Top-level Climate Modeler Criticizes "nonsense" of "global warming crisis"

[actaeon277]

Particularly if he’s on the casting floor of a blast furnace.
YouTube needs more videos of blast furnaces being cast.

Unfortunately, the 2 big mills on the lake, constantly check YouTube for videos, and get them removed.

 

[KLB]

That's a good point. In the summer the thermostat just had to be set no lower than 76, but usually 78. That's too hot. During menopause my wife moved it down to 72 and then claimed that's where it always was.

My wife likes it at 66 and still complains it is hot and turns on the ceiling fan.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[wtburnette]

Glad to hear there are more people speaking out on this nonsense. The thing to remember is that this is all a HUGE scam. It's nothing more than a blatant power grab, sugar coated with "science" to make it a bit more palatable for the masses.

 

[Leadeye]

Climate claptrap is part of the big media religion, heresy is not tolerated. The current climate machine is making the well connected a lot of money at tax payer expense.

 

[Ingomike]

Climate claptrap is part of the big media religion, heresy is not tolerated. The current climate machine is making the well connected a lot of money at tax payer expense.

This! It is a faith and the faith cannot be questioned...

 

[BugI02]

Cut carbon emissions, devastate your economy, world warms anyway (because the sources of 2/3 of the carbon emissions worldwide don't even have to cut back)

 

[wtburnette]

Cut carbon emissions, devastate your economy, world warms anyway (because the sources of 2/3 of the carbon emissions worldwide don't even have to cut back)

It's easy for me to understand. If they're not serious about every country making changes, then they aren't really serious and other motives apply.

 

[BugI02]

It's easy for me to understand. If they're not serious about every country making changes, then they aren't really serious and other motives apply.

Besides which, if relatively non-disruptive changes can result in, say, a 10% improvement in carbon emissions (ignoring for the moment whether it is even desirable to focus so single-mindedly on CO2 ) would it not be better to have China reduce its 50% of the worlds emissions by that 10% rather than start with the west which is already flat or declining?

It is hard not to conclude that the goal is to weaken the west and the greens are useful idiots

 

[Romero Zombie]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

 

[wtburnette]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

WTAF, really? Climate change is absolutely not "settled science"....

 

[d.kaufman]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

 

[BugI02]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

Sadly, your concept of 'science' has been corrupted. Climate shake down artists have taken the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere (~400 ppm), searched for a point in the historical record when there was a similar atmospheric content (the age of the dinosaurs) and concluded that we are headed for the same temperatures based on that one data point with no evidence of even correlation let alone causation

Much is also made about how the CO2 level was stable at ~280 ppm during pre-industrial times when presumably we are to believe the climate was also stable. Thus, they directly ignore the little ice age, which is the most dramatic climate change on record (just in the wrong direction to support the shakedown), and for which the 'stable pre-industrial CO2
would appear to obviate their favorite explanation for 'climate change'. To date I am not aware of any climate huckster even attempting an explanation for that. You will hear some chatter about the Maunder Minimum, a period in which the sun had possibly low activity as evidenced by a lack of sunspot activity, but that was a relatively short period within the middle of the little ice age. It may have worsened conditions, but could not be the cause because it commenced several hundred years after the cooling started

What the climate hucksters are selling you is equivalent to sampling the exhaust of some engine at one random point of system operating temperature, load and OAT and atmospheric pressure and using that single datapoint to extrapolate that engine's full range of operating parameters. The only people who claim that makes sense do so because they either aren't actual trained scientists or engineers or they have something to gain from such an interpretation

 

[Leadeye]

Always follow the money

 

[BugI02]

Always follow the money®

Fixy

 

[KLB]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

Anyone that uses that term shows a total lack of knowledge about how science works, and thus has no credibility in any discussion concerning said subject.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Anyone that uses that term shows a total lack of knowledge about how science works, and thus has no credibility in any discussion concerning said subject.

The same type of people that like to throw around "science denier" also tend to be the same type that think there are 57 genders.

 

[jamil]

Sadly, your concept of 'science' has been corrupted. Climate shake down artists have taken the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere (~400 ppm), searched for a point in the historical record when there was a similar atmospheric content (the age of the dinosaurs) and concluded that we are headed for the same temperatures based on that one data point with no evidence of even correlation let alone causation

Much is also made about how the CO2 level was stable at ~280 ppm during pre-industrial times when presumably we are to believe the climate was also stable. Thus, they directly ignore the little ice age, which is the most dramatic climate change on record (just in the wrong direction to support the shakedown), and for which the 'stable pre-industrial CO2
would appear to obviate their favorite explanation for 'climate change'. To date I am not aware of any climate huckster even attempting an explanation for that. You will hear some chatter about the Maunder Minimum, a period in which the sun had possibly low activity as evidenced by a lack of sunspot activity, but that was a relatively short period within the middle of the little ice age. It may have worsened conditions, but could not be the cause because it commenced several hundred years after the cooling started

What the climate hucksters are selling you is equivalent to sampling the exhaust of some engine at one random point of system operating temperature, load and OAT and atmospheric pressure and using that single datapoint to extrapolate that engine's full range of operating parameters. The only people who claim that makes sense do so because they either aren't actual trained scientists or engineers or they have something to gain from such an interpretation

Have scientists been able to extract a function for the relationship between CO2 and temperature change? I'm not a scientist, but that's what I would want to know. Surely if they're making computer models of this, it's a basic requirement. And then the important question to answer, since such functions are testable, are changes in ppm and resulting observed changes in temperature confirmed by the function? It seems to me that the models have overpredicted temperature changes since Al's inconvenient wet dream.

 

[jamil]

Science deniers gonna deny. I’m no expert but it is very simple science that adding CO2 will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
There is a reason I call this place INFoil when talking to friends/relatives.

Okay. Sanity check. How many genders are there?

 

[Leadeye]

The same type of people that like to throw around "science denier" also tend to be the same type that think there are 57 genders.

I can see by your eyes friend, you're just about gone,

57 genders and nothin on.