As a college biology professor, I taught the emerging science of global warming decades ago and on to my retirement in the late 1990s. It morphed into the science of climate change as we saw many more aspects of Earth affected by it, on land masses and oceans, from pole to pole.

Many concerned citizens as well as science professionals have pushed every level of government to address the causes, well-known by now, begging for solutions on behalf of our children and grandchildren as well as Earth’s biodiversity. Too many people still don’t understand or believe what’s happening. The GOP has long since abandoned the effort, discarding even those measures that had been taken by earlier administrations.

I’m hoping the DNC will allow a climate debate in the primaries to help remedy that and joining others to push for it. If you agree, I hope you’ll do so too.

Anne Nielsen

Harrisonburg

(102) comments

billnonymous

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf NASA claims 97% of the papers they **included** support the idea of human caused global warming. CEI says NASA left out a majority of the papers and when included, the number drops to 32%. This was intentional. This is how these charlatans lie, cheat, distort, fudge, twist, and purposefully alter to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE and create a false narrative.

LVW

Your link is for a letter written by two attorneys from a libertarian organization. Their claim is neither surprising nor convincing. Come back when you have something solid.

billnonymous

Deciding not to include reports that they don't agree with is standard operating procedure for the climate change charlatans as they've been caught doing it MANY times. Now I know you blindly give them your full, clueless, support and that's fine. However, NASA intentionally discounted nearly 8,000 reports that they did review. Incredibly, none of those reports supported the conclusion they had **set out** to prove. If one discounts the 65 losses the Orioles have, their winning percentage rises from 30.1% to 100% but that's a lie, just like NASA's claim of 97%, a big fat lie.

hbdansby

Your language and relentless slander of other posters as well as other stakeholders in this subject takes you out of the discussion, despite the otherwise high value of argument and free speech. The use of and allegations contained in words like charlatans, intentionally deceive, manure, hypocrites, and on and on, put you in the position of some kind of troll, almost as if your posts are computer generated by some crude but relatively sophisticated artificial intelligence.

billnonymous

They're charlatans because they intentionally deceive, they've been caught doing it many times. This NASA claim of 97% is just another example. I will call it manure when it is manure and I will call it hypocrisy when it is hypocrisy. You are no one to lecture anyone with the way you INTENTIONALLY take everything I say out of context and twist it into something I never said and then attempt lecture me on it. Does that stupid bull manure take you out of the discussion, too, or is it just me? Yeah, it's just me, I get it. Carry on.

billnonymous

and when you're done taking my words out of context and twisting them into more self-serving nonsense to attempt to call me out on, why don't you give Programmer some answers to the questions he posed to you?

LVW

Each of billy's posts is better than the next.

billnonymous

LVW, the letter cited publications explaining why NASA’s 97% number was nonsense. Did you bother to find any of them and look at any of them before you complained to me that nothing solid was provided or did you just peruse the letter and start banging out your weak complaint? Let me answer that for you, “I only read the letter.”

LVW

Hypocrisy, thy name is billy. You ignore legitimate scientific papers and references, and at the same time expect me to chase through the references from your wingnut letter? See my previous post.

billnonymous

LVW, I certainly do not ignore it, I've read MANY more IPCC reports than you have. (which, let's face it, you've read none of them). I've read them, I've pasted them into MS Word and footnooted them. I've cited the exact version of reports on this board, and I've cited where those reports have been exposed as "ignoring data" or "forgetting to include data" whatever you want to call it and who did the exposing. Nice try though, ace, would you like another?

DANT

Sounds like billnonymous is winning the argument by a LANDSLIDE....since dansby can't even answer a simple question!

Programmer

Agree, billnonymous knows what he is talking about.

billnonymous

Thanks, gents, I'm not a scientist by any stretch of anyone's imagination but those of us on the skeptic side have plenty of valid questions that seemingly will forever go unanswered (ignored). I'm stunned LVW and dansby aren't in here whining about the heat today and how it's all our fault and has absolutely nothing to do with our natural place in the solar system (or that it's the middle of July!)

billnonymous

Here is a good read on the charlatans at the IPCC fudging the living daylights out of their "horse manure" reports. Scientists determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to erroneously overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf They prove that IPCC AR5 (which I have made fun of on several occasions right here on this board) "cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature” “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” (missing, huh? I wonder why, no I don't) "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does ***NOT*** exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans [6], according to Henry‘s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about0.1°C because of CO2. The **HUMAN** contribution was about 0.01°C."

hbdansby

Billonymous has a well developed ideological outlook that government should do very little and that the free market will usually solve most problems on its own. He understands that tampering with human ambition and initiative is often a losing game. In the case of climate change, however, it is not clear to him how to avoid governmental action. This throws him into a frenzy where he oscillates between denying the problem exists and claiming that the market will best solve the problem if it does exist, or as he would say, “even if it did exist, but it doesn’t.” It might be worthwhile to point out that most governmental action is insufficient in and of itself to solve a problem, but instead sends a signal to the populace and the business community that your government and the citizens stand behind finding a solution to the problem. So, the direct economic hit that Billonymous is concerned about is not great. One significance of this is that he personally would not stand to lose much. Those in the business affected, such as coal in the case of climate change, would stand to lose, but Billnonymous himself would not feel much pain.

billnonymous

The government does ensure that a free market can operate, does it not? Just because they aren't the ones "doing the work" doesn't mean they aren't doing "very little". You know something, you are an absolute clown. Everything I say, you intentionally change with a bunch of "horse manure" self serving misinterpretations that you then proceed to pontificate on. What a joke you are. That childish "bull manure" might work on other morons but, make no mistake, you cantankerous old delusional fool, it falls absolutely flat with me, you deceitful "sack of manure." Despite that, I remain more than happy to make fun of whatever stupid nonsense you put forth.

hbdansby

There are a number of articles on the “carbon budget,” which is a budget we cannot exceed if we want to keep global warming below some limit deemed critical, such as 1.5 deg C or 2 deg C. The rule of thumb is that 80% of the known fossil fuels reserves (oil,coal and gas) must be left in the ground. It Is a great moral and political challenge is keep our hands off those burnable resources.

billnonymous

The charlatans who concocted that silly "carbon budget" cannot say that if we follow that laughable budget to a "T" that the 'global warming' will still not exceed this 'critical level' you speak of. They are GUESSING it will. 80% is the rule of thumb? You geniuses don't even know how much is in the ground as it is. We're still discovering massive new sources of fossil fuels. So how on earth (whose CO2 emissions you cannot control, by the way) are you going to determine what 80% of an unknown, constantly changing number is? Just more guessing by people who have no idea what they're talking about. I think the great moral challenge is to stop LYING to people, with your GUESSING GAMES, like you have been for the last 50 years with your phony alarmist nonsense that, to date, none of which has come anywhere close to being true. The great political challenge is to get politicians to stop trying to trick stupid Americans with nonsensical things like trading higher taxes for "energy dividends". But once politicians realize they won't get new taxes out of this global warming or cooling or changing or whatever 'bull manure' name you're currently giving this scam, they won't give a rat's patoot about it anymore and move on to some other cause that will become America's next catastrophe that only a hundred billion dollars in tax revenue can solve. 80%! Delusional!!!!

bishopsboy

An interesting read for those with an open mind: "No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

LVW

Bb: Well, that's cute, but a 7-paragraph, non-published paper from a guy from the University of Turku is hardly proof of anything. Notice the references consist of one book section and a bunch of the first author's own papers. It's exactly this kind of rubbish that deniers often cite to support their inaccurate and uninformed claims.

From Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming:

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

LVW

Got cut off. From Non-peer-reviewed manuscript falsely claims natural cloud changes can explain global warming

Flawed Reasoning: The authors' argument claims a correlation between cloud cover/relative humidity and global temperature proves that the former caused the latter without investigating whether they have the relationship backwards.

Inadequate support: The source of their claimed global cloud dataset is not given, and no research on their proposed mechanism for climate change is cited.

Fails to provide correct physical explanation: The manuscript incorrectly claims that the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide is caused by release from ocean waters. It also provides no explanation for the claim that an increase in relative humidity causes global cooling.

Programmer

The ocean does absorb and release CO2.

billnonymous

I still haven't heard from the geniuses in here as to how they plan to actually control the oceans and land so it releases the perfect amount of CO2 for humans.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, you certainly have your ruffled panties in a bunch. The paper’s author was one of the UN IPCC report peer reviewers. I have a difficult time believing he is not an expert in the field. Consequently, I have a difficult time believing his work is bogus just because it pokes holes in the global warming hoax. Neither you nor I are experts in that field but he is. I take his word over yours. Please show where his peers in the scientific community have validly discredited his work.

hbdansby

There is no particular reason for you to accept the conclusions of this one paper over the thousands of others that formed the basis of the conclusions of the IPCC. On the other hand, it is possible this paper debunks everything that has been developed by the climate science community. If so, I have complete faith that said community will review the paper and integrate it into their scientific conclusions. By the way, the effect of the paper being correct, that climate change is not related to the burning of fossil fuels, will be to slow the transition to cleaner sources of energy, and traditional environmental problems will continue and increase. The mother of necessity that would have been anthropogenic climate will no longer portend.

billnonymous

There is no particular reason to believe the thousands of others either, they all follow the same false prophet, Arrhenius, who was proven to have been 'barking up the wrong tree' from the start. Most of them don't hold up under peer review and wind up being corrected, just like ohhhh, EVERY SINGLE IPCC report ever released.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, sorry I didn’t click on your link above before posting. I will take a good look.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, I looked at your link but was not able to verify the accuracy of its rebuttal. Some of the posters were green behind the ear postdocs - probably not real experts yet. One reviewer was from the “hockey stick” scandal university and is obvious biased. Thirdly, funding for the site comes from organizations interested in “social change” whatever that means. Kauppinen is a legitimate scientist with good credentials and a CV better than yours: http://users.utu.fi/jyrkau/jyrki%20kauppinen/

LVW

Bb: Yes, he has done a ton of work in spectroscopy, but that doesn't change the fact that this short note is far removed from a legitimate research paper. It is so surprising that I can't help but wonder if someone else forged his name to write this junk and stick it on Archives to fuel the denier movement.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, your concerns are noted. Scientists sometimes post to the archive to keep others from publishing before they do. I don’t know if that is the case here or not. I agree the work should go through the proper peer review process if it can get a fair review. The review process is not always fair when someone’s research opposes current dogma.

billnonymous

"Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CANNOT compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature” “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is MISSING” (in the models) "We do NOT consider computational results as experimental evidence" (because it yields contradictory nonsense) It simply exposes that the IPCC is fudging their data, as they have been caught doing for DECADES! Why do you think scientists quit the IPCC and work to debunk their reports?

hbdansby

These right wing posters herein—which is all the posters except LVW—are sufficiently intelligent and educated to write posts and read materials to support their positions, and yet they ignore the blatantly obvious and find ways to dispute it, namely, the near universal acceptance that we are in deep trouble from the warring of the atmosphere from 200 years of massive burning of carbon based fuels that took hundreds of millions of years to lay down. What can they possibly gain by such denial?

LVW

HbD: They are concerned that people will make a ton of money off an early push to renewables, at our expense, and as far as that goes, I can't blame them. After all, people made and continue to make a ton of money off of fossil fuels. And one way to prevent that is to deny the science behind climate change. So I understand the first point, but I have more faith in the integrity of legitimate science than they do, so I disagree with the second point. (I should add that I also have very little confidence that we humans have the will to do what it takes to dial back carbon emissions. It seems to me that everybody is for the environment until they have to sacrifice anything to save it.)

Programmer

Ah yes, the standard CAGW psuedoscience nonsense where their version of science is the only correct conclusion even though it is mostly conjecture and violates the laws of physics and yet anyone else is a denier or ignorant or a wingnut.

hbdansby

I agree that the burden falls largely on our generation to make the investment to stem climate change. One way to mitigate that burden is with a carbon tax and dividend. By collecting the tax and then paying it all back to tax payers, the lower 67% of income earners gain as much or more than the carbon tax costs them, while the effect of the tax is to bias the economy away from fossils and inefficiency. I also think that while climate change is the necessity that is the mother of inventions that will result, those inventions will raise the standard of living for all people in rather short order.

billnonymous

What is obvious is that the many dire predictions made by 'left wing' scientists, and promoted by left wing charlatans, like yourself, have failed to materialize. Decades of flawed and exposed IPCC reports, decades of 'revisions' and 'explanations' and fresh new rounds of dire predictions that can only be solved by ridiculous things like "carbon tax and dividend." These left wing posters in here are sufficiently intelligent and educated yet they ignore the blatantly obvious conclusion that it will not work for more than a year or two before the higher costs exceed the dividends received. They just find ways to dispute it, namely, by using their near universal rejection of BASIC ECONOMICS. Left wing charlatans will say things like "near universal acceptance" and in another post I cited where NASA claimed 97% of the papers they reviewed support the notion of human caused global warming. Wow, that’s certainly near universal, now, isn’t it? However, if NASA included the reports they chose to 'set aside.' (you know, the ones that concluded it’s probably not humans) that 97% sinks down to 32%. Which is more like near universal rejection. See, it’s the charlatans at NASA, and the IPCC, and YOU, who try to sell us that PHONY 97% and intentionally lie and alter results to make things seem far worse than they are. At this point, used car and snake oil salesmen have more credibility than these climate change charlatans.

billnonymous

I just saw you posted this study, I just made a post about it too. It will be summarily dismissed by the dansby's of the world who see their grip on economic control and endless tax revenue slip through their greedy little fingers. Here is another article on that and also how NASA's data is forecasting that the next 40 years will be so brutally cold it will result in crop loss and famines. Thank God all of us humans burning fossil fuels resulted in having way more tillable (and CO2 absorbing) land then we've ever had! https://electroverse.net/new-scientific-paper-proves-clouds-control-the-climate-not-man/

bootsielawson

All I want to know is why green houses pump CO2 into them and no one dies. Nuclear submarines have extremely high CO2 for months and no one dies?

hbdansby

The concern about CO2 is not its toxicity, but rather it’s role in absorbing heat from the sun. It is a physics issue, not a chemical or biological issue. CO (carbon monoxide), one of the gases that comes out of a car’s tailpipe, is quite toxic.

Programmer

Are those greenhouse gasses, which are only so by definition because they are "IR active", heated by the sun or heated by the surface? If they are heated by the sun, then they are cooling the surface because half the heat is reflected by the GHGs back to space. If they are heated by the surface then they can't make the daytime surface any hotter than surface because the atmosphere is cooler than the surface and heat always flows from hot to cold unless work is done. Of the GHGs, water vapor at 4% concentration is 100 times more prevalent than CO2 at .04% concentration.

bishopsboy

billy raises a valid and very good question regarding the ideal atmospheric CO2 level. According to those working in the biological sciences, over the last 500 million years, the atmospheric CO2 levels have varied greatly between 180 and 4000 ppm, and currently, it is close to 400 ppm, one-tenth upper historical levels. Life has flourished on Earth that entire time. So what exactly is the ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration to support life on Earth? History says it can vary by a wide range with no harm to life.

Chief601

I'm interested in the answer to bishopsboy's question. Anyone have anything?

Programmer

Chief, theoretically 1200 ppm is ideal for plant life growth and below 300 ppm is dangerously close to plants not being able to sustain photosynthesis. Indoors most homes and businesses are around 600 ppm and the ISS is currently around 5000+ ppm down from 7000 ppm.

bishopsboy

Programmer, I see no one has refuted your science based facts. [smile]

hbdansby

And we certainly do not want to interfere with your driving your Ford 150.

billnonymous

Or any of the hundreds of CO2 belching private jets used by Hollywood phonies and hypocrites like Gore and Steyer, right? Or is it just the F150s a conservative drives that agitates you?

hbdansby

Gore and Steyer use the same transportation system that everyone else in society uses, one based largely on fossil fuels, but they have devoted their lives to moving off of that energy system. That is not hypocritical. The typical conservative denies the need to move off fossil fuels so that he can continue his current lifestyle. That is hypocritical. Gore and Steyer function at a level of societal ethics that you might not be able to comprehend.

billnonymous

Steyer's not a hypocrite? He made his wealth mainly from coal. I never said, ever, once, that we didn't need to move off of fossil fuels, that's just you pulling that stupid liberal tactic of attempting to put words in my mouth and then trying to call me out for them. You do this *incessantly*, it's PATHETIC! I've said, many times, on this very board, that the **free market** will have us done with fossil fuels within a few decades. Pull your head out of your behind, recognize the words I TYPE and not the ones you want to believe are rattling around that 5 cent head of yours, please and thank you. Gore made millions playing people like you for suckers, something you've yet to comprehend. Steyer is a fool who will either run as an Independent and hand the election to Trump or run as a Democrat, never get a sniff of the nomination and hand the election to Trump, either way I'm fine with it.

hbdansby

Billnonymous says: “I never said...that we didn't need to move off of fossil fuels...I've said, many times...that the **free market** will have us done with fossil fuels within a few decades.” The problem is that Billnonymous denies the necessity to move of fossil fuels due to the pressure of climate change, the need to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees C. There is nothing about climate change that drives the free market. We have competition for fossil fuels because of decades of rather weak government incentives to develop alternative sources of energy like wind and solar and technologies like electric vehicles and energy efficient buildings. Further, there is more than enough accessible cheap oil, coal and natural gas to destroy the climate.

billnonymous

dansby lied his butt off when he said: "Further, there is more than enough accessible cheap oil, coal and natural gas to destroy the climate." Humans can burn every single drop of oil and every lump of coal we can squeeze out of the ground and not come anywhere close to 'destroying the climate'. Humans will be just fine after it's all burnt up, too. It's downright amusing how silly you sound trying to make things seem scary. You're so full of manure and hot air that your CO2 emissions rival that of China.

LVW

Bb: Life will certainly flourish no matter what, but an inland sea in North America is probably not what we'd like.

hbdansby

And an inland sea besieged by tropical disease and millions of climate refugees competing for beachfront property.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, it sounds like a nice place to fish and enjoy the beach!

LVW

Bb: My point is that when the temperature rises, the earth will do just fine. The problem is that we might not. There are enormous costs we will face, from the loss of expensive coastal real estate to migration from inhospitable regions to others, etc. Those who bellyache about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions seem to ignore those other costs. The two questions are: (1) how do the costs compare, and (2) can we realistically do enough to prevent rising temperatures anyway? I think the second question is the only valid one the deniers are raising.

bishopsboy

Dear LVW, your concerns are noted, but in my humble opinion, they are grossly overblown. The loss of expensive coastal real estate will be replaced with new expensive coastal real estate. If anything, it will result in some wealth redistribution over many decades, which you liberals should love. Additionally, everyone living near the coast needing to relocate another a mile or two or ten further in land over a 50 to 500-year period is not going to cause chaotic mass migration anywhere. It’s just not. And likewise, for those moving from newly inhospitable regions to newly hospitable ones. Sure, there will be some population movement and migration over time, but that in and of itself does not imply the process will lead to massive uprising and disorder or a lowering of overall standards of living for anyone.

bishopsboy

Dear HBD, not all inland seas (i.e., Black Sea, the Great Lakes) are besieged with disease and refugees.

billnonymous

Inland seas, disease, refugees, why not throw in invading space aliens and big scary monsters emerging from under our beds while they're at it? Just more 'scare tactics' from the delusional lunatics on the left who are desperately trying to convince us to hand over all of our money to them so they can try to control something we know they have no ability to control.

hbdansby

I answered the question, but because my answer was rational and not suited for an entertaining attack by the crazies herein, no one responded, except Billnonymous, who illogically changed the subject from what an ideal concentration would be to how we get to that ideal concentration. This kind of non sequitur is very destructive of discussion.

billnonymous

illogically? You cited a range (call it 280-415) so I ask how you geniuses are going to make earth's CO2 emissions obey that range and *that* is illogical to you? That's the next logical question, dunceby. It's only a non sequitur to you because you know, as well as everyone else on the planet, that you have no answer for that because you and your kind can not do it, now, later, or EVER. There is no amount of legislation, no amount of policy and no amount of money that is going to allow you to promise us you can accomplish keeping earth's CO2 levels in that range. Suggesting that it can be done by humans? Now THAT is illogical.

hbdansby

Billnonymous likes to say there is nothing puny mankind can do to reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, puny man has been quite capable of INCREASING the concentration from a preindustrial level of 280 to the present 415, and he has accomplished most of that in the last 50 years. It makes sense that if man can create the problem, he can also solve it. Does it not? Now, you can certainly argue that it may be too late, but whose fault is that?

billnonymous

You charlatans cannot prove that if we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars implementing your solutions and reducing human caused CO2 to zero, that the earth’s CO2 emissions won’t keep that level above 415. You’re GUESSING it will, the BEST you have is “well, it should bring it down but we just don’t know.” And they are right about that, you DO NOT know. That is NOT logical, that's GUESSING. Humans create 2-3% of all CO2 emissions, the earth emits 97-98% of CO2 emissions. If you reduce human cause CO2 to zero, then earth will produce 100% of the CO2 emissions. What do you geniuses plan to do about controlling the CO2 emissions that have been seeping out from deep within earth for last 4.2 billion years? Do you really believe you can control that? No, you can not because we ARE puny humans, and those who think they can control things that have been going on for 4.2 billion years unabated, are, like you, beyond delusional.

Programmer

Physics says man is only responsible for 5 percent of the CO2 concentration and the IPCC agrees. Human activity has very little effect on CO2 concentration.

sbsheridan

The "peanut gallery" of climate-deniers generally have little experience in the sciences and limited understanding of the flaws in studies that supposedly "prove" climate change is a hoax. They rant endlessly about statements that turned out not to be true, and academics who are just seeking grant money, but never seem to have much documentation to support their positions. This is why they are generally "tuned out" by those outside the gallery.

bishopsboy

Dear Susan, so those of you enlightened individuals outside the "peanut gallery" can answer billy's questions about ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration? What is the number and why?

hbdansby

The natural earth systems that have prevailed for the last 10,000 years, a period of favorable climate that has enabled modern man to emerge, produced a CO2 concentration of 280 ppm. This resulted in a nice gradient between ice caps on the poles and a hot tropical but livable equator. Any contribution by modern technology is suspect because there generally is no natural counterpart to cancel it out, so the ideal is that we utilize technologies that do not impact the climate. While the ideal is probably 280 ppm, respected scientists have said that if we can get back to 350 ppm, we would have a pleasant enough environment. This does not mean 350 ppm is ideal, but rather that it is simply low enough not to cause major climate disruption. Right now we have 415 ppm, and the weather news each week is already looking like Hollywood disaster movies.

billnonymous

How do you climate kooks plan to keep it at 280? or even 350? Can any of you dreamers guarantee that if we spend trillions to reduce human caused CO2 to zero that earth's emissions won't keep us above 350? No, you can't. You'd be a fool to even suggest you can make that promise and you know it. You know you can't make the promise, they know they can't, I know they can't, even mother superior knows they can't. You're all just guessing and hoping and demanding endless amounts of our money to fund your guessing games. You want a Hollywood disaster movie? Imagine loaning $2,200,000,000 to a film company to make a blockbuster about solving global warming and when you check in on them, they tell you they never shot a second of footage, the money is gone, and they've declared bankruptcy.

hbdansby

The answer to Billnonymous’ question of how we get to 350 is that we get in a time machine and go back to the Kyoto Protocol, around 1995, and provide the leadership to the world in coupling transitioning off of fossil fuels with development of advanced energy and energy efficient technologies.

billnonymous

Let me explain to you the chances climate scientists have to bend CO2 emissions into a range they find suitable. ZERO, NONE, NUNCA, NADA, NIL, nonada, nula, nolla, null, cero, el zippo nachez. You simpletons can spend 100 million billion trillion dollars and never, ever, be able to bend earth's CO2 emissions to whatever range they come up with. If you really think humans can do that, you are delusional.

Programmer

Bishopsboy, they don't answer questions that would directly refute the false points they are trying to make.

hbdansby

I have laboriously answered your questions, ad nauseam, and there are websites like skeptical-science.com that respond to the endless number of myths about climate change, up to about 150 on that site. But people like Billnonymous would simply attack the motives and competence of anyone that differs with their preconceived notions.

Programmer

Mr. Dansby, Why does the Earth have seasons?

hbdansby

Programmer wants to know why the earth has seasons. Like a gyroscope (or top, or spinning bicycle tire) the spinning earth keeps the same orientation in space as it revolves (orbits) around the sun. The axis of rotation of the earth is tilted relative it’s plane of revolution around the sun, with the result that some of the year the northern Hemisphere leans toward the sun and thus has more direct sunlight than the Southern Hemisphere, and Vice versa. Of course, this change in orientation is gradual and continuous. If the earth’s axis of rotation were perpendicular to the plane of its orbit, there would be no change of seasons.

Programmer

And why does the daily temperature change?

Programmer

What are the sun solar cycles and periods for them?

Programmer

What exactly are those physics or thermodynamics equations that show how temperature increases when the concentration of CO2 changes in a gas?

Programmer

What is the actual calculated current global temperature value? Not the how much it's up, 0.47C, over the 40 year running average but the calculated global temperature.

Programmer

Why is the moon which is essentially in the same orbit around the sun as the Earth both hotter and colder than the Earth at times?

billnonymous

and dansby's complete silence is proof of that. I appreciate your optimism that he would though!

Programmer

Why is it cooler under a cloud during the day and warmer under a cloud at night?

Programmer

I stop asking questions here but I have more. I'll give most credit for the one answer. I'd add that the tilt is 23.5 degrees and I'd add how much the average temperature changes at latitude. My point is that are lots of things that affect climate besides what humans do.

sbsheridan

You really can't find that answer on your own???

bishopsboy

Dear Susan, as an uneducated farm boy with an 8th grade education and a deplorable member of the peanut gallery, I wouldn't know how to wade through all the junk science to separate out real scientific fact from fantasy. Besides, it's too much fun reading all the posts from the hoaxers as they "explain" the "real" science to my unenlightened self. [smile]

prodigalson

MS Sheridan, while you're explaining to bishopsboy (who is, by his own admission, an uneducated farm boy) the answer to his CO2 question, perhaps you could also explain to him how you came to the conclusion that the "right" to an abortion is enshrined in the first amendment to the U.S. constitution.

billnonymous

now THAT is funny! you constantly demand that posters provide you answers you could easily find on your own! you know, it's true, you *are* always good for a laugh.

billnonymous

I have cited organizations and reports that have exposed major errors in the reports that come from the likes of the IPCC. No one, including you or dansby, has yet to point out the flaws in them. Why don’t you do that? Laziness? Tell me, mother superior, in all of your worldly knowledge of all things climate change, tell us peanut gallery members what the correct amount of CO2 we should strive to allow earth and its inhabitants to produce is? And do you feel confident humans can stop the unbelievably massive amount of CO2 that has been seeping out from deep inside of the earth for the last 4.2 billion years? Surely you superiors have the answers for us.

BoDuke319

The phrase "As a college biology professor" might as well be "since I have no actual experience in the matter..."

billnonymous

at least she didn't say she's a Boston University graduate who spent $300,000 earning a degree that led to a fabulous career as a bartender, slinging drinks and exposing her cleavage to drunk men hoping for better tips, like current "climate change" expert AOC did.

hbdansby

Where do you get this stuff? And why do you seek it out?

billnonymous

She said she took out $300,000 in loans, she said she went to BU, she admitted the she was a bartender after college. Her degree was in international relations or something worthless like that and if you ever saw her interview with Margaret Hoover, you know she knows nothing about international relations, and even less about climate change. The dingbat is a surefire one term wonder and she'll be back to slinging drinks after her next election.

LVW

Someone who spent their adult life studying the biological sciences doesn't stand a chance against the DN-R peanut gallery!

billnonymous

The same 'peanut gallery' that has been subjected to a half a century of wild claims by these studious adults. Claims that have not come anywhere close to being correct. The same adults who concluded we must produce and consume more ethanol to mitigate environmental damage while failing to ‘predict’ the enormous environmental damage ethanol production has caused. The same adults who spent their life studying this 'problem' still, to this very day, cannot answer even the simplest questions posed to them about their cause. They’ve been at this for decades and as I said, ask 100 one them what the ideal CO2 level for earth is and you will get 100 different answers for a 100 different reasons. Get back to me when these studious adults can agree on something other than 'we need an endless supply of taxpayer funding'.

billnonymous

It morphed into "climate change" because the "global warming" mantra doesn’t sell too well when the planet is actually cooling. You can push the government all you want but 97% of the CO2 emissions on earth are not caused by humans and are uncontrollable by humans, before, now and forever. Many climate change 'geniuses' cannot even agree on simple questions like, What is the right amount of CO2 emissions for earth? Can we get to and maintain that level with your solutions? What if we get there and we find out you were wrong? 100 different geniuses will give you 100 different answers for 100 different reasons. There is NO consensus on the goal or how to get there, but there IS consensus that they need billions of dollars, right now, or we're all dead. It's not unlike what robbers say to their victims. The GOP has always been for allowing free market solutions and that is why those big evil oil corporations are actually leading the US (and the entire world) in emission reductions. What the Dummyrats/liberals are demanding is TAX POLICY. An endless supply of taxpayer dollars to lavish on sham corporations, like they did under Obama, with Solyndra and 40+ other companies, who took multi billions of taxpayer dollars, donated millions of it back to Dummyrats and their PACs, (public reporting records have proven they have done this) then declare bankruptcy and steal the rest of our money. To liberals and the "keystone scientists," THAT is their goal of "climate change" solutions. Liberal policies regarding ethanol production have been proven to have wrecked hundreds of acres of animal habitats, destroyed tillable farmland, poisoned well systems and waterways and even created a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. How much damage will their next 'solution' do to the very planet they are trying to save?

hbdansby

A relatively small group of people is responsible for bringing an end to human civilization on this planet. Without US leadership on the climate issue, it has always been unlikely that mankind would get the job done. US leadership has been blocked by a Republican Party that has demonstrated a demonic level of energy for several decades, now. They get elected year after year, despite doing almost everything wrong and offending almost all voting constituencies. Their coup de grace has been the nomination and election of Donald Trump, the joke of New York City. My congratulations to those that belong to that group or support it.

billnonymous

Republicans have been promoting the policies that have led to the US leading THE ENTIRE WORLD in emission reductions, what else do you want? No one else is coming anywhere close to us in emission reductions. All the Democrats have accomplished is passing laws that have resulted in multi billions of taxpayer dollars disappearing into now bankrupt organizations that did NOTHING to solve the 'problem' that they STILL cannot define. And, as I said, the ethanol experiment disaster created more damage that it solved. Way to go, Dummyrats! And the morons on the left are now saying they want to do the same thing with the Green New Steal. Republicans get elected year after year because Dummyrats are exposing themselves as the socialist criminals we always knew they were, including you. I'll ask you what I asked mother superior, please tell us peanut gallery members what the correct amount of CO2 we should strive to allow earth and its inhabitants to produce is? And do you feel confident humans can stop the unbelievably massive amount of CO2 that has been seeping out from deep inside of the earth for the last 4.2 billion years? Surely, when your TDS subsides, you'll come up with answers that many scientists you hold in high esteem disagree with.

hbdansby

You are full of fear that the problem of climate change will result in policies that will impact your pocketbook. Has life been that hard for you?

billnonymous

Wow, a TDS infected liberal jamming words in my mouth and then attempting to call me out for them. That’s only happened like 1,000 times before. Is that what you think I’m upset about after reading my posts? Something I never mentioned in any of them?? I’m upset I may have to pay more taxes? Is that it? Listen, grandpa, I live extremely comfortably, I quit working before 40 and my income still has me solidly in the 1%. The ends met a long time ago and you would be envious of how cushy my life is. As I explained before, Democrats only want to create things like Green New Deals so they can take over economies through legislation, install socialist policies, and set up scams like they did with Solyndra, and Evergreen Solar, and SpectraWatt, Beacon Power, Nevada Geothermal, SunPower, First Solar, Babcock and Brown, Ener1, Amonix, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard and Kelsey Solar Group, Johnson Controls, Brightsource, ECOtality, Raser Technologies, Energy Conversion Devices, Mountain Plaza, Inc., Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company, Range Fuels, Thompson River Power, Stirling Energy Systems, Azure Dynamics, GreenVolts, Vestas, LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power, Nordic Windpower, Navistar, Satcon, Konarka Technologies Inc. and Mascoma Corp who all stole every last cent of taxpayer money they were given, while donating millions of it to Democrats. You mention free market solutions, which are currently working excellently for us, to a Democrat and they respond with “we can’t control that, we can’t tax that, we can’t steal from that, we can’t manipulate that, so we HATE that!” Green New Steals are just the kind of scams that charlatans like YOU want. Legalized theft of taxpayer dollars, no oversight, no accountability, no return on investment and NO SOLUTIONS that have actually helped. You are all crooks and liars.

DANT

If you think man will save the planet you are loonier than I ever imagined!

hbdansby

If man undoes the harm he has done to the atmosphere, it will done despite the opposition of people like most of these on this blog.

billnonymous

Those that you consider "opposition" are the ones who FULLY support the FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS that are in place RIGHT NOW and have the US LEADING the ENTIRE WORLD in emission REDUCTIONS and will have us off of fossil fuels in a few decades. No IPCC needed, no need for global 'accords' that no one abides by, no endless taxation policies needed, no giving billions in US taxpayer dollars to other countries, no need for crooked socialist Green New Steals (which they admit has NOTHING to do with climate change). You can take "despite" and shove it where there is no sunshine! All your ilk have come up with is delusional pipe dreams and stupid solutions like using ethanol which has proven to have caused enormous damage to our environment. Republican supported policies are doing more, FAR MORE, than ANY stupid, worthless, ineffective nonsense you charlatans are pushing. If only you thieves could disappear the excess CO2 like you disappear billions of taxpayer dollars, you would have 'solved' this 'problem' years ago.

bishopsboy

Dear Professor Anne, I’m hoping the democrats allow a climate debate in the primaries too. It’ll be fun watching the nuts come out of the woodwork trying to out socialist each other with one wacky green new deal after another. It’ll also guarantee Trump’s reelection since the public will see how extremely out of touch with reality the DNC has become.

prodigalson

I agree with you Mufalme Bishop. That would be fun to watch. And one more thing that Professor Anne failed to mention was the great “Global Cooling” scare of the 1970s, which the lefties don’t talk about anymore. I wonder why that is?

bishopsboy

Prince Prodigal, "global cooling" disappeared when the money dried up and lefty wingnuts started "adjusting" the data to invent global warming and a new revenue stream to support socialism.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.