Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[duff beer]

Is there any weather event at all that could happen that the climate change fear mongers would accept as proof that climate change is not happening??

 

[duff beer]

Earth sciences (climatology is a subset) and engineers, not climatologists.

There used to be 7000 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past (less than 400 ppm today) and yet the temperature was colder than today.

Please explain why.

 

[slobake]

Tell me how University Faculty members advance their career and, most importantly, enhance their income.

And a way to advance a debate is simply to challenge every piece of evidence or researcher involved. It can make for an endless pointless debate. In the end we have nothing, we can trust no one or any findings.
Research and understanding who we are and practical science still advances sometimes improving or daily lives so somebody must be getting it right.
Yes you can challenge that to and say the who decides what is right and down we go back in the rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

 

[Humbled]

If you have evidence for a systematic and teleological process of stocking the academy with people of a particular ideology, please provide links or references.

Here's a fairly good rundown of the progression:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]


Back to the real point of the thread though.

How would you summarize the motivations driving the authors of the hacked University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails, exposing the premier "scientists" in the discipline discussing at length how to delete exculpatory data?


Do you believe that the flat-lining of earths surface-temperature as measured by satellites for the past sixteen years is meaningful in any way?

 

[Humbled]

And a way to advance a debate is simply to challenge every piece of evidence or researcher involved. It can make for an endless pointless debate. In the end we have nothing, we can trust no one or any findings.
Research and understanding who we are and practical science still advances sometimes improving or daily lives so somebody must be getting it right.
Yes you can challenge that to and say the who decides what is right and down we go back in the rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

My point is that the way to advance is to be published in the journals. Defying certain sacred cannon just gets you locked in the tower by the powers that be (i.e.: "not published").

 

[DerHoggz]

Is there any weather event at all that could happen that the climate change fear mongers would accept as proof that climate change is not happening??

No, weather ≠ climate.

My point is that the way to advance is to be published in the journals. Defying certain sacred cannon just gets you locked in the tower by the powers that be (i.e.: "not published").

If by sacred cannon (sic) you mean proper methodologies and the like then you are spot on. If you mean challenging accepted theories you are dead wrong.

 

[Humbled]

canon. OK you win.

What do you propose to impose upon us as a solution to whatever the problem is with the climate now that it maybe isn't warming?

Any chance it involves force?

 

[Munjibunga]

This whole issue will be moot if Yellowstone has a super eruption.

 

[DerHoggz]

canon. OK you win.

What do you propose to impose upon us as a solution to whatever the problem is with the climate now that it maybe isn't warming?

Any chance it involves force?

We're going to need similar working definitions of force there. Physical force, no. Regulatory force, likely. Same thing happened for child labor and other things.

 

[DerHoggz]

This whole issue will be moot if Yellowstone has a super eruption.

What if your mom has a super eruption?



(Don't be mad Munji, 'twas a joke!)

 

[Bloodhammer]

canon. OK you win.

What do you propose to impose upon us as a solution to whatever the problem is with the climate now that it maybe isn't warming?

Any chance it involves force?

Ever consider that you may be towing the line for folks who would like to force this discussion to be dismissed as just a product of folks who would like to force a solution to a fabricated problem? What if the conspiracy is that THEY want you to believe there's a conspiracy? We all know that not believing there's a conspiracy is proof of a conspiracy because it's imperative for the conspirators to make sure you don't believe they're conspiring against you, but what if the whistleblowers are actually part of a conspiracy who are put in place to make you comply with their schemes by believing there's a conspiracy they're blowing their whistles on?

Ever notice how many talk show hosts mysteriously disappear KGB style? Frightening.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Here's a fairly good rundown of the progression:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Could you please provide actual data instead of an ideological editorial piece.

Back to the real point of the thread though.

How would you summarize the motivations driving the authors of the hacked University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails, exposing the premier "scientists" in the discipline discussing at length how to delete exculpatory data?

I would summarize it as statistical smoothing operation that was discussed by Michael Mann and his research team that was latched onto by ideological interests and then blown out of proportion by certain global warming deniers.

Do you believe that the flat-lining of earths surface-temperature as measured by satellites for the past sixteen years is meaningful in any way?

From a statistical standpoint, it is a very small sample size and extrapolations made from that data would should be regarded with caution.

 

[DerHoggz]

Ever consider that you may be towing the line for folks who would like to force this discussion to be dismissed as just a product of folks who would like to force a solution to a fabricated problem? What if the conspiracy is that THEY want you to beieve there's a conspiracy? We all know that not believing there's a conspiracy is proof of a conspiracy because it's imperative for the conspirators to make sure you don't believe they're conspiring against you, but what if the whistleblowers are actually part of a conspiracy who are put in place to make you comply with their schemes by believing there's a conspiracy they're blowing their whistles on?

Ever notice how many talk show hosts mysteriously disappear KGB style? Frightening.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

(pedantic, but it is toeing the line)

 

[fmoore200]

Ever consider that you may be towing the line for folks who would like to force this discussion to be dismissed as just a product of folks who would like to force a solution to a fabricated problem? What if the conspiracy is that THEY want you to beieve there's a conspiracy? We all know that not believing there's a conspiracy is proof of a conspiracy because it's imperative for the conspirators to make sure you don't believe they're conspiring against you, but what if the whistleblowers are actually part of a conspiracy who are put in place to make you comply with their schemes by believing there's a conspiracy they're blowing their whistles on?

Ever notice how many talk show hosts mysteriously disappear KGB style? Frightening.

 

[slobake]

Ever consider that you may be towing the line for folks who would like to force this discussion to be dismissed as just a product of folks who would like to force a solution to a fabricated problem? What if the conspiracy is that THEY want you to beieve there's a conspiracy? We all know that not believing there's a conspiracy is proof of a conspiracy because it's imperative for the conspirators to make sure you don't believe they're conspiring against you, but what if the whistleblowers are actually part of a conspiracy who are put in place to make you comply with their schemes by believing there's a conspiracy they're blowing their whistles on?

Ever notice how many talk show hosts mysteriously disappear KGB style? Frightening.

Is that what happened to Pat Paulsen?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsU8_DSmlXY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWLUnorTU

 

[Unrepresented]

Yes, there is:

Invalid Link Removed

That's cynicism of results, nothing of actual scientific value.

Scientists can't even agree on the age of the earth, let alone climate change causation.

Scientists agree on the age of the earth. There are people who may call themselves scientists who are skeptical of that number, but again, calling oneself a scientist and actually being a person of science are different.

Most of academia has been fully overtaken by Statists, and indeed, this was a purposeful process over the past half-century. Would you dispute that?

You left out the part about them trying to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

 

[Ironbar]

Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you here is stupid enough to drink poision Kool-Aid? And is that opinion based on a comment that someone made here in November of 2011?

No, I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with me here is stupid enough to drink poison Kool-Aid.

I will however say that there are people here too stupid to understand the modern vernacular meaning of the phrase, "Drank the Kool-Aid."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Drank the Kool-Aid&defid=893924

 

[Ironbar]

Oh and by the way people, climate alarmists don't call it "global warming" anymore. You know, since they found out the Earth isn't really warming. It's now called, "Global Climate Change." That way, any type of weather that seems out of the "ordinary" can be blamed on man-made causes without them having to pony up any evidence to support that position.

 

[Bloodhammer]

Oh and by the way people, climate alarmists don't call it "global warming" anymore. You know, since they found out the Earth isn't really warming. It's now called, "Global Climate Change." That way, any type of weather that seems out of the "ordinary" can be blamed on man-made causes without them having to pony up any evidence to support that position.

Nine out of ten doctors recommend Camel Cigarettes.

 

[Unrepresented]

Oh and by the way people, climate alarmists don't call it "global warming" anymore. You know, since they found out the Earth isn't really warming. It's now called, "Global Climate Change." That way, any type of weather that seems out of the "ordinary" can be blamed on man-made causes without them having to pony up any evidence to support that position.

"Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect."

http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change