• 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!

[W:1458] Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
As this thread well illustrates, the data alone are not enough to allow us to draw conclusions. A level of scientific expertise sufficient to correctly interpret those data is also an essential requirement. The AGW deniers fail to understand this.
Click to expand...

"Correctly" = "In accordance with the approved narrative"
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
You seem to have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Let all of us know when you’re ready for a serious discussion of Louisiana Sinking. Wood products replacing Plastic Products throughout the Intelligent World, which does not include usA.

When you’re ready to stop the Catastrophic Wrecking Ball of Our Environment by Zinke from Interior and Pruitt and Wheeler from EPA. When you’re ready to transition from DIRTY Fossil you protect to clean Alternatives until we get to Nuclear Fusion.

Try a response with more than just your common and innocuous one-liners.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Linc said:
Let all of us know when you’re ready for a serious discussion of Louisiana Sinking. Wood products replacing Plastic Products throughout the Intelligent World, which does not include usA.

When you’re ready to stop the Catastrophic Wrecking Ball of Our Environment by Zinke from Interior and Pruitt and Wheeler from EPA. When you’re ready to transition from DIRTY Fossil you protect to clean Alternatives until we get to Nuclear Fusion.

Try a response with more than just your common and innocuous one-liners.
Click to expand...

I believe in economy of expression.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

The CO2 "consensus" is built on a foundation of sand.

[h=1]The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin The latest L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda article tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming as addressed in its flawed articles on this subject that were previously debunked here and here at WUWT. The latest article also uses anecdotal stories by the writer and a few…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Linc said:
Let all of us know when you’re ready for a serious discussion of Louisiana Sinking. Wood products replacing Plastic Products throughout the Intelligent World, which does not include usA.

When you’re ready to stop the Catastrophic Wrecking Ball of Our Environment by Zinke from Interior and Pruitt and Wheeler from EPA. When you’re ready to transition from DIRTY Fossil you protect to clean Alternatives until we get to Nuclear Fusion.

Try a response with more than just your common and innocuous one-liners.
Click to expand...

Louisiana is "sinking" much faster than the sea level is raising, caused by man made change in the flow of the Mississippi River.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

longview said:
Louisiana is "sinking" much faster than the sea level is raising, caused by man made change in the flow of the Mississippi River.
Click to expand...

Well, thats what SCIENTISTS would have you believe.

But when have you ever bothered listening to them?
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
The CO2 "consensus" is built on a foundation of sand.

[h=1]The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Guest essay by Larry Hamlin The latest L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda article tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming as addressed in its flawed articles on this subject that were previously debunked here and here at WUWT. The latest article also uses anecdotal stories by the writer and a few…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/the-l-a-times-ignores-climate-science-to-push-californias-hellish-summer-alarmist-propaganda/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

More crap from your spoof website. Give it a rest, Jack.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
Climategate showed that to be false.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. The scientists involved with "climategate" were fully exonerated. Your continued efforts to use this non-event to dismiss the entirety of climate science once again demonstrates the vapidity of your arguments.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
You are free to run from the data if you wish, but that does not diminish their importance.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand, do you? It's all about data interpretation. If you want to see what the data actually indicate, look at an actual scientific website, such as those run by NASA or any other scientific organisation. You'll never learn anything from reading Watts's propaganda portal.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
No, it didn't. The scientists involved with "climategate" were fully exonerated. Your continued efforts to use this non-event to dismiss the entirety of climate science once again demonstrates the vapidity of your arguments.
Click to expand...

They were exonerated in exactly the same way Mississippi juries "exonerated" generations of Klansmen.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
You still don't understand, do you? It's all about data interpretation. If you want to see what the data actually indicate, look at an actual scientific website, such as those run by NASA or any other scientific organisation. You'll never learn anything from reading Watts's propaganda portal.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one defending dishonesty.

[FONT=&quot]". . . The shenanigans of Ben Santer who changed a key UN IPCC report finding by rewriting it to reflect his own bias of “human influence” unsupported by his scientific colleagues is summarized below:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only much later were these shenanigans revealed as the WUWT article notes – “Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. According to one source, he later admitted that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”. . . "[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
They were exonerated in exactly the same way Mississippi juries "exonerated" generations of Klansmen.
Click to expand...

No, they were exonerated by multiple scientific commissions. But you just keep on living in your little world of paranoid make-believe if it makes you feel better.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
No, they were exonerated by multiple scientific commissions. But you just keep on living in your little world of paranoid make-believe if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Multiple Mississippi juries, as I said.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one defending dishonesty.

[FONT="]". . . The [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/28/the-heartbeat-of-the-deep-state-climate-corruption-and-lack-of-accountability/"]shenanigans[/URL] of Ben Santer who changed a key UN IPCC report finding by rewriting it to reflect his own bias of “human influence” unsupported by his scientific colleagues is summarized below:[/FONT]
[FONT="]“Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 [I]“Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes”[/I] of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]Only much later were these shenanigans revealed as the WUWT article notes – “Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. [URL="https://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report.html"]According to one source[/URL], he later admitted that[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”. . . "[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="] [/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From the above - "he later admitted that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change" . . . .

And they question why they are having problems getting everyday normal people to agree with their stated results which would ultimately result in those same people having to pay a "carbon tax"? hmmm.... :roll:
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From the above - "he later admitted that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change" . . . .

And they question why they are having problems getting everyday normal people to agree with their stated results which would ultimately result in those same people having to pay a "carbon tax"? hmmm.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Why do you accept Jack's quotes so uncritically? Digging back a bit, it turns out that the person who claims that Santer made this admission is none other that proven liar Christopher Monkton. A bit of healthy scepticism might be in order here!
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Into the Night said:
It is not possible to trap heat. It is not even possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. There is no need to worry about it.
Click to expand...

Thank god. And here I thought that the vast majority of earth scientists would be the people to listen to. But obviously it is you.

But it sure looks bad for you, me boy, as the projections of those overeducated earth scientists keep coming true.
Oh well. It is simply more fun for you to believe what you want to believe. And what you are told to believe. Why worry about those over educated scientists and their millions of hours of studies. I mean, look at your credentials.

Oh, crap. You have none.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
Why do you accept Jack's quotes so uncritically? Digging back a bit, it turns out that the person who claims that Santer made this admission is none other that proven liar Christopher Monkton. A bit of healthy scepticism might be in order here!
Click to expand...

Greetings, Surface Detail. :2wave:


I don't have time to double-check what others post, and Jack has not been deliberately misleading in what he has posted over the years I have known him.
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From the above - "he later admitted that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change" . . . .

And they question why they are having problems getting everyday normal people to agree with their stated results which would ultimately result in those same people having to pay a "carbon tax"? hmmm.... :roll:
Click to expand...


You’d do well to read material that is generated by educated people, rather than denier blogs.

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer | BillMoyers.com
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Threegoofs said:
You’d do well to read material that is generated by educated people, rather than denier blogs.

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer | BillMoyers.com
Click to expand...

Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

I have kept records for over 25 years because I have a large area for growing food organically - veggies, fruit trees, grapevines, several varieties of berries, etc - and I have all the data which proves our weather in NE Ohio has become what one would expect if they live in Maine, generally speaking. Sweet corn is one veg that I can no longer count on to mature, using one example, so I count on the Amish that live South of me to sell what I can't grow here. It doesn't help matters when we have snowstorms the third week of May, since I will not use chemicals to grow what I would like to have! :shrug:
 
Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

polgara said:
Greetings, Threegoofs. :2wave:

I have kept records for over 25 years because I have a large area for growing food organically - veggies, fruit trees, grapevines, several varieties of berries, etc - and I have all the data which proves our weather in NE Ohio has become what one would expect if they live in Maine, generally speaking. Sweet corn is one veg that I can no longer count on to mature, using one example, so I count on the Amish that live South of me to sell what I can't grow here. It doesn't help matters when we have snowstorms the third week of May, and I will not use chemicals to grow what I would like to have! :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well, that’s pretty interesting, but seems to miss the entire point. (I’ll also point out that you use chemicals to grow what you would like to have, contrary to what you might think).

Again, when considering whether Jack is posting sentient content, take a look at the opposing views, which in this case are written by some distinguished academics about a distinguished academic posted on Bill Moyers website, who most would consider an accomplished and distinguished journalist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From the above - "he later admitted that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change" . . . .

And they question why they are having problems getting everyday normal people to agree with their stated results which would ultimately result in those same people having to pay a "carbon tax"? hmmm.... :roll:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

You have it right.:mrgreen:
 
Re: Atmospheric CO2 Tops 408 PPM

Surface Detail said:
Why do you accept Jack's quotes so uncritically? Digging back a bit, it turns out that the person who claims that Santer made this admission is none other that proven liar Christopher Monkton. A bit of healthy scepticism might be in order here!
Click to expand...

1. No one, not even Santer, disputes the quotes.
2. Monckton is considerably more trustworthy than Santer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom