Luber isn’t a Whistleblower. He is a Hoax-monger. There is NO conclusive evidence of Global Warming caused by humans. Courts must rely on evidence in the discovery process in order to continue the trial. This case will be tossed quickly, unless the plaintiff is able to ‘jury shop’.
Attention: IJ staff: this post was sent to my lawyer for review for compliance with your rules.
Let’s see. He received his Phd in Medical anthropology 2002, and has been with the CDC for seventeen years. You’re a troll on an internet forum. Your political party has been suppressing any thought that climate change might be real, just like they tried to pretend that the AIDs crisis wasn’t happening in the 80s. History repeats itself and the greatest lesson of History is that no one, particularly the Republican party in this instance, learns from their mistakes. He’s not trying to sue for proof of climate change, he’s trying to sue because the Trump administration is suppressing research into climate change. Even with you believing it’s a hoax, clearly your party is just in a state of DENY DENY DENY. If you’re so sure it’s a hoax, why block research?
Plus, threatening the message board is petty and belongs on Reddit. It’s the internet, stop acting like a child.
It’s ALMOST unbelievable the extent to which this administration goes to block scientific research. Then again, this president has a track record for being unethical just to further his goals and line his pockets. Lying and hiding truth come natural to him.
There continues to be confusion regarding climate change and man mad climate change. I don’t know that there are a lot of climate change deniers….but rather MAN MADE climate change deniers.
Look back 2-3 years ago, and all of the man-made climate change deniers were denying climate change, period. Now that it’s become irrefutable they’re pushing man-made climate change denial. It’s all the same plan. Thought experiment: Man made climate change is proven to be real, 100% irrefutable evidence is given, whatever form that needs to take for you personally to believe it. Who are the people who will suddenly suffer a profit loss because of this? Who would have to change what they’re doing? Are these all the people who are actively assisting/funding climate denial right now within the current administration?
People who are good at Insurance have to apply critical thinking. We as an industry have to be able to pick apart coverage and think about if our client is covered, look at all the angles of an operation. Yet so many older conservative colleagues outright refuse to apply this same critical thinking to their political beliefs. Why is that? Are they so incapable of admitting that they may be wrong about something, or is it more insidious? Either way the information is out there, all it takes is avoiding the people (The right wing) who are constantly trying to muddy what the “truth” is. People have been talking about this since Brave New World, we’re just living it.
1. How many times has NASA changed it’s historical record of temperatures?
2. If Climate Change is so certain, why wouldn’t the historical record of temperatures be certain?
3. How many states in the United States have hit record temperature highs since 1930? Is it more than 25 or less than 20?
4. It is well established that the climate models that predicted warming as humans added CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 20 years have been all wrong, and always on the low side? Why is that?
5. In the latest IPCC report of 2017, the range of possible future temperatures got larger, and the expansion of possible future temperatures was only on the low side, meaning the side that would mean “no big deal”. Why did the IPCC do that?
6. The Earth has been warmer than current temperatures many times in the past. Did life flourish when temperatures were higher?
7. Do Climate Scientists admit that a modest warming of the temperatures in the next 50 years would be good for the planet and good for man? (Answer: Yes.)
8. What percentage of Climate Change could be stopped, according to Climate Scientists, just by planting millions of trees? (Answer: 2/3)
9. Since we can solve Climate Change TODAY by planting millions of trees and adopting clean nuclear power, why should any poor or middle class person pay more in gas taxes and higher energy costs to satisfy green fantasies about wind and solar, neither of which can scale to solve the problem?
1. You really think there’s no consequence to polluting the land, water or air? What’s wrong with having a tire fire in your front lawn?
2. Why do you think climate scientists are lying? Why do you think the Republican party is telling you the truth?
3. So you think Climate Change can’t be stopped? Or you think it’s pointless to research it? Your opinion is fine but why do you have such a problem with research? Or is it just research that might prove you’re wrong?
4. What if you are wrong? Are you even capable of considering that in the rhetorical? Is this really just about your inability to admit you’re wrong in anything?
5. Why should anyone believe you care in the slightest about poor or middle class americans when your party clearly doesn’t? I don’t know, we could tax the rich maybe as a thought.
August 19, 2019 at 4:37 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
5
We were talking about Climate Change. A tire fire?
I don’t think the “Republican Party” is telling me the truth and so I don’t even read what they say on Climate Change.
I referenced the IPCC, NASA, the accepted position of Climate Scientists on planting trees, the fact that wind and solar can’t scale to solve the problem, etc.
These are accepted facts by real Climate Scientists. Why don’t YOU believe Climate Scientists at the IPCC, NASA, etc.?
August 19, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
Did it really take you 4 days to come up with a response old man lol but actually im not even going to bother. In the last three days I’ve proven you wrong what three times now? You make up your own reality, Craig. Your world is in your head buddy, it’s not the real world. You make grand statements purporting that the world is one way when it’s clearly not but no one is capable of opening your eyes but you. It’s a sad, angry world you live in buddy, but hey at least you’re old and you won’t be our problem much longer!
August 15, 2019 at 6:14 pm
bob says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
11
“Now that it’s become irrefutable”
Incorrect, the consensus and what it means is being mispresented by the left. This is why Trump is against the “hoax”. I’ve gone over this countless times.
The amount of climate change is in dispute that humans can control, and whether it can be catastrophic.
Being the primary factor of climate change presently is not the same as stating you are going to be a driver of catastrophic change for example. I already showed you one study, but you had the whole dang site taken down (likely on purpose) going into a bloody fit of rage intentionally ticking everyone off.
Conservatives don’t hide the truth, they question nonsense from the government.
^ Lies and misinformation. Go back to Breibart, but the rest of the world has caught on that pumping poison into the air has consequences. Just like the earth, or water. But hey, feel free to go get some of that delicious Flint, Michigan drinking water.
More scientists agree on climate change than agree that smoking is harmful. The only ones not convinced are on the right, where they are directly tied to people who’s financial success depends on climate change being a hoax. Open your eyes and realize you’re acquiescence here is just helping the people getting rich by poisoning our grandchildren.
“Conservatives don’t hide the truth, they question nonsense from the government.”
This is blatantly incorrect. Nice try though.
August 15, 2019 at 7:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
9
” Lies and misinformation. Go back to Breibart, but the rest of the world has caught on that pumping poison into the air has consequences. Just like the earth, or water. ”
Incorrect. I already pulled up the study showing the most in your favor, the 2011 study, but you had it pulled. The consensus on catastrophic climate change is NOT 97%.
Only 47% said they thought man made global warming could be severe.
The left has been misrepresenting the 97% to imply that they all agree we need to tackle climate change or there will be severe consequences, I’m tired of you calling me a liar, and then you intentionally get my evidence deleted, and then you claim I never give evidence. By the way: Hi UW.
“More scientists agree on climate change than agree that smoking is harmful”
Again, the amount that agree we can affect climate is NOT synonymous with HOW MUCH affect. You are not reading what I say.
“The only ones not convinced are on the right, where they are directly tied to people who’s financial success depends on climate change being a hoax. Open your eyes and realize you’re acquiescence here is just helping the people getting rich by poisoning our grandchildren. ”
And now moral attack again, that anyone against global warming has bad motives, rather than debating the actual topic. You do this a lot, and it is in itself, immoral. The type of people who are against climate change or for it are irrelevant to me.
“This is blatantly incorrect. Nice try though.”
Nice try on your end, you partisan hack.
August 19, 2019 at 6:17 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Lol I like how you bounce around one board to the other as you’re proven wrong, but I’ve done this how many times now? You keepcoming back with “Nuh-uh!” as your primary debate tactic. Boring, old and sad.
August 20, 2019 at 6:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Lol I like how you bounce around one board to the other as you’re proven wrong, but I’ve done this how many times now? You keepcoming back with “Nuh-uh!” as your primary debate tactic. Boring, old and sad.”
I don’t bounce around, and I haven’t been proven wrong. I give up on your posts after you show you don’t listen to a word I say.
I have not been proven wrong, not by you, not yet. Nuh uh is not my primary tactic, I source quote.
August 20, 2019 at 6:29 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Lol way to nuh-uh my claims of you responding to things with nuh-uh.
August 20, 2019 at 7:05 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Says the guy who trusts Donald Trump, good job bro. That’s 4 on number of times you’ve stated that you “don’t have time” to argue with me, and yet you keep coming back. I’ll be here all week, happy to keep shutting down your ridiculous right-wing antics, bub!
August 21, 2019 at 2:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Says the guy who trusts Donald Trump, good job bro. That’s 4 on number of times you’ve stated that you “don’t have time” to argue with me, and yet you keep coming back. I’ll be here all week, happy to keep shutting down your ridiculous right-wing antics, bub!”
You lack the ability to stay focused and on topic due to your character and moral arguments. I said that the consensus of 97% is not the same as how much think it will be substantial. I then gave you the BEST link, in YOUR FAVOR showing that only 47% of the scientists thought we could cause catastrophic levels of climate change. You then called me a liar, and didn’t source quote anything.
I did not say I trust Trump, I said I trust the structure of someone who fires all cabinet members repeatedly, on the topic if they are hiring people solely because they are friends, over someone who fires no ones. I trust one ACTION more than the other.
You haven’t shut down a single thing.
And yes, I said I don’t have time for you, and that is why many of my posts have been shorter now, rather than pointing out how incorrect you are. I don’t have time for you. You’re acting like a child.
August 21, 2019 at 3:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
““bob says:blah blah blah”
This is incorrect.
Six times and counting now that you don’t have time for my nonsense, let’s see how many times you keep coming back trying to argue! Try harder snowflake.”
I had plenty of come back you just missed it. I don’t have time for this, which is why I then limit my replies to being shorter. When I make them shorter you mock them for being short. When I leave you then say I left because I was wrong.
So on this one, my only option is to reply and pull it back to the topic at hand.
Can you stay on topic, instead of making each reply a character attack? What was the topic we were debating in the original line? Climate change and whether there is a 97% consensus we will cause catastrophic climate change. That is the comment I made that caused your hissy fit. I showed a link showing that 47% of scientists say the severity could be catastrophic level by humans. It still confirms 97% agree we can cause global warming, I never argued that, I made my argument severity, and you are still trying to make a hissy fit over it.
What is your issue with my post, what specifically is a lie or not true? Get on topic.
August 21, 2019 at 5:26 pm
Let Me Help says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Please cite a source that refutes NASA’s claim. Then lets look at the credibility of your source versus NASA.
August 22, 2019 at 2:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”
Look at your wording. Look at my original wording.
“Being the primary factor of climate change presently is not the same as stating you are going to be a driver of catastrophic change for example”
Look at what I said was being mispresented by the left:
“Incorrect, the consensus and what it means is being mispresented by the left. This is why Trump is against the “hoax”. I’ve gone over this countless times.
The amount of climate change is in dispute that humans can control, and whether it can be catastrophic.”
They are stating that the 97% consensus thinks climate change is serious enough to necessitate tackling. Being a primary driver of climate change does not denote that you will ever cause large scale chaos, and it does not state your cap. As my study showed, and it is part of the 97% studies, the severity is in question. Only just over 40% think we COULD cause catastrophic climate change. If it’s just climate change, it doesn’t matter. Harmful levels are a different story. So there is no 97% consensus that climate change is the tackle of our time.
You are all intentionally ignoring what I’m saying and it’s getting old.
August 22, 2019 at 2:47 pm
Let Me Help says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I am ignoring everything you state that ignores the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this topic.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Is “extremely likely” not definitive enough for you? As science goes, that is pretty damning. Nothing is absolute in science, as everything is subject to change, as more information is obtained. You are basically making the “well, it’s just a theory” argument. You don’t understand science. Give it up.
Scientist give the illusion that there is man made global warming because it means more money in their pockets and a lifeline to their niche profession. To this day, there have been so many lies from this cause and so many missed predictions that only a fool would believe everything these specific scientist say.
Yes, because scientists go into science for the money. You know, the millions and millions that scientists bring in each year. Use common sense. You’re being lied to by people who profit on hiding the truth about climate change. Several colossal industries rely on polluting the planet to make their CEOs millions, those people don’t want it proven that they’re destroying the planet because then they might have to stop and might make less money. You really think that’s less likely than scientists trying to line their pockets? Use your head and stop relying on Fox News and Breitbart to tell you what the world is, if you open your eyes it’s quite clear.
Also, if you put two people in a room, one an environmental PHD scientist and one a lobbyist for the coal industry, why do you automatically trust the lobbyist? You’re either lying or you’re so laughably naive it borders on irresponsible.
Should we trust the PHD scientists who have gone on the record to say their studies are being misrepresented?
We don’t trust people, we trust data, by the way.
I’ve seen this data too many times and it is not at all reliable. They have expanded temperature monitoring, they can’t explain why the temperatures rose faster initially with carbon release and then slowed down proportionately (and it did, for the first half of the industrial revolution) other than by adding oceanic temperatures, which are very new in regards to standards, and thus they combine 4 different monitoring methods in order to make an ocean surface temperature combined with land. They measuring methods are to different depths, are unreliable, and have some 7 degrees of temperature uncertainty. This is why I say by the science, we could be warming zero depending on that. NASA updated their surface temperatures to include oceanic as well, you cannot monitor just land surface temps anymore. It’s insane. It is so clear that there is a narrative being pushed it is insane.
We get it. Some are worried, but they do not have sufficient or reliable evidence.
Before they combined oceanic data it was considered global warming paused. Now they say well at some point, the ocean won’t be able to hold the heat, what point? We don’t know. This is literally the science Jon, in lamen terms. The land has stopped heating, the ocean hasn’t, and the temps are really not reliable so far as we expand testing sites and depths and standards. Until that is reliable, all global warming charts are misleading currently.
Give specific references and links, because often you’ve given nonsense when pushed and I expect more of the same.
Stop getting all of your info from people that benefit from Climate Change not being real. You can keep your head in the sand, some of us want our grandchildren to have a future.
It doesn’t matter where I get my info, (source wars) it matters what occurred. In this scenario, scientists have said the Cook study, just one study, does not represent their research.
As for the rest of what I said, it is accurate. I’m getting tired of pulling it up each time, and I do. I’ve had this war before, you’re just new to it. You’re going to find I give more sources than anyone.
August 15, 2019 at 7:21 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
9
6
Why do you feel like that’s not exactly what you’re doing? I’m not an environmental scientist and neither are you, so I’m sorry I doubt your findings on the subject. However we each seem to think the other side is lying, so what’s the motive? Polar said previously he thinks scientists are just trying to get paid and land cushy careers, you really think that’s more likely than the politicans being paid by companies that pollute to stay silent? It’s a simple logical question.
August 15, 2019 at 7:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
8
“Why do you feel like that’s not exactly what you’re doing?”
Because it’s not. I’m looking at data and I’m weighing the probability with the affect now in actual passed laws to the middle class. The very middle class you are ignoring. There are areas in Canada where the utility bills more than doubled after carbon taxes went into play. You are the one refusing to see me as someone who has reasons to believe what I do other than putting my head in the sand, so I replied accusing you of it. You then come back re accusing me? You are such a baby.
“I’m not an environmental scientist and neither are you,”
I don’t have to be in order to go over what I did.
“so I’m sorry I doubt your findings on the subject. ”
I already went over this, and I don’t care.
“However we each seem to think the other side is lying, so what’s the motive?”
The difference is I can prove your side is, whereas mine, it’s a matter of opinion difference and you don’t have evidence of my side lying. They just don’t believe you. 97% of scientists do not believe we need to tackle climate change or there will be severe consequences, and that is clearly what the left is saying and pushing. It’s a l verifiable lie. Also, no, I will not analyze motive on this, numerous times that has been your problem.
“Polar said previously he thinks scientists are just trying to get paid and land cushy careers, you really think that’s more likely than the politicans being paid by companies that pollute to stay silent? It’s a simple logical question.” No. I don’t. Because if you get into the climate change or scientist field, it’s not about being rich, but your funding will and can be pulled. The motivation is equal at best. You are ignoring one end he is pointing out, but he has reason to. You’re the one trying to prove something is, and are insulting the non believers. He’s defending, you’re attacking.
I’m sick of your attitude problem. Grow up. I get the feeling you’re starting to respect that I don’t debate like conservatives here, but I do in fact have teeth, and I don’t tolerate this nonsense. You are just as bad as polar, but you’re more dangerous.
August 15, 2019 at 7:54 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
10
5
Alas my arguments aren’t as long and I can’t copy and paste since I’m on the phone now. Just remember, you’re hitching your star to the guy that thinks marijuana addiction is the biggest problem facing our country.
August 15, 2019 at 6:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
6
6
To emphasize, they essentially apply old temp locations and a mathematical equation guessing what the temperatures were in the early 1900’s for oceanic temperatures. This is not an exaggeration. They say the equation is reliable, but it has a HUGE literal statistical margin as to what the temperatures actually were, from say 1950 to 2000, compared to modern day tracking from 2000, until present.
I have had this debate too many times, and I am sick of watching the left REFUSE to look at the data, and that is what I’m seeing.
I will also add Craig is correct, NASA and the NOAA have numerous times deleted their source data.
As I showed Confused here some time ago, they have a legal warning on their page now for data.
They say you CANNOT by threat of jail, source their data history. I gave the link to the page stating it and said I was literally afraid I might be pushing the line for that.
I would have to find it again. This came up because I showed old source data, from a 3rd party site, and it clearly didn’t match up to the current. However, I couldn’t prove it, BECAUSE THE SOURCE LINKS WERE BROKEN.
This wasn’t the 3rd party site, it was the NOAA. This is a serious problem. When they threaten people who source their data, and past links are broken, we have an issue.
Common sense says their oceanic temperatures are in serious question and have huge margins of error.
It’s not that hard to figure this out. You don’t have to be a climate expert. They are concerned because they believe the ocean will heat and then we won’t have it to offset the surface land temps anymore, but that is still a guess, and they don’t know what that level is.
Your argument is that the public servant at the CDC is in the business of promoting climate change for the money?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
They work at the CDC…for the government. Grant money goes towards research, not lavish lifestyles. If you think otherwise, then you clearly have a gross misunderstanding of how science works.
…as ticks move into Northern Regions…what a crock. Tick borne diseases (lymes) was a problem in the North East long before it showed up in the south and southwest.
Are you really so naive that you think the president is putting people into positions because he really thinks he has the best person for the job? He’s putting his buddies into positions they and he can profit from plain and simple. He’s concerned with his personal bottom line and nothing more, which is totally fine and super American, it’s just it actually has consequences for the rest of us and our futures as well as the futures of our families.
I never said that, I said I trust the STRUCTURE of someone who fires all their cabinet, over someone who KEEPS their whole cabinet, SOLELY IN TERMS of if someone is HELPING THEIR FRIENDS as a motive.
The topic is not whether or not I trust Trump or Obama, I will NEVER use that because it leads to ignorance. I go off of one to one scenarios. I trust someone in regards to selecting cabinet members they believe will do the job, if they fire them like crazy, more than someone who keeps them all. They are far less likely on the topic to solely be helping their friends, to be helping their friends, if they fire them all repeatedly.
For God’s sakes. And the LOL at the end as you say this nonsense.
You are partisan, it’s easy to see.
August 20, 2019 at 5:31 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Lol you mad bro? Sorry you can’t take it, but you’re a sucker if you don’t consider yourself partisan. You clearly buy the right-wing response on everything, your posts clearly indicate that, you’ve just got this false air of moderation to all of your posts. You’re one of the Trump-loving sheep in wolves’ clothing, that’s all. I see you though and I don’t like what I see, sorry if that makes you throw a fit, not my fault you can’t win a debate with your junk science, shifting arguments and “This is not correct.” responses.
As for a single time of being wrong, I posted incorrectly to one of “helpingout”‘s posts just yesterday or today, admitted it and corrected, how’s that?
Also, it seriously took you four days to come back with that? Maybe try shuffleboard instead.
August 20, 2019 at 5:33 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
And you’ve absolutely been replying to other things for the last four days on this very board. But go ahead and act like you “just missed” this one lol
August 20, 2019 at 8:19 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Lol 5 times now you dont have time for my nonsense and counting. You sure do seem to find time for it despite your many protests. So unoriginal, so salty about it.
August 21, 2019 at 2:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Lol 5 times now you dont have time for my nonsense and counting. You sure do seem to find time for it despite your many protests. So unoriginal, so salty about it.”
You seem to be demanding I reply, and then when I do you say garbage like this.
Are you going to address the original topic or are you going to keep throwing a temper tantrum?
August 21, 2019 at 3:03 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Lol you whiney conservatives, man. I just like to point out your hypocritical arguing style and refute it where I can. I find most of your information and “facts” to be garbage, not my fault you get so mad about it!
And yes, acting like you “don’t have time for this” then coming back over and over again is weakness on your part, so yes I’m going to point it out every time. Try harder, nerd.
August 21, 2019 at 3:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Lol you whiney conservatives, man. I just like to point out your hypocritical arguing style and refute it where I can. I find most of your information and “facts” to be garbage, not my fault you get so mad about it!
And yes, acting like you “don’t have time for this” then coming back over and over again is weakness on your part, so yes I’m going to point it out every time. Try harder, nerd.”
So then you admit you were never going to talk about the topic at hand? It was about showing how us conservatives are bad?
Right now on this topic, what is your position? You are the one who is going off the rails, not I. Whether conservatives are hypocrites is not the topic. I am a nerd. It’s better than trying and failing to be a popular jock or something.
August 22, 2019 at 9:45 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I think Let Me Help nailed it pretty good lol
August 16, 2019 at 9:19 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
The arctic circle hit 94.6 degrees F. July was Earth’s hottest month on record. These are normal weather events, right? As they continue to happen over an extended period of time, then are you willing to admit climate is changing? Because, we keep setting records for hottest month and the arctic circle continues to see temperatures we’d associate with geography closer to the equator.
For the 700th time, the “historical record” keeps changing. NASA has changed their historical temperature record 4 times. The third time, they showed global COOLING from 1880 to 2016. Well, we can’t have that now, can we? (The only reliable records are since 1979, when global satellite measurements first began.)
Even with that ever-changing history, the overwhelming majority of States in the United States haven’t seen a “record high” since the 1930s or prior. Somehow, the media never publishes that truth. Huh. (Too busy chasing Russian Hoaxes and ignoring Democratic collusion with foreigners to alter our elections.)
So, goody for you for falling into the trap. Here’s a tip: start reading about Climate Change for yourself instead of just parroting the media. It will make you smarter and a better steward of the “planet” at the same time.
It would be one thing if you actually believed things like fact and evidence. You believe articles from far right opinion sites that have been proven to spread false information as a normal course of business. You won’t believe the few sites out there that are meant to refute these kinds of fake news sites. You’ve created a situation where you cannot be proven wrong, because you do not want to be proven wrong so much. It’s selfish, irresponsible and small-minded of you to believe you’re always right, but that’s what you do. It merely takes common sense to realize the types of things we pollute the planet with have an impact. You can keep your head in the sand, but you and those like you going to be the cause of many a catastrophe, and I hope that haunts you.
I asked you several legitimate questions about Climate Change, questions that serious people consider essential to understanding how to address the issue.
You refused to answer any of them.
Your last post is like you others, just more name calling. No science. No links to prove me wrong. Just third grade nonsense, revealing you aren’t a serious person on this issue.
Lol you mad bro? You’ve been proven wrong on multiple articles just in the last few days. Climate change is one area I’m not as strong on, but I know enough to know whatever you’re spreading here is the same as what you spread on every board of IJ: misinformation. My favorite part is how you denounce name calling but then do the same exact thing. Can’t even stop yourself for five seconds huh? You are so angry and so stubborn no one is capable of changing your mind because you don’t want to actually learn, you’ve decided you know everything. So why bother? I just like there to be a counterpoint to your hateful nonsense. :)
August 19, 2019 at 4:49 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
You lost on gun articles, you’ve lost on marijuana articles, you really holding out to try and win on climate change? Too bad. This is what’s replacing you, gramps.
August 19, 2019 at 6:09 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
And again, not a scientific reference in the babble.
P.S. It is hard to prove someone wrong when you refuse to engage at all. FYI
August 19, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Lol cry more snowflake. PS 26 out of 27! Right? You’ve been proven wrong over and over, you just deny it. I’m happy to keep playing this game, you’ll still be wrong and I’ll still be laughing :)
August 19, 2019 at 7:40 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
The last time I checked, climate impacts the entire globe, not just the US. Take a trip to Greenland and let us know how their glaciers and ice shelves are holding up. No wonder Tramp wants to buy it, it’s the new Mara-Lago!
I personally don’t get caught up on a single day’s highest recorded temperature. Instead, seeing each month’s average record continuing to increase, month after month, is much more telling. Unless, of course, you’ve been Sean Hannitized.
You do realize that people who read a lot about climate science think you are foolish, don’t you?
When the “historical record” before 1979 is a joke, a record changed many times for climate scientists (and likely to change again in the future), claiming anything is the HOTTEST ON RECORD is like saying the best or worst of anything ignores anything prior to 1979.
“The best baseball players of all time were only those playing since 1979.”
“The worst war of all time was in Iraq.”
“The worst economic downturn of all time was in 2008.”
And those “melting glaciers”? You do know the Earth has been warming since the last Mini Ice Age,don’t you? Don’t you?
Lol, people who “read a lot about climate science” also happen to be former Exxon executives in your mind, and the fact that they directly benefit from denying man-made climate change is no factor to you. No, I’m not going to trust your information you old crackpot.
August 20, 2019 at 3:22 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“How DARE those scientists adjust their data based on new information and more accurate test methods!! What a bunch of jokers!! We can’t take anything they say seriously whey they keep applying the scientific method!!” (end sarcasm)
August 20, 2019 at 4:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
““How DARE those scientists adjust their data based on new information and more accurate test methods!! What a bunch of jokers!! We can’t take anything they say seriously whey they keep applying the scientific method!!” (end sarcasm)”
That is not what we on the right here are saying. They hid old sources, why did they do that? They didn’t just change it. They also molded the data around the narrative, not the narrative around the data.
When surface warming no longer showed warming, they tried to say no it’s till true, the Ocean is eating the data, and we don’t know how much the ocean can eat, but we will still destroy the world. It is irresponsible political science. And I used that as a pun.
You are such a brat by not understanding why the right is against this. We don’t like it when the government mandates beliefs, as they are doing with climate change, and shams the non believers. Good god, can you accept that, and freaking let these people be wrong, but not foolish? Your post is basically referring to them as if they were toddlers. You pious brat.
August 20, 2019 at 4:56 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Lol, and you are a fool for ignoring why the right is actually against this. Your leading politicians are all in the pocket of big business. Big business supports hiding man-made climate change because big business makes more money that way. Big business pays the politicians, the politicians hide and deny. It’s quite simple really, so you’re either painfully naive or maliciously lying. No other options exist Bob. It’s quite simple really as opposed to trying to get us to believe it’s just about avoiding government mandates. Use your head and stop shilling for your masters.
August 20, 2019 at 5:45 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Are you still in Middle School? Man, your arguments are the dumbest.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is on the take from corporations.”
Truly, grow up. Make us think more of you.
August 20, 2019 at 5:54 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Oh no, that’s not my argument. My argument is that most of your republican party leaders are on the take, sure. But you’re not important, smart or useful enough to be at that level. No, you’re a mindless, idiotic drone in this scenario. You’re stupid, poor, and you will believe anything your republican leaders tell you, especially the things they tell you specifically to keep you stupid and poor. You’re the perfect republican voter, by what your party is looking for.
You’re either unwilling to grow up and realize the lies you’ve been spouting are using you, or grow a pair and be forthright with the malicious intent of the information you try to shill on here. Either way, I’m clearly not concerned with what you think of me, though you keep trying to impress me for some reason. What is that I wonder?
August 20, 2019 at 6:12 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
And AGAIN with the third grade stuff.
I guess you really aren’t that smart. Not clever. Not funny. Not interesting. Just boring.
August 20, 2019 at 6:31 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
What third grader do you know that uses the word forthright, or discusses corporate conspiracy to keep the masses stupid and poor? I want to send my kids to that school!
More likely though is the usual, you have no actual response to the points I made and so you go internal. You put a tough “You’re an idiot!” stance because you’ve hit the end of your own logical arguments. It’s okay, I don’t expect any more than that from you. Resort to insults (even though you whine about my insulting you on this very board three times in the last week by my count) because you don’t have anything else, you sad, sad old man.
August 20, 2019 at 6:33 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Also: I have four well liked posts on this article alone. Not to toot my own horn or nothin’, but I think I’m actually doing fine Mr. Yells-About-Everything. How many likes do your posts on this article have again?
August 18, 2019 at 5:25 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Meant to respond to Craig of course. I just know it kills him to not get the last word. :)
George isn’t a scientist. He is a statistician trying to use CDC’s name for his own personal beneficial purposes.
None of his papers (nor book) indicate the decrease of influenza and other cold weather diseases. Etc., etc., etc.
NOT a responsible scientist for the position he is in. Truly a hack!
A $50 Trillion pot of money waiting for people, if enough people agree all of climate change is man made.
Luckily for George, he has a boss who understands George’s potential, and is trying to groom him to be a more responsible researcher.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Please spend money on this….. Please.
Let’s see. He received his Phd in Medical anthropology 2002, and has been with the CDC for seventeen years. You’re a troll on an internet forum. Your political party has been suppressing any thought that climate change might be real, just like they tried to pretend that the AIDs crisis wasn’t happening in the 80s. History repeats itself and the greatest lesson of History is that no one, particularly the Republican party in this instance, learns from their mistakes. He’s not trying to sue for proof of climate change, he’s trying to sue because the Trump administration is suppressing research into climate change. Even with you believing it’s a hoax, clearly your party is just in a state of DENY DENY DENY. If you’re so sure it’s a hoax, why block research?
Plus, threatening the message board is petty and belongs on Reddit. It’s the internet, stop acting like a child.
It’s ALMOST unbelievable the extent to which this administration goes to block scientific research. Then again, this president has a track record for being unethical just to further his goals and line his pockets. Lying and hiding truth come natural to him.
Do you regularly read the juried journal articles and have the expertise to interpret them.
There continues to be confusion regarding climate change and man mad climate change. I don’t know that there are a lot of climate change deniers….but rather MAN MADE climate change deniers.
Look back 2-3 years ago, and all of the man-made climate change deniers were denying climate change, period. Now that it’s become irrefutable they’re pushing man-made climate change denial. It’s all the same plan. Thought experiment: Man made climate change is proven to be real, 100% irrefutable evidence is given, whatever form that needs to take for you personally to believe it. Who are the people who will suddenly suffer a profit loss because of this? Who would have to change what they’re doing? Are these all the people who are actively assisting/funding climate denial right now within the current administration?
People who are good at Insurance have to apply critical thinking. We as an industry have to be able to pick apart coverage and think about if our client is covered, look at all the angles of an operation. Yet so many older conservative colleagues outright refuse to apply this same critical thinking to their political beliefs. Why is that? Are they so incapable of admitting that they may be wrong about something, or is it more insidious? Either way the information is out there, all it takes is avoiding the people (The right wing) who are constantly trying to muddy what the “truth” is. People have been talking about this since Brave New World, we’re just living it.
Questions for the Deep Believer:
1. How many times has NASA changed it’s historical record of temperatures?
2. If Climate Change is so certain, why wouldn’t the historical record of temperatures be certain?
3. How many states in the United States have hit record temperature highs since 1930? Is it more than 25 or less than 20?
4. It is well established that the climate models that predicted warming as humans added CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 20 years have been all wrong, and always on the low side? Why is that?
5. In the latest IPCC report of 2017, the range of possible future temperatures got larger, and the expansion of possible future temperatures was only on the low side, meaning the side that would mean “no big deal”. Why did the IPCC do that?
6. The Earth has been warmer than current temperatures many times in the past. Did life flourish when temperatures were higher?
7. Do Climate Scientists admit that a modest warming of the temperatures in the next 50 years would be good for the planet and good for man? (Answer: Yes.)
8. What percentage of Climate Change could be stopped, according to Climate Scientists, just by planting millions of trees? (Answer: 2/3)
9. Since we can solve Climate Change TODAY by planting millions of trees and adopting clean nuclear power, why should any poor or middle class person pay more in gas taxes and higher energy costs to satisfy green fantasies about wind and solar, neither of which can scale to solve the problem?
Ready, GO!
5.
Okay reverse this game.
1. You really think there’s no consequence to polluting the land, water or air? What’s wrong with having a tire fire in your front lawn?
2. Why do you think climate scientists are lying? Why do you think the Republican party is telling you the truth?
3. So you think Climate Change can’t be stopped? Or you think it’s pointless to research it? Your opinion is fine but why do you have such a problem with research? Or is it just research that might prove you’re wrong?
4. What if you are wrong? Are you even capable of considering that in the rhetorical? Is this really just about your inability to admit you’re wrong in anything?
5. Why should anyone believe you care in the slightest about poor or middle class americans when your party clearly doesn’t? I don’t know, we could tax the rich maybe as a thought.
We were talking about Climate Change. A tire fire?
I don’t think the “Republican Party” is telling me the truth and so I don’t even read what they say on Climate Change.
I referenced the IPCC, NASA, the accepted position of Climate Scientists on planting trees, the fact that wind and solar can’t scale to solve the problem, etc.
These are accepted facts by real Climate Scientists. Why don’t YOU believe Climate Scientists at the IPCC, NASA, etc.?
Did it really take you 4 days to come up with a response old man lol but actually im not even going to bother. In the last three days I’ve proven you wrong what three times now? You make up your own reality, Craig. Your world is in your head buddy, it’s not the real world. You make grand statements purporting that the world is one way when it’s clearly not but no one is capable of opening your eyes but you. It’s a sad, angry world you live in buddy, but hey at least you’re old and you won’t be our problem much longer!
“Now that it’s become irrefutable”
Incorrect, the consensus and what it means is being mispresented by the left. This is why Trump is against the “hoax”. I’ve gone over this countless times.
The amount of climate change is in dispute that humans can control, and whether it can be catastrophic.
Being the primary factor of climate change presently is not the same as stating you are going to be a driver of catastrophic change for example. I already showed you one study, but you had the whole dang site taken down (likely on purpose) going into a bloody fit of rage intentionally ticking everyone off.
Conservatives don’t hide the truth, they question nonsense from the government.
^ Lies and misinformation. Go back to Breibart, but the rest of the world has caught on that pumping poison into the air has consequences. Just like the earth, or water. But hey, feel free to go get some of that delicious Flint, Michigan drinking water.
More scientists agree on climate change than agree that smoking is harmful. The only ones not convinced are on the right, where they are directly tied to people who’s financial success depends on climate change being a hoax. Open your eyes and realize you’re acquiescence here is just helping the people getting rich by poisoning our grandchildren.
“Conservatives don’t hide the truth, they question nonsense from the government.”
This is blatantly incorrect. Nice try though.
” Lies and misinformation. Go back to Breibart, but the rest of the world has caught on that pumping poison into the air has consequences. Just like the earth, or water. ”
Incorrect. I already pulled up the study showing the most in your favor, the 2011 study, but you had it pulled. The consensus on catastrophic climate change is NOT 97%.
I’ll post it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Farnsworth_and_Lichter,_2011
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Only 47% said they thought man made global warming could be severe.
The left has been misrepresenting the 97% to imply that they all agree we need to tackle climate change or there will be severe consequences, I’m tired of you calling me a liar, and then you intentionally get my evidence deleted, and then you claim I never give evidence. By the way: Hi UW.
“More scientists agree on climate change than agree that smoking is harmful”
Again, the amount that agree we can affect climate is NOT synonymous with HOW MUCH affect. You are not reading what I say.
“The only ones not convinced are on the right, where they are directly tied to people who’s financial success depends on climate change being a hoax. Open your eyes and realize you’re acquiescence here is just helping the people getting rich by poisoning our grandchildren. ”
And now moral attack again, that anyone against global warming has bad motives, rather than debating the actual topic. You do this a lot, and it is in itself, immoral. The type of people who are against climate change or for it are irrelevant to me.
“This is blatantly incorrect. Nice try though.”
Nice try on your end, you partisan hack.
Lol I like how you bounce around one board to the other as you’re proven wrong, but I’ve done this how many times now? You keepcoming back with “Nuh-uh!” as your primary debate tactic. Boring, old and sad.
“Lol I like how you bounce around one board to the other as you’re proven wrong, but I’ve done this how many times now? You keepcoming back with “Nuh-uh!” as your primary debate tactic. Boring, old and sad.”
I don’t bounce around, and I haven’t been proven wrong. I give up on your posts after you show you don’t listen to a word I say.
I have not been proven wrong, not by you, not yet. Nuh uh is not my primary tactic, I source quote.
Lol way to nuh-uh my claims of you responding to things with nuh-uh.
Says the guy who trusts Donald Trump, good job bro. That’s 4 on number of times you’ve stated that you “don’t have time” to argue with me, and yet you keep coming back. I’ll be here all week, happy to keep shutting down your ridiculous right-wing antics, bub!
“Says the guy who trusts Donald Trump, good job bro. That’s 4 on number of times you’ve stated that you “don’t have time” to argue with me, and yet you keep coming back. I’ll be here all week, happy to keep shutting down your ridiculous right-wing antics, bub!”
You lack the ability to stay focused and on topic due to your character and moral arguments. I said that the consensus of 97% is not the same as how much think it will be substantial. I then gave you the BEST link, in YOUR FAVOR showing that only 47% of the scientists thought we could cause catastrophic levels of climate change. You then called me a liar, and didn’t source quote anything.
I did not say I trust Trump, I said I trust the structure of someone who fires all cabinet members repeatedly, on the topic if they are hiring people solely because they are friends, over someone who fires no ones. I trust one ACTION more than the other.
You haven’t shut down a single thing.
And yes, I said I don’t have time for you, and that is why many of my posts have been shorter now, rather than pointing out how incorrect you are. I don’t have time for you. You’re acting like a child.
““bob says:blah blah blah”
This is incorrect.
Six times and counting now that you don’t have time for my nonsense, let’s see how many times you keep coming back trying to argue! Try harder snowflake.”
I had plenty of come back you just missed it. I don’t have time for this, which is why I then limit my replies to being shorter. When I make them shorter you mock them for being short. When I leave you then say I left because I was wrong.
So on this one, my only option is to reply and pull it back to the topic at hand.
Can you stay on topic, instead of making each reply a character attack? What was the topic we were debating in the original line? Climate change and whether there is a 97% consensus we will cause catastrophic climate change. That is the comment I made that caused your hissy fit. I showed a link showing that 47% of scientists say the severity could be catastrophic level by humans. It still confirms 97% agree we can cause global warming, I never argued that, I made my argument severity, and you are still trying to make a hissy fit over it.
What is your issue with my post, what specifically is a lie or not true? Get on topic.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Please cite a source that refutes NASA’s claim. Then lets look at the credibility of your source versus NASA.
“: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.”
Look at your wording. Look at my original wording.
“Being the primary factor of climate change presently is not the same as stating you are going to be a driver of catastrophic change for example”
Look at what I said was being mispresented by the left:
“Incorrect, the consensus and what it means is being mispresented by the left. This is why Trump is against the “hoax”. I’ve gone over this countless times.
The amount of climate change is in dispute that humans can control, and whether it can be catastrophic.”
They are stating that the 97% consensus thinks climate change is serious enough to necessitate tackling. Being a primary driver of climate change does not denote that you will ever cause large scale chaos, and it does not state your cap. As my study showed, and it is part of the 97% studies, the severity is in question. Only just over 40% think we COULD cause catastrophic climate change. If it’s just climate change, it doesn’t matter. Harmful levels are a different story. So there is no 97% consensus that climate change is the tackle of our time.
You are all intentionally ignoring what I’m saying and it’s getting old.
I am ignoring everything you state that ignores the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this topic.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Is “extremely likely” not definitive enough for you? As science goes, that is pretty damning. Nothing is absolute in science, as everything is subject to change, as more information is obtained. You are basically making the “well, it’s just a theory” argument. You don’t understand science. Give it up.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Yes, because scientists go into science for the money. You know, the millions and millions that scientists bring in each year. Use common sense. You’re being lied to by people who profit on hiding the truth about climate change. Several colossal industries rely on polluting the planet to make their CEOs millions, those people don’t want it proven that they’re destroying the planet because then they might have to stop and might make less money. You really think that’s less likely than scientists trying to line their pockets? Use your head and stop relying on Fox News and Breitbart to tell you what the world is, if you open your eyes it’s quite clear.
Also, if you put two people in a room, one an environmental PHD scientist and one a lobbyist for the coal industry, why do you automatically trust the lobbyist? You’re either lying or you’re so laughably naive it borders on irresponsible.
Should we trust the PHD scientists who have gone on the record to say their studies are being misrepresented?
We don’t trust people, we trust data, by the way.
I’ve seen this data too many times and it is not at all reliable. They have expanded temperature monitoring, they can’t explain why the temperatures rose faster initially with carbon release and then slowed down proportionately (and it did, for the first half of the industrial revolution) other than by adding oceanic temperatures, which are very new in regards to standards, and thus they combine 4 different monitoring methods in order to make an ocean surface temperature combined with land. They measuring methods are to different depths, are unreliable, and have some 7 degrees of temperature uncertainty. This is why I say by the science, we could be warming zero depending on that. NASA updated their surface temperatures to include oceanic as well, you cannot monitor just land surface temps anymore. It’s insane. It is so clear that there is a narrative being pushed it is insane.
We get it. Some are worried, but they do not have sufficient or reliable evidence.
Before they combined oceanic data it was considered global warming paused. Now they say well at some point, the ocean won’t be able to hold the heat, what point? We don’t know. This is literally the science Jon, in lamen terms. The land has stopped heating, the ocean hasn’t, and the temps are really not reliable so far as we expand testing sites and depths and standards. Until that is reliable, all global warming charts are misleading currently.
Give specific references and links, because often you’ve given nonsense when pushed and I expect more of the same.
Stop getting all of your info from people that benefit from Climate Change not being real. You can keep your head in the sand, some of us want our grandchildren to have a future.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
I never give nonsense. I always give data.
It doesn’t matter where I get my info, (source wars) it matters what occurred. In this scenario, scientists have said the Cook study, just one study, does not represent their research.
As for the rest of what I said, it is accurate. I’m getting tired of pulling it up each time, and I do. I’ve had this war before, you’re just new to it. You’re going to find I give more sources than anyone.
Why do you feel like that’s not exactly what you’re doing? I’m not an environmental scientist and neither are you, so I’m sorry I doubt your findings on the subject. However we each seem to think the other side is lying, so what’s the motive? Polar said previously he thinks scientists are just trying to get paid and land cushy careers, you really think that’s more likely than the politicans being paid by companies that pollute to stay silent? It’s a simple logical question.
“Why do you feel like that’s not exactly what you’re doing?”
Because it’s not. I’m looking at data and I’m weighing the probability with the affect now in actual passed laws to the middle class. The very middle class you are ignoring. There are areas in Canada where the utility bills more than doubled after carbon taxes went into play. You are the one refusing to see me as someone who has reasons to believe what I do other than putting my head in the sand, so I replied accusing you of it. You then come back re accusing me? You are such a baby.
“I’m not an environmental scientist and neither are you,”
I don’t have to be in order to go over what I did.
“so I’m sorry I doubt your findings on the subject. ”
I already went over this, and I don’t care.
“However we each seem to think the other side is lying, so what’s the motive?”
The difference is I can prove your side is, whereas mine, it’s a matter of opinion difference and you don’t have evidence of my side lying. They just don’t believe you. 97% of scientists do not believe we need to tackle climate change or there will be severe consequences, and that is clearly what the left is saying and pushing. It’s a l verifiable lie. Also, no, I will not analyze motive on this, numerous times that has been your problem.
“Polar said previously he thinks scientists are just trying to get paid and land cushy careers, you really think that’s more likely than the politicans being paid by companies that pollute to stay silent? It’s a simple logical question.” No. I don’t. Because if you get into the climate change or scientist field, it’s not about being rich, but your funding will and can be pulled. The motivation is equal at best. You are ignoring one end he is pointing out, but he has reason to. You’re the one trying to prove something is, and are insulting the non believers. He’s defending, you’re attacking.
I’m sick of your attitude problem. Grow up. I get the feeling you’re starting to respect that I don’t debate like conservatives here, but I do in fact have teeth, and I don’t tolerate this nonsense. You are just as bad as polar, but you’re more dangerous.
Alas my arguments aren’t as long and I can’t copy and paste since I’m on the phone now. Just remember, you’re hitching your star to the guy that thinks marijuana addiction is the biggest problem facing our country.
To emphasize, they essentially apply old temp locations and a mathematical equation guessing what the temperatures were in the early 1900’s for oceanic temperatures. This is not an exaggeration. They say the equation is reliable, but it has a HUGE literal statistical margin as to what the temperatures actually were, from say 1950 to 2000, compared to modern day tracking from 2000, until present.
I have had this debate too many times, and I am sick of watching the left REFUSE to look at the data, and that is what I’m seeing.
I will also add Craig is correct, NASA and the NOAA have numerous times deleted their source data.
As I showed Confused here some time ago, they have a legal warning on their page now for data.
They say you CANNOT by threat of jail, source their data history. I gave the link to the page stating it and said I was literally afraid I might be pushing the line for that.
I would have to find it again. This came up because I showed old source data, from a 3rd party site, and it clearly didn’t match up to the current. However, I couldn’t prove it, BECAUSE THE SOURCE LINKS WERE BROKEN.
This wasn’t the 3rd party site, it was the NOAA. This is a serious problem. When they threaten people who source their data, and past links are broken, we have an issue.
Common sense says their oceanic temperatures are in serious question and have huge margins of error.
It’s not that hard to figure this out. You don’t have to be a climate expert. They are concerned because they believe the ocean will heat and then we won’t have it to offset the surface land temps anymore, but that is still a guess, and they don’t know what that level is.
Dear Agency:
Take a look at what the global reinsurance companies think about it and are doing. They’ve been at it since you and I were in college.
John
Your argument is that the public servant at the CDC is in the business of promoting climate change for the money?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
They work at the CDC…for the government. Grant money goes towards research, not lavish lifestyles. If you think otherwise, then you clearly have a gross misunderstanding of how science works.
…as ticks move into Northern Regions…what a crock. Tick borne diseases (lymes) was a problem in the North East long before it showed up in the south and southwest.
a couple of key words you missed, such as “and mosquitos” and “increasingly”.
1. Trump is the President. 2. Trump runs the Executive Branch. 3. Trump can fire anyone who he wants to fire. (Just like Obama did.)
Are you really so naive that you think the president is putting people into positions because he really thinks he has the best person for the job? He’s putting his buddies into positions they and he can profit from plain and simple. He’s concerned with his personal bottom line and nothing more, which is totally fine and super American, it’s just it actually has consequences for the rest of us and our futures as well as the futures of our families.
Can I apply the same to Obama? Or is this just when someone you don’t like runs?
He’s booted his own guys again and again. Trump doesn’t like inefficiency, and he will fire his friends. Obama defended them until the end, each time.
I trust Trump way more on this. Nearly his whole cabinet has changed several times over.
Since a lot got deleted I’ll summarize thusly: You trust trump LOL.
I never said that, I said I trust the STRUCTURE of someone who fires all their cabinet, over someone who KEEPS their whole cabinet, SOLELY IN TERMS of if someone is HELPING THEIR FRIENDS as a motive.
The topic is not whether or not I trust Trump or Obama, I will NEVER use that because it leads to ignorance. I go off of one to one scenarios. I trust someone in regards to selecting cabinet members they believe will do the job, if they fire them like crazy, more than someone who keeps them all. They are far less likely on the topic to solely be helping their friends, to be helping their friends, if they fire them all repeatedly.
For God’s sakes. And the LOL at the end as you say this nonsense.
You are partisan, it’s easy to see.
Lol you mad bro? Sorry you can’t take it, but you’re a sucker if you don’t consider yourself partisan. You clearly buy the right-wing response on everything, your posts clearly indicate that, you’ve just got this false air of moderation to all of your posts. You’re one of the Trump-loving sheep in wolves’ clothing, that’s all. I see you though and I don’t like what I see, sorry if that makes you throw a fit, not my fault you can’t win a debate with your junk science, shifting arguments and “This is not correct.” responses.
As for a single time of being wrong, I posted incorrectly to one of “helpingout”‘s posts just yesterday or today, admitted it and corrected, how’s that?
Also, it seriously took you four days to come back with that? Maybe try shuffleboard instead.
And you’ve absolutely been replying to other things for the last four days on this very board. But go ahead and act like you “just missed” this one lol
Lol 5 times now you dont have time for my nonsense and counting. You sure do seem to find time for it despite your many protests. So unoriginal, so salty about it.
“Lol 5 times now you dont have time for my nonsense and counting. You sure do seem to find time for it despite your many protests. So unoriginal, so salty about it.”
You seem to be demanding I reply, and then when I do you say garbage like this.
Are you going to address the original topic or are you going to keep throwing a temper tantrum?
Lol you whiney conservatives, man. I just like to point out your hypocritical arguing style and refute it where I can. I find most of your information and “facts” to be garbage, not my fault you get so mad about it!
And yes, acting like you “don’t have time for this” then coming back over and over again is weakness on your part, so yes I’m going to point it out every time. Try harder, nerd.
“Lol you whiney conservatives, man. I just like to point out your hypocritical arguing style and refute it where I can. I find most of your information and “facts” to be garbage, not my fault you get so mad about it!
And yes, acting like you “don’t have time for this” then coming back over and over again is weakness on your part, so yes I’m going to point it out every time. Try harder, nerd.”
So then you admit you were never going to talk about the topic at hand? It was about showing how us conservatives are bad?
Right now on this topic, what is your position? You are the one who is going off the rails, not I. Whether conservatives are hypocrites is not the topic. I am a nerd. It’s better than trying and failing to be a popular jock or something.
I think Let Me Help nailed it pretty good lol
The arctic circle hit 94.6 degrees F. July was Earth’s hottest month on record. These are normal weather events, right? As they continue to happen over an extended period of time, then are you willing to admit climate is changing? Because, we keep setting records for hottest month and the arctic circle continues to see temperatures we’d associate with geography closer to the equator.
Another tool of the Climate Boogey Man Lobby.
For the 700th time, the “historical record” keeps changing. NASA has changed their historical temperature record 4 times. The third time, they showed global COOLING from 1880 to 2016. Well, we can’t have that now, can we? (The only reliable records are since 1979, when global satellite measurements first began.)
Even with that ever-changing history, the overwhelming majority of States in the United States haven’t seen a “record high” since the 1930s or prior. Somehow, the media never publishes that truth. Huh. (Too busy chasing Russian Hoaxes and ignoring Democratic collusion with foreigners to alter our elections.)
So, goody for you for falling into the trap. Here’s a tip: start reading about Climate Change for yourself instead of just parroting the media. It will make you smarter and a better steward of the “planet” at the same time.
Your Streak is Alive! 76 straight posts without a single interesting thought or funny comment.
Just invective and boring insults. I’m proud of you. You’re’ the Man!
Keep it Going – shoot for the record!
It would be one thing if you actually believed things like fact and evidence. You believe articles from far right opinion sites that have been proven to spread false information as a normal course of business. You won’t believe the few sites out there that are meant to refute these kinds of fake news sites. You’ve created a situation where you cannot be proven wrong, because you do not want to be proven wrong so much. It’s selfish, irresponsible and small-minded of you to believe you’re always right, but that’s what you do. It merely takes common sense to realize the types of things we pollute the planet with have an impact. You can keep your head in the sand, but you and those like you going to be the cause of many a catastrophe, and I hope that haunts you.
I asked you several legitimate questions about Climate Change, questions that serious people consider essential to understanding how to address the issue.
You refused to answer any of them.
Your last post is like you others, just more name calling. No science. No links to prove me wrong. Just third grade nonsense, revealing you aren’t a serious person on this issue.
We all see you for who you really are, a phony.
Lol you mad bro? You’ve been proven wrong on multiple articles just in the last few days. Climate change is one area I’m not as strong on, but I know enough to know whatever you’re spreading here is the same as what you spread on every board of IJ: misinformation. My favorite part is how you denounce name calling but then do the same exact thing. Can’t even stop yourself for five seconds huh? You are so angry and so stubborn no one is capable of changing your mind because you don’t want to actually learn, you’ve decided you know everything. So why bother? I just like there to be a counterpoint to your hateful nonsense. :)
You lost on gun articles, you’ve lost on marijuana articles, you really holding out to try and win on climate change? Too bad. This is what’s replacing you, gramps.
And again, not a scientific reference in the babble.
P.S. It is hard to prove someone wrong when you refuse to engage at all. FYI
Lol cry more snowflake. PS 26 out of 27! Right? You’ve been proven wrong over and over, you just deny it. I’m happy to keep playing this game, you’ll still be wrong and I’ll still be laughing :)
The last time I checked, climate impacts the entire globe, not just the US. Take a trip to Greenland and let us know how their glaciers and ice shelves are holding up. No wonder Tramp wants to buy it, it’s the new Mara-Lago!
I personally don’t get caught up on a single day’s highest recorded temperature. Instead, seeing each month’s average record continuing to increase, month after month, is much more telling. Unless, of course, you’ve been Sean Hannitized.
You do realize that people who read a lot about climate science think you are foolish, don’t you?
When the “historical record” before 1979 is a joke, a record changed many times for climate scientists (and likely to change again in the future), claiming anything is the HOTTEST ON RECORD is like saying the best or worst of anything ignores anything prior to 1979.
“The best baseball players of all time were only those playing since 1979.”
“The worst war of all time was in Iraq.”
“The worst economic downturn of all time was in 2008.”
And those “melting glaciers”? You do know the Earth has been warming since the last Mini Ice Age,don’t you? Don’t you?
Lol, people who “read a lot about climate science” also happen to be former Exxon executives in your mind, and the fact that they directly benefit from denying man-made climate change is no factor to you. No, I’m not going to trust your information you old crackpot.
“How DARE those scientists adjust their data based on new information and more accurate test methods!! What a bunch of jokers!! We can’t take anything they say seriously whey they keep applying the scientific method!!” (end sarcasm)
““How DARE those scientists adjust their data based on new information and more accurate test methods!! What a bunch of jokers!! We can’t take anything they say seriously whey they keep applying the scientific method!!” (end sarcasm)”
That is not what we on the right here are saying. They hid old sources, why did they do that? They didn’t just change it. They also molded the data around the narrative, not the narrative around the data.
When surface warming no longer showed warming, they tried to say no it’s till true, the Ocean is eating the data, and we don’t know how much the ocean can eat, but we will still destroy the world. It is irresponsible political science. And I used that as a pun.
You are such a brat by not understanding why the right is against this. We don’t like it when the government mandates beliefs, as they are doing with climate change, and shams the non believers. Good god, can you accept that, and freaking let these people be wrong, but not foolish? Your post is basically referring to them as if they were toddlers. You pious brat.
Lol, and you are a fool for ignoring why the right is actually against this. Your leading politicians are all in the pocket of big business. Big business supports hiding man-made climate change because big business makes more money that way. Big business pays the politicians, the politicians hide and deny. It’s quite simple really, so you’re either painfully naive or maliciously lying. No other options exist Bob. It’s quite simple really as opposed to trying to get us to believe it’s just about avoiding government mandates. Use your head and stop shilling for your masters.
Are you still in Middle School? Man, your arguments are the dumbest.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is on the take from corporations.”
Truly, grow up. Make us think more of you.
Oh no, that’s not my argument. My argument is that most of your republican party leaders are on the take, sure. But you’re not important, smart or useful enough to be at that level. No, you’re a mindless, idiotic drone in this scenario. You’re stupid, poor, and you will believe anything your republican leaders tell you, especially the things they tell you specifically to keep you stupid and poor. You’re the perfect republican voter, by what your party is looking for.
You’re either unwilling to grow up and realize the lies you’ve been spouting are using you, or grow a pair and be forthright with the malicious intent of the information you try to shill on here. Either way, I’m clearly not concerned with what you think of me, though you keep trying to impress me for some reason. What is that I wonder?
And AGAIN with the third grade stuff.
I guess you really aren’t that smart. Not clever. Not funny. Not interesting. Just boring.
What third grader do you know that uses the word forthright, or discusses corporate conspiracy to keep the masses stupid and poor? I want to send my kids to that school!
More likely though is the usual, you have no actual response to the points I made and so you go internal. You put a tough “You’re an idiot!” stance because you’ve hit the end of your own logical arguments. It’s okay, I don’t expect any more than that from you. Resort to insults (even though you whine about my insulting you on this very board three times in the last week by my count) because you don’t have anything else, you sad, sad old man.
Also: I have four well liked posts on this article alone. Not to toot my own horn or nothin’, but I think I’m actually doing fine Mr. Yells-About-Everything. How many likes do your posts on this article have again?
Meant to respond to Craig of course. I just know it kills him to not get the last word. :)
Nice job. A dozen comments and not a single one about the science of climate change.
Last Word.
ANTHROPOLOGIST?
TV STAR?
AL GORE?
George isn’t a scientist. He is a statistician trying to use CDC’s name for his own personal beneficial purposes.
None of his papers (nor book) indicate the decrease of influenza and other cold weather diseases. Etc., etc., etc.
NOT a responsible scientist for the position he is in. Truly a hack!
A $50 Trillion pot of money waiting for people, if enough people agree all of climate change is man made.
Luckily for George, he has a boss who understands George’s potential, and is trying to groom him to be a more responsible researcher.