Climate Change Deniers

[planosteve]

Here's where all the candidates stand on climate change.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/11/429781692/where-presidential-candidates-stand-on-climate-change

If you don't believe in human caused climate change, here are the candidates that agree with you.

Carson
Cruz
Huckabee
Paul
Santorum
Trump

[Bob Of Burleson]

Substitute "pollution" for "global warming" in almost every reference, and things get a lot clearer.

[Sangersteve]

1. There has been no ‘global warming’ since 1997



So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man-made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

2. The polar bears are doing just great.

As they have been for the last five decades, during which time their population has increased roughly five-fold. So why does the IUCN still classify them as “vulnerable”? Because the environmentalists needed a cute, fluffy white poster-child for their “the animals are dying and it’s all our fault” campaign, and the snail darter and the California delta smelt just didn’t cut it. So various tame conservation biologists came up with all sorts of nonsense about how polar bear populations were dwindling and how the melting of the ice floes would jeopardize their ability to feed themselves etc. How can you tell a conservation biologist is lying? When his lips move.

3. Antarctica is growing.

According to the greenies, this just wasn’t meant to happen. But it is. Even NASA admits this.

4. The Maldives aren’t sinking

Or, if they are, their government is responding in a very odd way. Just a few years back, they were staging photos of their Cabinet meeting underwater to symbolize how threatened they were by “climate change” – a problem that could only be cured, apparently, with the donation of large sums of guilt money from rich Western industrialized nations. But a few months ago they completed work on their 11th international airport. So that all the climate refugees caused by global warming can escape quickly, presumably.

5. Ocean acidification is a myth

If I were an eco-Nazi I would seriously think about killing myself at this point. Ocean acidification was supposed to be their Siegfried Line – the final line of defense if, as has grown increasingly obvious over the last few years, “anthropogenic global warming” theory proved to be a busted flush. But it turns out that ocean acidification is as big a myth as man-made climate change. a) it’s based on dubious, possibly even fraudulent, research and b) if anyone’s acidifying the ocean it’s those wretched bloody coral reefs…

6. The alarmist climate scientists are talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted

Possibly there are exceptions to this rule, somewhere. But just look at NASA GISS, NOAA and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre at the Met Office – three of the main organizations responsible for maintaining the world’s temperature data sets.

NASA has been caught red handed turning cooling trends into warming trends. NOAA is currently under Congressional investigation for its mendacious, politicised attempts to pretend that the “Pause” in global warming doesn’t exist. The CRU was ground zero of the Climategate scandal. The Met Office is a joke. Yet these shysters have the gall to demand that the world’s leaders take urgent action on the basis of their dodgy data.

7. Winter Is Coming

Sunspot activity is diminishing in a manner worryingly similar to that experienced during the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) when ice fairs were staged on the River Thames and the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) which gave us Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow and the Year Without A Summer. Some scientists are predicting the imminent return of a Little Ice Age.

8. CO2 is greening the planet

The Sahel region in Africa is getting greener and more fertile. This is something we should be celebrating, not trying clumsily and expensively to prevent.

9. There has been no increase in “extreme weather events”.

Who says so? The IPCC in its most recent Assessment Report. Droughts, heatwaves, heavy rain events, cyclones, storms: they just haven’t increased in the alarmists assured us they would.

10. People are losing interest in global warming.

A) they don’t believe it’s a real threat, b) they keep being reminded of things that ARE real threats

11. $1.5 trillion is a lot of money to pay every year for a problem that doesn’t exist

This, according to Climate Change Business Journal, is how much it costs every year to “combat climate change.” $1,500,000,000,000 may not sound like a lot of money when the world’s polar bears, not to mention “the children of the future” are at stake. But you’d be surprised: spend $1,500,000,000,000 here and $1,500,000,000,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking serious money.

12. It will make (almost) no difference

If all the world’s leading nations stick to the carbon-reduction commitments they will make in Paris this week, then they will stave off “global warming” by the end of this century by 0.170 degrees C.

Oh – and that’s the optimistic scenario, calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, assuming that countries like, say, China don’t lie or cheat about how much CO2 they’re burning secretly.

His more pessimistic – ie more realistic – scenario is that the best we can hope for is a reduction in global warming by the end of the century of 0.048 degrees C.

This temperature reduction – five hundredths of one degree – is so small as to be almost immeasurable. But if you want to know what it feels like, Willis Eschenbach has done the calculations. It’s the equivalent of walking five metres higher up a mountain. Or, if you prefer, climbing two flights of stairs.

And there you have it: the lunacy of the Paris climate conference in one sentence: $1.5 trillion every year till the end of the century to effect the equivalent of walking to your bedroom.

[planosteve]

I guess I'll have to forget about Kasich. I'll probably write in Rand like I did Ron the last 3 elections.

[BigTex]

Climate changes all the time. Yes, it's a good idea to limit the pollutants that get into the air and water.

What I deny is the need to leverage naturally occurring climate fluctuations into wealth redistribution and the creation of one world government.

[jellowrestling]

Climate changes all the time. Yes, it's a good idea to limit the pollutants that get into the air and water.

What I deny is the need to leverage naturally occurring climate fluctuations into wealth redistribution and the creation of one world government.

Simple but elegant description of the truth about "climate change".

[BigTex]

BTW, does anybody know how many private jets were flown into Paris to discuss our carbon footprint?

[Bob Of Burleson]

(Post by BigTex: Climate changes all the time. Yes, it's a good idea to limit the pollutants that get into the air and water. What I deny is the need to leverage naturally occurring climate fluctuations into wealth redistribution and the creation of one world government.)

Well said.

[Red Oak]

Cleaner Air can caused melting of the Ice Caps also

To protect human health and safeguard the environment, governments and utility companies around the world have worked -- successfully -- to reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere.

But there's a downside to cleaning the air of sulfur dioxide and similar pollutants: Arctic sea ice is more exposed to solar heat, and more of it melts.

Now, Environment Canada researchers, in a study published in Geophysical Research Letters, have put a number on the sea-ice melt that reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide (and certain other aerosols, tiny particles that are suspended in the atmosphere) are expected to cause: about 400,000 square miles or 1 million square kilometers.

That's the amount of ice melt, according to the study's calculation, that's likely to be attributable to reductions of human-caused emissions of sulfur dioxide and similar light-reflecting air pollutants by the end of the century. That figure will account for 25 to 40 percent of the expected seasonal sea-ice melt, depending on future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the study says.

That doesn't mean there should be a slowdown in air-quality controls, said one of the study’s authors.


Not all sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is put there by humans. Volcanoes also pump some into the atmosphere, sometimes in significant levels, and wildfires are another natural source of sulfur dioxide emissions.

Since the late 1700s, scientists have understood big eruptions can cool Earth by sending emissions into the stratosphere that block sunlight. But eruptions can also have the opposite effect, hastening the melt of glaciers or sea ice by spreading dark, solar heat-absorbing ash on snow and ice.

The cooling effects of volcanoes have inspired several ideas for purposely adding aerosols to slow climate warming. But such geoengineering concepts have lots of drawbacks, experts say.

While sulfur dioxide is among the type of aerosols that reflect sunlight away from Earth, others, notably black carbon, absorb it and speed melt of ice and snow.


http://www.adn.com/article/20151122/cle ... study-says

[Mark]

There are two kinds of people that push the global warming hoax:

1. Those that profit from the hoax (That would be the evil)
2. Those that lack the brain power to understand that it is a hoax (That would be the stupid)

[planosteve]

On the news they are showing scenes of air pollution in China along with the Climate conference in Paris. What does Chinese air pollution have to do with climate change?

[ann jusko]

I'm with Big Tex and Mark's hoax theory. It's a big scam.

[planosteve]

I think it could be bigger than we think. It could be part of a plan for a New World Government based on preventing climate change.

Christie is trying to moderate his position. Said today on Mourning Joe that he thinks it is occurring, but that it's not a crisis.

[Sangersteve]

(CNSNews.com) – A German scientist has accused the National Aeronautics and Space Agency’s (NASA) Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) of altering temperature records between 2010 and 2012 to produce the illusion that the Earth has been warming since 1950.

GISS datasets are used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to document global warming.

In a presentation at the 2012 EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data expert from the University of Paderborn, said that he examined publicly available archived temperature records from 1,153 weather stations around the globe going back to 1881 and found evidence of “massive” tampering by GISS between 2010 and 2012.

Ewert noticed that “the temperature data of Reykjavik [Iceland] and Nuuk Nuur [Greenland] had been changed retroactively,” veteran German television journalist Gunter Ederer writes. The 2012 data was higher than the temperatures recorded before 2010.

The German scientist then randomly selected 120 weather stations around the world and manually compared the archived data to GISS’ 2012 temperature records.

“He always came to the same conclusion: The temperature supplied from 2012 showed a higher warming than the published [archived data] in 2010,” Ederer writes.

Ewert also found that since 1881, four distinct cooling stages have alternated with three warming phases. He says the Earth is currently in a cooling phase.

[BigTex]

But . . . but . . . but . . . science . . .

[jellowrestling]

To get the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in perspective, think of Cowboys Stadium at capacity, 90,000 people, as representing the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 can be represented by the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Global Warming scammers would have us believe that the cheerleaders would cause the capacity crowd to heat up uncontrollably....

OK, bad example, but the point is, the ratio is absurd.

[planosteve]

The atmosphere is only 4 tenths of 1 percent carbine dioxide. How much can that affect the worldwide temperature?

[jellowrestling]

The atmosphere is only 4 tenths of 1 percent carbine dioxide. How much can that affect the worldwide temperature?

That would be a good point, but your math is off. It's roubhly 400 parts per million; that's 4 hundredths of one percent.

[planosteve]

The atmosphere is only 4 tenths of 1 percent carbine dioxide. How much can that affect the worldwide temperature?

That would be a good point, but your math is off. It's roubhly 400 parts per million; that's 4 hundredths of one percent.

But, I was only 10 times too high. Or 100.