one of faith, not one of reason. You're making up numbers with your gut to fit your preconceptions, and declare to the world nobody could possibly know something just because you don't know it.

You're the one who doesnt get it, if that CO2 chart of yours is correct, then earth should have warmed up considerable since 1990, and yet it hasnt.
Show the math for this, then. You're so certain you know the exact response of the earth's temperature over a 27 year period to a specific increase in CO2. You're claiming a high ECS value. Your buddy and fellow zealot Lord of Planar disagrees with you. He things ECS is low. Do you even know that that acronym is?

This old canard. Funny, you brought up statisticians before and sample sizes, but fail to see the comically obvious cherry pick here. Can you even tell me why they used 1997 instead of, say, 1995?

My official position is that I believe earth is warming a bit, but I dont believe all the hype that we're all gonna bake, fry and die from the heat or that the poles will melt. I also believe earth and mankind are resilient and soon enough some genius will invent a better fuel source and everything will be OK again.
And who is claiming we are "all gonna bake, fry, and die?" Go ahead and provide support for this dumb straw man of yours.
You can't, can you? Because this is another point of faith for you. You believe this is what those darn leftists are telling you. Facts don't matter to you.
I also believe in atmospheric escape, so if everyone stopped putting out CO2's tomorrow, the planet's atmosphere would recover fairly quickly by pushing the excess CO2 out to space.
Laughable. And what magic force expels CO2 in disproportionately higher quantities than oxygen or nitrogen?

So stop it with all this fear-mongering, guys like you arent helping the situation

Ok, we are done here until you can do one of two things:
1) Post a quote from me in this thread that is "fear mongering."
2) Admit this statement was dishonest.

I bet you can't do either. You're too brainwashed.
 
If I get back to the thread title, here is something that represents the direct and indirect changes from TSI changes of the sun:

View attachment 67224859

Interesting that you use an image that comes from all sorts of AGW-proponent sources while simultaneously claiming we're all trying to ignore the indirect effects.
 
Show the math for this, then. You're so certain you know the exact response of the earth's temperature over a 27 year period to a specific increase in CO2. You're claiming a high ECS value. Your buddy and fellow zealot Lord of Planar disagrees with you. He things ECS is low. Do you even know that that acronym is?

Once again, a valid point flew over your head.

Desert Storm was saying that the earth would be warmer if your graph was correct, implying your graph was wrong. He was saying the high ECS value of your graph could not be correct.

Yes, I contend the ECS for CO2 is lower than the IPCC et. al. claims.
 
No, what you did was declare that it's impossible to know. You didn't ask how one might know.
You do it by measuring the known factors. We measure the sun's output, for example. And we measure volcanic activity. And we measure orbital factors.

Here's a simple version to start you off. Truly answering this question is complicated and lengthy, something I suspect you will immediately flee from and declare to be propaganda.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/b...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/

Asking for "exact percentages" is absurd, because all of these calculations have a margin of error. You wont even admit to that fact, and will continue to make absurd demands in a dishonest fashion. Because your opinion is one of faith, not one of reason. You're making up numbers with your gut to fit your preconceptions, and declare to the world nobody could possibly know something just because you don't know it.
I

Show the math for this, then. You're so certain you know the exact response of the earth's temperature over a 27 year period to a specific increase in CO2. You're claiming a high ECS value. Your buddy and fellow zealot Lord of Planar disagrees with you. He things ECS is low. Do you even know that that acronym is?


This old canard. Funny, you brought up statisticians before and sample sizes, but fail to see the comically obvious cherry pick here. Can you even tell me why they used 1997 instead of, say, 1995?


And who is claiming we are "all gonna bake, fry, and die?" Go ahead and provide support for this dumb straw man of yours.
You can't, can you? Because this is another point of faith for you. You believe this is what those darn leftists are telling you. Facts don't matter to you.

Laughable. And what magic force expels CO2 in disproportionately higher quantities than oxygen or nitrogen?



Ok, we are done here until you can do one of two things:
1) Post a quote from me in this thread that is "fear mongering."
2) Admit this statement was dishonest.

I bet you can't do either. You're too brainwashed.

Shaviv:

The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think. The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.
 
Once again, a valid point flew over your head.

Desert Storm was saying that the earth would be warmer if your graph was correct, implying your graph was wrong. He was saying the high ECS value of your graph could not be correct.

Yes, I contend the ECS for CO2 is lower than the IPCC et. al. claims.

Desert Storm is wrong about CO2 concentrations and you damn well know it. You don't actually contest the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. You're just taking his side out of blind faith because he's one of yours. But let's analyze his claims, since you're claiming to be so data driven.

He claimed "considerable" temperature increase would have occurred if those CO2 levels were accurate. Now, let's say that's 2C. CO2 increased by roughly 50ppm in the period specified. (since 1990).

Now, 350 to 400ppm is an increase of about 15%.

So, if CO2 increases 15% and causes a 2C rise, what's the ECS that Desert Storm is claiming? You can use a different temperature rise if you believe "considerable" means something else. I'll even let you pretend that the response is instantaneous when we both know it isn't. You tell me: Roughly what ECS is Desert Storm claiming would be necessary to result in this "considerable" increase? SHOW THE MATH.
 
No, what you did was declare that it's impossible to know. You didn't ask how one might know.
You do it by measuring the known factors. We measure the sun's output, for example. And we measure volcanic activity. And we measure orbital factors.

Here's a simple version to start you off. Truly answering this question is complicated and lengthy, something I suspect you will immediately flee from and declare to be propaganda.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/b...k-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/
Nowhere in your link does it state what the exact percentages are that I asked you for. You fail!!

Asking for "exact percentages" is absurd
Ah, so after you just post a link (that doesnt tell us anything) you now claim its absurd to asked for exact percentages

Asking for "exact percentages" is absurd, because all of these calculations have a margin of error
Then give us a range of percentages. And post a link that backs it up

Because your opinion is one of faith, not one of reason
Actually, its you that believes in this global warming faith. The onus is on you to prove it

Show the math for this, then. You're so certain you know the exact response of the earth's temperature over a 27 year period to a specific increase in CO2. You're claiming a high ECS value. Your buddy and fellow zealot Lord of Planar disagrees with you. He things ECS is low. Do you even know that that acronym is?
Tell you what, let me use some common sense. I've lived on and off in Toronto for the past 25 years. Winters have NOT gotten any warmer, in fact they've stayed pretty much exactly the same. So if we've putting out all these CO2's over the last 100 years, shouldnt we also have noticed a drastic warming of our winters??

And who is claiming we are "all gonna bake, fry, and die?" Go ahead and provide support for this dumb straw man of yours
Al Gore and his retarded 'Inconvenient Truth' movie. Nothing that he predicted has come to pass yet

Laughable. And what magic force expels CO2 in disproportionately higher quantities than oxygen or nitrogen?
This has to be the dumbest question you've posed yet. Its completely irrelevant

Ok, we are done here until you can do one of two things:
No, were not done here

Ok, we are done here until you can do one of two things:
1) Post a quote from me in this thread that is "fear mongering."
When you overstate and exaggerate the amount of global warming thats happening, you are adding to the fear.
Its as simple as that.

Or are you now backtracking and saying earth isnt warming all that much??

You're too brainwashed
Its you who's brainwashed. You've bought into the global warming scam.
Watch some of this:

 
Here is a review of the research which, I believe, will ultimately result in the displacement of the AGW hypothesis as the centerpiece of climate science.

Indirect Effects of the Sun on Earth's Climate

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/indirect-effects-of-the-sun-of-earths-climate/


Jun 10, 2017 - In 2003, Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder in the book The Chilling Stars [1] described how ..... “Edward B Hanley June 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm

For a long time, I have been bitterly disappointed at the blinkered lopsided attitude of the IPCC and of many climate scientists, by which they readily accepted spurious indirect effects from CO2-driven global warming (the “feedbacks”), yet found a range of excuses for ignoring the possibility that there might be any indirect effects from the sun. For example, in AR4 2.7.1 they say “empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change” but there is nothing in the models for this, because there is “ongoing debate“, or it “remains ambiguous“, etc, etc.
In this article, I explore the scientific literature on possible solar indirect effects on climate, and suggest a reasonable way of looking at them. . . .
Back in 1997, when Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen first floated their hypothesis on the effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on Earth’s climate, it shook the world of climate science. But it was going to take a lot more than a shake to dislodge climate science’s autocrats. Their entrenched position was that climate was primarily driven by greenhouse gases, and that consequently man-made CO2 would be catastrophic (the CAGW hypothesis), and they were going to do whatever it took to protect their turf. . . .

Here we are, twenty years after the GCR hypothesis was first floated, and the CAGW paradigm is still in place and virtually unscathed. This is in spite of increasing evidence supporting Cosmoclimatology and in spite of the epic failure of climate models to predict climate. Paradigm protection has been seen many times in science, but I wonder whether it has ever been as corrupt and as extreme as it currently is in climate science.
I should have mentioned that there was strong opposition against experimental testing of Cosmoclimatology. Think about that – scientists trying to prevent a thoery being tested – and I think you will agree that my use of the word “corrupt” in the previous paragraph was justified. . . .
I hope to live long enough to see Henrik Svensmark receive the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Will climate science now recognise that it has been getting everything wrong for decades? I doubt it. Not until their leaders can be removed and replaced by scientists who will give as much critical scrutiny to CAGW as they do to competing theories. . . .

AGW forces are so entrenched and so embedded in the national teat, you might as well outlaw cars. It’s not about the climate, it’s about jobs in the climate industry - they have become a national, albeit parasitic part of the economy.
 
AGW forces are so entrenched and so embedded in the national teat, you might as well outlaw cars. It’s not about the climate, it’s about jobs in the climate industry - they have become a national, albeit parasitic part of the economy.

I'm naive. I believe the truth will eventually overcome.
 
We've been putting CO2's out into the atmosphere since about 1900 (at least in large quantities).
If earth has barely warmed up since that time, I'm pretty sure we have lots of time left to find a new, cleaner fuel source.

And we do need a new fuel source because oil will eventually run out. When oil companies are ready to abandon the liquid and are digging for sludge (shale oil), that should tell you we're getting close to peak oil.

I also hate making these oil sheiks rich while they're ripping us off at the pumps. That really irks me :(
 
AGW forces are so entrenched and so embedded in the national teat, you might as well outlaw cars. It’s not about the climate, it’s about jobs in the climate industry - they have become a national, albeit parasitic part of the economy.

Could you image what would happen if they stopped getting all that research money? Or is they started getting no more research money than the non-alarmists get?
 
Back
Top Bottom