Professors Challenge The Canard of Anthropogenic Climate Change

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
It’s different. Those of us on the right just wouldn’t understand.


"[...]If you don’t know about or understand the evidence that shows incontrovertibly that we are warming the planet, you are IGNORANT. No sin here. You can rectify your ignorance by hard study.

If you refuse to put in the hard study, then you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and your opinion is worthless.

If you refuse even to look at the evidence even when it is shoved in front of your face and still insist you understand better than all the experts, then you are a DENIALIST.

Finally, if you insist that all the scientists are engaged in a global hoax to preserve their lucrative grants (which amount in salary to about what a mid-level IT administrator would make), then you are an IDIOT."
-Ray Ladbury
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
708
1,797
1
"[...]If you don’t know about or understand the evidence that shows incontrovertibly that we are warming the planet, you are IGNORANT. No sin here. You can rectify your ignorance by hard study.

If you refuse to put in the hard study, then you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and your opinion is worthless.

If you refuse even to look at the evidence even when it is shoved in front of your face and still insist you understand better than all the experts, then you are a DENIALIST.

Finally, if you insist that all the scientists are engaged in a global hoax to preserve their lucrative grants (which amount in salary to about what a mid-level IT administrator would make), then you are an IDIOT."
-Ray Ladbury
Why would some guy named Ray who uses 0 science or scientific evidence in an ad hominem attack on anyone presenting evidence contrary to his position influence anyone? The quote literally attacks blindly without any effort to support his position. That's not science, that's not even debating. It's like an argument from the playground.
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,261
1,375
1
"[...]If you don’t know about or understand the evidence that shows incontrovertibly that we are warming the planet, you are IGNORANT. No sin here. You can rectify your ignorance by hard study.

If you refuse to put in the hard study, then you are WILFULLY IGNORANT and your opinion is worthless.

If you refuse even to look at the evidence even when it is shoved in front of your face and still insist you understand better than all the experts, then you are a DENIALIST.

Finally, if you insist that all the scientists are engaged in a global hoax to preserve their lucrative grants (which amount in salary to about what a mid-level IT administrator would make), then you are an IDIOT."
-Ray Ladbury
Meaningless drivel, the globe has warmed approximately 1.2 deg C over the last 170 years. His opinion as to the impact and what, if anything, to do about it is worth no more than mine.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,277
27,952
1
An altered state
They can make a lot more money working for the oil industry than they can make in academia.
But yet you didn’t post what I requested. They don’t get book deals working for oil companies. They don’t get speaking engagements. They don’t get to travel to exotic locations crying about the end of the world. They do get be idolized and treated as rock stars including the groupies.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Meaningless drivel, the globe has warmed approximately 1.2 deg C over the last 170 years. His opinion as to the impact and what, if anything, to do about it is worth no more than mine.
Wrong. According to NOAA, it’s 1.1 degrees in 140 years, with more than half that since 1980. From 1880 to 1980 it was .08C per decade, since then it is .18C per decade. The 9 years from 2013-2021 rank among the top 10 hottest. It’s been 45 years since it was colder than average. So do you want to bet the planet?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Last edited:

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,261
1,375
1
Wrong. According to NOAA, it’s 1.1 degrees in 140 years, with more than half that since 1980. From 1880 to 1980 it was .08C per decade, since then it is .18C per decade. The 9 years from 2013-2021 rank among the top 10 hottest. It’s been 45 years since it was colder than average. So do you want to bet the planet?
Wrong? Seriously Hadcrut says 1.2 deg C in 170 years and NOAA says 1.1 Deg C in 140 years, they are the same. Considering that CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen, and our impact will only increase CO2 from a geological low of 0.03% to a still extremely low concentration of 0.05% sometime during the second half of this century and that this increase is somehow going to destroy the planet is laughable

As for the record high temperatures, you are using as a starting point the little ice age which may have been the coldest time on earth since the end of the last ice age. As a species we have much more to fear from cold and energy shortages than we do from the warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity due to increased CO2 levels.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Wrong? Seriously Hadcrut says 1.2 deg C in 170 years and NOAA says 1.1 Deg C in 140 years, they are the same. Considering that CO2 is as important to life on earth as water and oxygen, and our impact will only increase CO2 from a geological low of 0.03% to a still extremely low concentration of 0.05% sometime during the second half of this century and that this increase is somehow going to destroy the planet is laughable

As for the record high temperatures, you are using as a starting point the little ice age which may have been the coldest time on earth since the end of the last ice age. As a species we have much more to fear from cold and energy shortages than we do from the warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity due to increased CO2 levels.
You didn’t address the other facts in my post such as the acceleration of warming. It’s not the concentration of co2, it’s the temp change it produces. Smart scientists aren’t laughing.
What’s laughable is believing someone who thinks Sandy Hook was a CIA plot, Obama was born in Kenya and Michelle Obama is a man.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,351
37,380
1

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Why would some guy named Ray who uses 0 science or scientific evidence in an ad hominem attack on anyone presenting evidence contrary to his position influence anyone? The quote literally attacks blindly without any effort to support his position. That's not science, that's not even debating. It's like an argument from the playground.

Hmmm, I think it hits right on target.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
But yet you didn’t post what I requested. They don’t get book deals working for oil companies. They don’t get speaking engagements. They don’t get to travel to exotic locations crying about the end of the world. They do get be idolized and treated as rock stars including the groupies.

97% of all climate scientists? I don't think so....

Any of these scientists could make much more money if they worked for the oil and gas industry.

How much would the oil and gas industry pay a scientist that had real evidence that would disprove global warming? It would worth billions to them.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
Please post how much Micheal Mann was given by a government seeking more power? Please post how much he makes in speaking fees, book deals, and consulting fees. Please post how the people running the IPCC, or whatever fancy title they gave themselves, get paid annually to push their opinions. Please post what other Gods of Anthropogenic Global Warming make in financial renumeration for their opining.
After all, their salary depends on them pushing these positions so how can they truly understand the science?

For a glimpse into the life of a research scientist, let’s first turn to Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech. As a top-notch atmospheric scientist, evangelical Christian, and adept communicator, Hayhoe offers an unusually well rounded outlook. She’s a frequent spokesperson for building awareness about climate change.

One of the most frequent objections I hear is, “you scientists are just in it for the money.”
What many people don’t realize, though, is that most of us could easily have chosen a different field – like astrophysics, where I began my education – where we’d make exactly the same money. Or, we could use our skills in industry, working for a fossil fuel company (I interned at Exxon during my master’s degree and published several papers with Exxon scientists), and earn easily ten times what we do now. If I wanted to make more money, there are a lot of ways smart people with technical skills could do that without putting up with the harassment climate scientists receive every day.
None of the research money I receive goes into my personal pocket; instead, it’s used to pay graduate students the princely sum of about $25k per year and around $2,000 a pop to publish our research papers.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,724
8,630
1
Science is never completely settled but the probability of the reality of global warming is very high based on our knowledge to date.
Isn't the real question is how much warming, and is warming really a bad thing unless to an extreme?
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,724
8,630
1
"So far so bad". So I haven't done this in a few years. Please provide with any predictions made prior to and including Al Gores movies regarding the catastrophic results expected by say 2025?
By catastrophic results I don't mean it has warmed or the ocean has risen i mean the horrible results associated with warming. As i recall below is a small list of things we heard

. Snow in north America will be a thing of the past
. NYC will be under water
. Hurricanes will increase dramatically
. The Atlantic seaboard will be devastated with flooding
. Miami under water

I don't doubt is is warming slightly. I doubt the catastrophic effects predicted. I think technology will stay ahead of the crisis.
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
"So far so bad". So I haven't done this in a few years. Please provide with any predictions made prior to and including Al Gores movies regarding the catastrophic results expected by say 2025?
By catastrophic results I don't mean it has warmed or the ocean has risen i mean the horrible results associated with warming. As i recall below is a small list of things we heard

. Snow in north America will be a thing of the past
. NYC will be under water
. Hurricanes will increase dramatically
. The Atlantic seaboard will be devastated with flooding
. Miami under water

I don't doubt is is warming slightly. I doubt the catastrophic effects predicted. I think technology will stay ahead of the crisis.
Wanna bet the planet?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,351
37,380
1
"So far so bad". So I haven't done this in a few years. Please provide with any predictions made prior to and including Al Gores movies regarding the catastrophic results expected by say 2025?
By catastrophic results I don't mean it has warmed or the ocean has risen i mean the horrible results associated with warming. As i recall below is a small list of things we heard

. Snow in north America will be a thing of the past
. NYC will be under water
. Hurricanes will increase dramatically
. The Atlantic seaboard will be devastated with flooding
. Miami under water

I don't doubt is is warming slightly. I doubt the catastrophic effects predicted. I think technology will stay ahead of the crisis.
Don't forget the global cooling scare of the 1970s.
 

roswelllion

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 18, 2003
9,724
8,630
1
Wanna bet the planet?
Seriously, why don't we make this a real question

You have a bet against the planet versus the reality of dooming a couple hundred million people too starvation, and disease from lack of energy and a couple Billion people to a lower standard of living.

I'll bet on the planet and technology every time.

Before you and Rumble suggest that is hyperbole explain why China and India are building thousands of coal plant between them. btw When the asked the minister of finance for India how much oil from Russia and coal plants will they buy/build. His answer "as much as required to provide reasonable energy supplies."

Got any examples yet of the pending catastrophy?
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,517
21,189
1
The same can be said for the whole climate change industry and very few salaries could be supported by the amount of money you are talking about in your original post.
While your statement is undeniably correct (i.e., it works both ways), the plain fact is that the amount of money on the climate change denial side is PROFOUNDLY greater than the amount of the other side of that debate. You've essentially got Big Oil vs. environmental non-profit organizations
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,351
37,380
1
While your statement is undeniably correct (i.e., it works both ways), the plain fact is that the amount of money on the climate change denial side is PROFOUNDLY greater than the amount of the other side of that debate. You've essentially got Big Oil vs. environmental non-profit organizations
Let's check in with the founder of Greenpeace.

 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
708
1,797
1
There are not a lot of scientist that say Co2 is not warming the planet.
And yet atmospheric CO2 was 3 orders of magnitude higher for much of our earth's living history including times much warmer and much colder than today. If you graph temps verses atmospheric CO2 over earth's living history you will find absolutely no correlation whatsoever. How do you explain that? 3 orders of magnitude isn't even close to today's atmospheric CO2.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,351
37,380
1
And yet atmospheric CO2 was 3 orders of magnitude higher for much of our earth's living history including times much warmer and much colder than today. If you graph temps verses atmospheric CO2 over earth's living history you will find absolutely no correlation whatsoever. How do you explain that? 3 orders of magnitude isn't even close to today's atmospheric CO2.
The greatest explosion of diversity of life occurred when CO2 levels were at their absolute highest point in the history of Planet Earth. And now they want to label CO2 a toxin. Don't question why, just "trust the science."
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
708
1,797
1
Wanna bet the planet?
I would bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday that doing nothing is better than a bunch of humans thinking they can play God and alter our earth's complex open system that they attempt to oversimplisticly model with a few basic inputs and feedbacks that are to achieve their desired goal instead of one of many different significantly worse unintended consequences of their actions.

I'm not saying we don't recycle or prevent acid from electric car batteries from entering natural aquatic systems. I'm saying that anything the people peddling climate "science" solutions which line their pockets to the tune of multiple mansions and private jets attempt to implement will almost certainly make the environment worse. I am only basing this on hundreds of years of humans trying to manipulate their environment to eradicate perceived problems.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,351
37,380
1
Let's look at the correlation between CO2 and life expectancy to understand the impact of fossil fuels on human life.

 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
I would bet every day of the week and twice on Sunday that doing nothing is better than a bunch of humans thinking they can play God and alter our earth's complex open system that they attempt to oversimplisticly model with a few basic inputs and feedbacks that are to achieve their desired goal instead of one of many different significantly worse unintended consequences of their actions.

I'm not saying we don't recycle or prevent acid from electric car batteries from entering natural aquatic systems. I'm saying that anything the people peddling climate "science" solutions which line their pockets to the tune of multiple mansions and private jets attempt to implement will almost certainly make the environment worse. I am only basing this on hundreds of years of humans trying to manipulate their environment to eradicate perceived problems.
They’ve never “manipulated their environment to eradicate perceived problems”, they’ve plundered it, clown. Its oil and coal barons who are lining their pockets with multiple mansions and private jets, not climate scientists.
You‘re a useful fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,634
5,464
1
And yet atmospheric CO2 was 3 orders of magnitude higher for much of our earth's living history including times much warmer and much colder than today. If you graph temps verses atmospheric CO2 over earth's living history you will find absolutely no correlation whatsoever. How do you explain that? 3 orders of magnitude isn't even close to today's atmospheric CO2.

That's just not true at all.
 

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,793
2,407
1
While your statement is undeniably correct (i.e., it works both ways), the plain fact is that the amount of money on the climate change denial side is PROFOUNDLY greater than the amount of the other side of that debate. You've essentially got Big Oil vs. environmental non-profit organizations
That’s not necessarily true. In addition to environmental non-profits, there are also “green” industries on the same side. One of which is PG&E. I read an article that said as an individual company, they spent the 2nd highest amount (I think it was $27mm?) lobbying. But their goal is to eliminate the competition that relies on coal.

It’s not oil vs altruism.