368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

[KLATTU]

Missed A Few, IPCC? 368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

e specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).





:Oopsie

 

[MrWonka]

So basically a bunch of asshats that are almost certainly funded by the fossil fuel industry is desperately trying to cast doubt on what is glaringly obvious and right in front of everyone else with a brains face. Even in the unthinkably small chance that these idiots are correct(they're not) there are numerous benefits to getting ourselves off fossil fuels regardless.

Take the Saudi Arabia situation as a perfect example. The reason that there's so little we can do to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of an American Journalist is largely due to the dependence we have on their oil. That in and of itself is a good enough reason to ensure we don't need fossil fuels even if you're delusional to believe any of these idiotic reports have merit.

 

[Threegoofs]

Missed A Few, IPCC? 368 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

e specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).



View attachment 67242423

:Oopsie

Oh, look!

A blog post written by..... some guy.

And that guy did the same thing last year that was proven false.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

But, wingnut suckers are evergreen.

 

[KLATTU]

Oh, look!

A blog post written by..... some guy.

And that guy did the same thing last year that was proven false.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

But, wingnut suckers are evergreen.

Oh look !a left wing site 'fact checks' some other thing .

And a liberal falls for it.
:failpail::2rofll:

Now why don't you address the actual papers the "guy" sites.



We'll wait.

 

[longview]

View attachment 67242424

So basically a bunch of asshats that are almost certainly funded by the fossil fuel industry is desperately trying to cast doubt on what is glaringly obvious and right in front of everyone else with a brains face. Even in the unthinkably small chance that these idiots are correct(they're not) there are numerous benefits to getting ourselves off fossil fuels regardless.

Take the Saudi Arabia situation as a perfect example. The reason that there's so little we can do to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of an American Journalist is largely due to the dependence we have on their oil. That in and of itself is a good enough reason to ensure we don't need fossil fuels even if you're delusional to believe any of these idiotic reports have merit.

How about if we spend our monies solving real problems instead of irrelevant ones?
We (Humanity) has a very real energy problem and a very real fresh water problem,
both far outstrip any issues that may exist for CO2.

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh look !a left wing site 'fact checks' some other thing .

And a liberal falls for it.
:failpail::2rofll:

Now why don't you address the actual papers the "guy" sites.



We'll wait.

Well, you sure as hell weren’t going to fact check it.

 

[KLATTU]

View attachment 67242424

So basically a bunch of asshats that are almost certainly funded by the fossil fuel industry is desperately trying to cast doubt on what is glaringly obvious and right in front of everyone else with a brains face. Even in the unthinkably small chance that these idiots are correct(they're not) there are numerous benefits to getting ourselves off fossil fuels regardless.

Take the Saudi Arabia situation as a perfect example. The reason that there's so little we can do to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of an American Journalist is largely due to the dependence we have on their oil. That in and of itself is a good enough reason to ensure we don't need fossil fuels even if you're delusional to believe any of these idiotic reports have merit.

IF you actuall read what the asshat posted , maybe you wouldn't come across as a such a close-minded liberal know-it-all.

 

[Threegoofs]

IF you actuall read what the asshat posted , maybe you wouldn't come across as a such a close-minded liberal know-it-all.

Why?

You didn’t.

 

[KLATTU]

Why?

You didn’t.

You got me!!!
BURNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!
:sun

 

[Tim the plumber]

View attachment 67242424

So basically a bunch of asshats that are almost certainly funded by the fossil fuel industry is desperately trying to cast doubt on what is glaringly obvious and right in front of everyone else with a brains face. Even in the unthinkably small chance that these idiots are correct(they're not) there are numerous benefits to getting ourselves off fossil fuels regardless.

Take the Saudi Arabia situation as a perfect example. The reason that there's so little we can do to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of an American Journalist is largely due to the dependence we have on their oil. That in and of itself is a good enough reason to ensure we don't need fossil fuels even if you're delusional to believe any of these idiotic reports have merit.

Massive amounts of food is used to make bio fuel.

Massive deaths happen to the poor of the world due to this.

Almost half of humanity lives on less than $2.50 a day.

60% of humans are malnourished.

Deliberately increasing the price of food to make landowners richer at the expense of a few million deaths per year is evil.

Bad science has bad consequences.

 

[MrWonka]

How about if we spend our monies solving real problems instead of irrelevant ones?
We (Humanity) has a very real energy problem and a very real fresh water problem,
both far outstrip any issues that may exist for CO2.

Wrong on all levels, but we can fix our energy problem by again eliminating fossil fuels and moving towards renewables. The so-called Freshwater problem is largely being caused by massive droughts which are again being caused by climate change.

 

[MrWonka]

Massive amounts of food is used to make bio fuel.

What the **** are you talking about? Who needs biofuels? We can put a set of solar panels on top of every home in America. Build all our roads out of materials that can capture solar power and transfer it into our vehicles. If you think biofuels are a problem then eliminating gas powered vehicles is the solution.

 

[longview]

Wrong on all levels, but we can fix our energy problem by again eliminating fossil fuels and moving towards renewables. The so-called Freshwater problem is largely being caused by massive droughts which are again being caused by climate change.

Wrong, our energy problem is related to, we do not have enough fossil fuels to allow
all the Humans alive to have a first world lifestyle for more than a few years.
We need a way to store energy, to get to the other side of this problem, not batteries but massive grid level storage.
Climate change is diverting funds from the much more pressing problems.
Consider for a second, if we could store all of the surplus energy from solar and wind, as carbon neutral transport fuels?
As alternate energy sources increase, there will be greater and greater periods of surplus, where power will have to be disposed
of to keep it from damaging the grids. Imagine if all that energy were converted to carbon neutral transport fuels,
how much would new emissions drop?

Our fresh water problem is from overuse not droughts, we use the aquifers, faster than they recharge.
If we solve our energy problem, we can desalinate as much water as we need.

 

[Into the Night]

View attachment 67242424

Comic based on a false dichotomy.

So basically a bunch of asshats that are almost certainly funded by the fossil fuel industry
is desperately trying to cast doubt on what is glaringly obvious and right in front of everyone else with a brains face. Even in the unthinkably small chance that these idiots are correct(they're not) there are numerous benefits to getting ourselves off fossil fuels regardless.

There is no fossil fuel industry. Fossils don't burn.

Take the Saudi Arabia situation as a perfect example.

Of what?

The reason that there's so little we can do to punish Saudi Arabia for the murder of an American Journalist is largely due to the dependence we have on their oil. That in and of itself is a good enough reason to ensure we don't need fossil fuels even if you're delusional to believe any of these idiotic reports have merit.

The United States does not depend on Saudi Arabia for oil. We have all the oil we need. We export oil products around the world.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong on all levels, but we can fix our energy problem by again eliminating fossil fuels and moving towards renewables. The so-called Freshwater problem is largely being caused by massive droughts which are again being caused by climate change.

Fossils don't burn. You can't eliminate the use of a fuel that doesn't exist. We are already using renewable fuel. Oil and natural gas, for example. Define 'climate change'. This is just a meaningless buzzword.

 

[Into the Night]

What the **** are you talking about? Who needs biofuels? We can put a set of solar panels on top of every home in America. Build all our roads out of materials that can capture solar power and transfer it into our vehicles. If you think biofuels are a problem then eliminating gas powered vehicles is the solution.

Solar panels make a lousy road surface, never mind the cost of the things.
Solar energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy out there. It currently costs about ten times the cost to produce a watt than either coal, oil, or natural gas. It's improved a bit. It used to be about twelve times.

 

[MrWonka]

Solar panels make a lousy road surface, never mind the cost of the things.

That's because we haven't invested enough in making them better and cheaper.

Solar energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy out there. It currently costs about ten times the cost to produce a watt than either coal, oil, or natural gas. It's improved a bit. It used to be about twelve times.

Your information is out of date.

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

The cost of producing one megawatt-hour of electricity — a standard way to measure electricity production — is now around $50 for solar power, according to Lazard's math. The cost of producing one megawatt-hour of electricity from coal, by comparison, is $102 — more than double the cost of solar.

 

[MrWonka]

Comic based on a false dichotomy.

Nope. That's reality.

The United States does not depend on Saudi Arabia for oil. We have all the oil we need. We export oil products around the world.

Delusional nonsense. While we may have a lot of oil, maybe even enough to supply ourselves for awhile we definitely depend on Saudi Arabia as well as other OPEC nations. Their wealth of oil keeps prices low. Without a massive supply from them in the market prices would sore and kill the industrial world's economy. Even today we're seeing gas prices go up a bit due to speculators anticipating bigger jumps down the road if any sanctions are announced.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong, our energy problem is related to, we do not have enough fossil fuels to allow
all the Humans alive to have a first world lifestyle for more than a few years.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Define 'first world lifestyle'. Categorizing nations into 'first world' and 'third world' is really just bigotry.

We need a way to store energy, to get to the other side of this problem, not batteries but massive grid level storage.

Electrical grids do not store energy.

Climate change is diverting funds from the much more pressing problems.

I think you are imagining a lot of the 'pressing problems'.

Consider for a second, if we could store all of the surplus energy from solar and wind, as carbon neutral transport fuels?

What's wrong with carbon?

As alternate energy sources increase, there will be greater and greater periods of surplus, where power will have to be disposed
of to keep it from damaging the grids.

WRONG. If there is too much power available for the grid, the excess power is shut off from the grid. We already have a surplus in power generating capacity. It has nothing to do with solar or wind.

Imagine if all that energy were converted to carbon neutral transport fuels,

What's wrong with carbon?

how much would new emissions drop?

What's wrong with carbon dioxide?

Our fresh water problem is from overuse not droughts, we use the aquifers, faster than they recharge.

Partially. You are blaming the uneven distribution of fresh water on a single cause. You are making a compositional error fallacy. This is the same fallacy you run into with your bigoted arguments concerning 'first world' and 'third world' lifestyles. Bigotry is a compositional error involving people as the class. It is a fallacy.

If we solve our energy problem, we can desalinate as much water as we need.

We can anyway. It only requires the will and the expense to do so. Most folks just get their water out of nearby rivers, aquifers, lakes, natural springs, etc. It's cheaper.

 

[Into the Night]

That's because we haven't invested enough in making them better and cheaper.

Who are you to decide how much is invested in solar panels? You are not dictator of the world or of any solar panel manufacturer or of any stock market.

Your information is out of date.

Not at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5

Rejected. This article contains too many math errors and manufactured data. He is factoring in costs that are pure imagination and based on a religion. It is obviously biased.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. That's reality.

Nope. It's a false dichotomy fallacy.

Delusional nonsense. While we may have a lot of oil, maybe even enough to supply ourselves for awhile we definitely depend on Saudi Arabia as well as other OPEC nations.

We don't import any oil from the OPEC into the United States.

Their wealth of oil keeps prices low.

To a degree. They do not have a monopoly on oil supply. OPEC is not nearly as powerful as you think they are.

Without a massive supply from them in the market prices would sore and kill the industrial world's economy.

Nah. It would cause a bump in oil prices, but the world's economy would still continue.

Even today we're seeing gas prices go up a bit due to speculators anticipating bigger jumps down the road if any sanctions are announced.

OPEC can sanction all they want. They will simply lose the biggest source of income in their countries. There is enough oil even without OPEC. Other oil producers will simply step up production again.

 

[Jack Hays]

TRUMP IS RIGHT TO QUESTION CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES

By Tom Harris and Jay Lehr President Donald Trump was right to express skepticism about human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change in his October 14th interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes.” Contrary to Al Gore’s assertion in his PBS interview aired on October 12 that only “a few outliers” in the scientific community don’t support the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusions, there are…
Continue reading →

 

[Jack Hays]

Three out of four living astronauts who walked on moon are skeptics (men the ABC won’t interview)

Charles Duke, 1972
​

There are only 12 men who have walked on the moon, and only 4 are still living. Selected from the best of the best at the time, with impeccable reputations, why would any of them speak out and risk being called names like deniers of “basic physics”. Yet three of the four have: Harrison Schmitt, Charles Duke, Buzz Aldrin. (Plus others like Australian born Phil Chapman (support crew, Apollo 14) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7).
Maybe because they hate watching as the good name of NASA gets subverted into a pagan weather changing cult?
And because these are guys comfortable with risk. . . .


Apollo 17 moonwalker Harrison Schmitt stirs up a buzz with climate change views

by Alan Boyle

Harrison Schmitt, December 1972
​

The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur addressed the elephant in the room with an assist from science writer Betsy Mason. Here’s how the exchange went:
St. Fleur: “In 2009, we wrote a story called ‘Vocal Minority Insists It Was All Smoke and Mirrors,’ where we quoted you, Dr. Schmitt. The story was basically about people who think the moon landing was faked, and here’s someone who’s actually been there and walked on the moon. You were saying that ‘if people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. … For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.’
“I’m wondering if you see any irony in your remarks there and your views on climate change, as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”
Schmitt: “I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?”
Chorus from the audience: “Yes!”
Schmitt: “Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns. We don’t know how much CO2, for example, is being released by the Southern Oceans as the result of natural climate change that’s been going on now since the last ice age.
“The rate of temperature increase on the surface of the Earth and in the troposphere is about the same over this period of time, particularly since the Little Ice Age, which was not caused by human beings. Nor was the Medieval Warm Period, preceding that, caused by human beings. So that’s the only skepticism I have: What is the cause of climate change?
Keep reading →

 

[Tim the plumber]

What the **** are you talking about? Who needs biofuels? We can put a set of solar panels on top of every home in America. Build all our roads out of materials that can capture solar power and transfer it into our vehicles. If you think biofuels are a problem then eliminating gas powered vehicles is the solution.

Biofuel does not actually help with reducing CO2 output much at all. By the time the fertiliser and transport costs are in the net result is at best marginal.

The hype about CO2 is allowing the farming lobby to get the world to make food more expensive.

This is extremely harmful for the world's poor. Loads are dying and being held back in utter poverty unnecessarily. It is a crme.

Understanding the science will allow us to make better decisions. The science says that there is nothing significant to worry about from a slightly warmer world.

 

[FreeWits]

Oh, look!

A blog post written by..... some guy.

And that guy did the same thing last year that was proven false.

FACT CHECK: Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?

But, wingnut suckers are evergreen.

I find it humorous that you complain about bloggers but then support activist fact-checkers.