Then it is settled, we blow China and India off the map. That should give us a couple of years.

I don’t claim to know more than a real climate scientist. I can read.

Here is a real climate science guy:

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/...ata-tampering/

Can you dispute that all of the warming coincidentally matches adjusted warmer current readings and adjusted cooler historic temperatures.

A quick Google reveals he’s not a climate scientist. He’s a geologist. He makes a good living with his denialist blog, too.

So, what are the motives of the (vast majority) of climate scientists who are warning us about climate change? What’s in it for them?

Most climate scientists aren't pushing an agenda, it's the political media machine that pushes the wrong narrative. For example, the scientists are absolutely livid over the UN's, 36 genders in Climate Change.

You can't speak out against it, lest the radical left will label you all kinds of buzz words they over use. It's the same reason Delta went against the NRA, they are afraid of going against the left wing narrative.

Exactly...

This should be that chart that scares you. Green energy isn't green.
http://i66.tinypic.com/e8485s.jpg

I previously considered APC a spectator sport, but I registered an account just for you guys. There’s actually a website specifically tailored to this very debate for non-scientist peasant folk, such as ourselves.

https://skepticalscience.com/Welcome-to-Skeptical-Science.html

Well it’s not tailored for airline pilots, when the first sentence is:

“It is time for us to panic about global warming. Indeed, a proper state of panic is long overdue.”

Can’t activists see how this kind of rhetoric plays right into the hands of skeptics? :rolleyes:

Yes, unfortunately. We need a full worldwide embargo on them, until they change. A lot of it is our own fault, we put environmental regulations on ourselves, which made manufacturing here too costly.

When the liberals banned CFCs under the Montreal Protocol, they traded CFC's, for HFC's, these chemicals are really only produced in third world **** holes. This will prove to be the fatal mistake that kills this planet. If Jimmy Carter would not have banned breeder reactors, and CFC's were recycled like they are today, we would have avoided CC altogether. In other words, the steps we took to save the environment, were what killed it, the same as the efforts to fend off forest fires created the conditions for the mother of all fires.

That's almost as funny as...Better luck trying to remedy the obvious cognitive dissonance and projection.

No, two things can be true at the same time. The Earth can be warming due to unnatural processes, and the left can be pressing a political agenda by blaming the other side.



You can say over and over that scientists have a consensus on the function of CO2 in climate change, it still doesn't make it true.

“Activists” probably (obviously incorrectly) assume that the aforementioned skeptics will make it past the first sentence and into the actual content of the article/site....

While skepticism is a healthy attribute, sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. Scientists also have concensus that the Earth is round... and yet Flat Earthers are a thing. What evidence would convince you to change your mind?

Before we have this debate, do you understand that the Earth increases in temperature before the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rises?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Humans never self regulate very well, a crisis is required before they can make a change. Try promoting hydrocarbons as the precious and irreplaceable substance that it is. Once it's gone,, humanity is back in the Stone Age. But wait, that gonna cramp my style. For the benefit of someone that's not born? Yea right!

The rest of the article is even worse; a political rant. Some activists forget that charts and graphs mean nothing if no legislation is passed, and when it comes to persuasion, hyperbole is not your friend. Those of us who support reasonable clean-air initiatives recoil from such counterproductive language. :(

Government grants; notoriety or fame, depending your view and personal fortune. Al Gore became immensely wealthy by pushing “green energy” all the while blasting around causing a huge carbon footprint.

GF

From the website, "
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase."

That's impossible, and they don't even try to defend that statement with any science.

That website also fails to acknowledge the existence of F-gases, which I said earlier the left wing political machine was trying to cover up. That website is another failed attempt to link CC to the fossil fuel industry, and thus Republicans, for political purposes.

A great tell that a website is bogus is when it uses analogies to describe a position, instead of hard data. It simply means their data can't stand alone as proof, so they need to persuade you to believe their political position by other means. Science is math and data driven, not creative analogies.

Also, to your question of what would persuade me to change my mind, a multi-million dollar package for a government "green initiative".

From my family members in academia, there is some of this involved. A quite backwater niche suddenly thrust into the limelight... a gold rush of sorts.

Stevie Wonder just blamed Aretha Franklin’s death because of climate deniers on CBS. The CBS talking heads nodded along.

And that in combination with Al Gore's Gulfstream just destroyed all the peer-reviewed science. No need to worry now.

All the standard nonsense to distract from what has become blatantly obvious even for the flat-earthers who helped Big Oil/Coal waste decades when we could have been sensibly dealing with the issue. Man-made global climate change is real and the repercussions of doing nothing about it far outweigh the costs. Al Gore was right. The flat-earthers were wrong, as usual.

It certainly is proof that the media has an agenda.

No it isn't. Global climate change is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution. We are not going to turn back the clock on modern technology like jet aircraft especially for folks like leaders of state, captains of industry or such, but that doesn't mean that we don't look for better energy solutions and ever greater efficiency. Such attack lines are nothing but straw men, but I am sure Big Oil appreciates you parroting their ridiculous talking points.

Making statements of opinion over and over as if they’re facts doesn’t make them so. :rolleyes:

If a “Captain of Industry” wants to lecture ordinary people on sacrificing for clean air, he needs to reduce his own energy footprint to that of a “Private First Class of Industry”, or else hush. One rich hypocrite does more harm to the environmentalist cause than a dozen oil barons. :rolleyes:

Indeed.

Or: 160-some world leaders converged on France a few years ago. The Grand Poohbah among them took between 4-6 widebody aircraft for his part (primary VC-25; backup/Decoy; and typically 2-3 C-5 or C-17 for the Limo and helos).

You’d have thought he could have at least carpooled with Mexico and Canada. :rolleyes: “Yeah, you guys fly to DC, then we’ll take my ride.”

Nope. I’d venture to say NONE of them took commercial transport, and of those who flew, they went in the most prestigous ride their respective countries could muster.

The cap&trade plan is a zero sum game, and since the rich can afford to buy all the offsets, the poor will bear all the burden, as usual. The best part, is it would have done absolutely zero to stem any carbon emissions as well, just as banning abortion or guns won't result in any less of those things.

Being a non climate scientist was never an issue when you guys were building your “consensus” that CO2 is very very bad and will lead to Florida submerging by 2015.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How about we just stick with the consensus amongst climate scientists -- and leave the media, Al Gore, bloggers, and "Snowball" Inhof out of it.

They don't want to do that because then they have to admit the obvious truth and their honorary membership in the flat-earth society.

The media does all the heavy lifting for CC, they can't be ignored. Most information out there on CC is the opinion of journalists. The "consensus among scientists" is a media tag line applied to explain any topic on CC. There is no consensus on the underlying mechanisms of CC.

As an example, the wild fires in California are being blamed on climate change. That is strictly a journalist opinion, that is not a view that actual scientists hold. Just like when CNN reported that flight MH370 exceeded the speed of light opening up a singularity, is not a view held by actual pilots, or anyone sane.

Fair enough, provided that all of those people shut up. I doubt they will, though. :rolleyes:

Complete and utter BS.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...e#.W3jBwC3MwWo

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686

First define climate scientist, then show me their consensus and explain why a physicist, chemist, or hell a geologist can’t explain CO2, but Bill Nye the engineering guy can. Next define how many “climate scientists” claim humans cause climate change. Next tell me how much of the climate change is caused by humans and how much is attributed to volcanic or solar activity.

And the bottom line is your climate scientists still ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas because they can’t explain its effect and it is the most prominent green house gas. BTW, thanks to fracking, the US has reduced its CO2 emmisions while the rest of the world hasn’t. But it still got hot this summer.

None of those three links have anything to do with my post. I'm not talking about whether CC is real, I'm talking about the underlying mechanisms contributing to the cause of the warming. CO2 is NOT a black body emitter, so the climate temperature has to increase, before more CO2 can be added to the atmosphere. This is important, because if humans weren't pumping out CO2, the ~400ppm level would be exactly the same as it is now. During the Paleocene era when CO2 was over ~2000ppm, the CO2 concentration lagged temperatures by about 2000 years. There is no scientific consensus on how this relationship works.

Would you trust the self-serving, partisan, agenda-grabbing nuts over at NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

How about theses guys?The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

The evidence of consensus is quite clear if you remove the blinders of what you want to believe and open your mind to the facts.

In any event, there's really no reason to continue with this back-and-forth is there? I'd wager the probability of us not changing each other's mind at --- 97%:D

Okay, let's say you're 100% right, so now what? Park all of Delta's aircraft, and go on unemployment? That's what you are asking for.
We could have had clean nuclear power, if the left hadn't poopoo'd about it. Solar and wind actually increase our dependence on WMGHG's. We could have avoided all of this, but mismanagement from the left, set us back, perhaps forever.

Of course, climate change is all the fault of the left. My God take off the partisan blinders, Mesabah.

Renewable, solar, nuclear, carbon tax.