Tim Ryan, D- Ohio, Says world will warm 7 degrees celsius on Maria Bartiromo's show.

[Phys251]

No, acceptance of the Nature study, something you said he didn't do.

So he does accept the Nature study, he does accept climate science, and it was simply one misquote by one politician which does nothing whatsoever to falsify climate science. Good.

You still have not clarified your own position on climate science. Do you, Harshaw, accept the scientific opinion on climate change? Yes or no. Simple question. Yes or no.

I tried to have a good-faith exchange with you.

:2funny:

Thank you for the much-needed laugh!!

 

[Phys251]

Why, you're having your very own Shiela Jackson Lee moment. How cute.

What matters is the climate science, is it not? So tell me, humbolt, do you accept the scientific opinion on climate change?

 

[humbolt]

What matters is the climate science, is it not? So tell me, humbolt, do you accept the scientific opinion on climate change?

Please don't presume to tell me what matters.

 

[Harshaw]

Why, you're having your very own Shiela Jackson Lee moment. How cute.

Yeah, some days, people are determined to bang around the room with a bucket over their heads. Whaddayagonnado?

 

[Phys251]

Please don't presume to tell me what matters.

:lamo

Laysplaining and projection all tied up into a vacuous, eight-word sentence. Bravo!

Now let's try this again, because this is the important thing. Do you, humbolt, accept the scientific opinion on climate change? Yes or no. Very simple question. Yes, or no.

 

[Phys251]

Yeah, some days, people are determined to bang around the room with a bucket over their heads. Whaddayagonnado?

Have you decided whether or not to reveal your acceptance or rejection of the scientific opinion on climate change, Harshaw?

 

[humbolt]

:lamo

Laysplaining and projection all tied up into a vacuous, eight-word sentence. Bravo!

Now let's try this again, because this is the important thing. Do you, humbolt, accept the scientific opinion on climate change? Yes or no. Very simple question. Yes, or no.

Why, I'm not trying anything. You are.

And you aren't.doing very well with it, either.

 

[Phys251]

Why, I'm not trying anything. You are.

And you aren't.doing very well with it, either.

You not admitting whether or not you accept the scientific opinion on climate change, humbolt. This is a very simple question with a very simple answer. Maybe you are not sure how this whole Q&A thing goes? Would you like an example?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well I was just stunned by Democrat stupidity again. Maybe it was ignorance. Could have been simply outright lying.

It's often hard to tell with politicians.

Tim Ryan, Democrat Congressman from Ohio, just said with a straight face on National Television that the Global Climate will warm by 7 degrees celsius in the next 70 years.

It passed without challenge from Bartiromo who was conducting the interview.

I can't find any source that supports this assertion. Is there one? I found one that said warming of about half that level could occur- not that it would occur.

How can people with this level of misinformation guiding their actions and thinking be elected to a national office?

This is worrisome in its implication on what these idiots are legislating.

Temperature On Earth To Rise 7 Degrees By 2100, Climate ‘Sensitivity’ May Be ‘Far Higher’ Than Thought

The problem is, the left doesn't need facts. They believe what ever their sooth-Sayers say.

 

[humbolt]

You not admitting whether or not you accept the scientific opinion on climate change, humbolt. This is a very simple question with a very simple answer. Maybe you are not sure how this whole Q&A thing goes? Would you like an example?

I'm more interested finding out if you decided to wear black face while doing your Shiela Jackson Lee shtick, or not. A yes or no will be sufficient.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good morning, Code.

Seeing that you linked to a report that mentions a Nature study, and seeing that you don't accept it, what research have you published in the field of climate science?

Did you read that study? It doesn't say that. Please quote the part that does if I am in error.

 

[Lord of Planar]

He's a politician, not a scientist. I think he meant 7 degrees Farenheit. That is a figure within the high end realm of reality. It is also a figure calamitous for humans. Species extinction is ongoing at exponential rates and if insects go extinct, so will we. In the meantime, sell that beachfront property.
/

I accept that he meant Fahrenheit. It's still very, very unlikely. Like maybe 0.01% possible...

Maybe he got confused. He probably has seven law degrees, in order to be such an effective demonrat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The article had all kinds of mush and slush around it's conjecture:

"According to the study, published in Nature, researchers in Australia found that by 2100, the planet could see an increase in global temperatures of more than 3 degrees Celsius, or 5.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and could even exceed 4 degrees Celsius, or 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit. By 2200, that number could double to 8 degrees Celsius."

As always in these things, the premise is stated and then the dire predictions are layeered on thick.

Why a Congressman is duped into repeating and exaggerating it further is really a wonder of outlandish gullibility.

I wonder how many bridges in New York he thinks he owns...

Funny thing is, the article says that. The study does not. They are lying once again about what a study says.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What didn't he "accept"? The Nature study showed a possible increase of 3 or 4 degrees Celsius over the "70-year" span, not 7.



What did code say?



So it looks to me that he did, in fact, accept it.

Maybe you should read the study like I did.

 

[Harshaw]

Maybe you should read the study like I did.

You paid the 9 bucks to read the study?

If the IBT "lied" about the study in the article, that's no one's fault here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You paid the 9 bucks to read the study?

If the IBT "lied" about the study in the article, that's no one's fault here.

I subscribe to several journals. That one costs $199 annually.

I get a laugh so many times when someone is arguing a point that their lying pundit made.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The closest it comes to a high temperature is claiming their method and modelling show a CO2 sensitivity of 4 degrees for a doubling.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If the IBT "lied" about the study in the article, that's no one's fault here.

No, it just shows how gullible people can be. But then to insist it as fact, shows how ignorant and arrogant one is.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, it's only going to be about a 4C increase, which by all measures would put us into dangerous territory!

Very unlikely.

 

[Harshaw]

No, it just shows how gullible people can be. But then to insist it as fact, shows how ignorant and arrogant one is.

To "insist" what is a fact?

I don't think anyone insisted anything was "fact" there. Code only brought it up as the only reference he could find which came anywhere close to what Ryan was claiming. He didn't have to "insist" it was "fact" to make the argument that Ryan's claim seems unsupported. If it's right or if it's wrong, it doesn't support Ryan either way.

 

[Lord of Planar]

To "insist" what is a fact?

I don't think anyone insisted anything was "fact" there. Code only brought it up as the only reference he could find which came anywhere close to what Ryan was claiming. He didn't have to "insist" it was "fact" to make the argument that Ryan's claim seems unsupported. If it's right or if it's wrong, it doesn't support Ryan either way.

What I mean is that nobody should take an article as fact. They should verify. Especially anything controversial like politics, religion, or global warming.

 

[Nickyjo]

They never seem to tell us what the want the climate to do. Just stop changing! Uhhh... OK...

Where have you been? The suggested prescription, right or wrong, has been for human activity to change.

 

[longview]

What I mean is that nobody should take an article as fact. They should verify. Especially anything controversial like politics, religion, or global warming.

Like The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'.
I realize that the Royal Society does not follow they own motto, but that does not make their motto bad advice.

 

[code1211]

:lamo

Let's try this again, shall we? Since you clearly do not accept the scientific opinion on climate change, what research have you published that falsifies it? Simple question.

I have published nothing.

I do accept the Scientific data on climate change. What exactly is an opinion? Opinions are like sphincters. Everybody has one. Are these Bozo dreams published and do they include a test to falsify?

The data shows that the Globe was much, much warmer in the recent geological past when there was much, much lower concentrations of CO2.

IF Co2 is the PRIMARY driver of warming, how could this be? Is CO2 moody? Unionized? Only works when it feels right about it?

Please note that the "IF" above is a big if.

You seem to be saying that the Scientific opinion demands that CO2 is a thinking entity. Pardon me while I dismiss your understanding of the opinion you seem to think exists.

 

[code1211]

Yeah....rather ignorant, but not when considered in the light of our President.

What was the prediction of our President for amount of the warming of the globe before 2100?