Top Climate Story Of 2016

Due to prevailing winds retaining ice in the Arctic basin, and cold cloudy summer weather, there has been a massive expansion of thick Arctic ice this summer towards the Russian side. The same ice which is keeping the ship of fools from getting through the Northeast Passage.

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160808DMI Modelled ice thickness

According to global warming theory, the expansion of ice will produce positive feedback, and cool the planet.  You won’t hear this story from any government agencies, because they are paid to lie about the climate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

341 Responses to Top Climate Story Of 2016

  1. David Blake says:

    The Arctic ice tracks the AMO. When the AMO turns down, the ice will turn up. Then we will have a global cooling “crisis”. Again.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1978/scale:-1/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1978/mean:12/normalise

    Note AMO is inverted in plot.

  2. Robertv says:

    Important scientific research for vodka drinkers.

    https://www.rt.com/viral/355293-study-sex-stoned-drunk/

    While many may not have been aware that a debate was raging among the scientific community as to whether sex was better when drunk or high, researchers at New York University have finally figured it out.

  3. Aurora Svant says:

    It’s remarkable how the 2016 curve is close to the average !

  4. Andy DC says:

    The ship of fools have done a great job showing the world that the Arctic has NOT melted!

  5. Steve Fraser says:

    For this plot the NW passage is …. Not so much. Depending on wind, may be dicey if the Northabout ever gets that far….

    • tonyheller says:

      The NW Passage will start to freeze up in ~35 days. They would have to cover about 130 miles per day to make it through.

  6. BobbyK says:

    You know what? I’m so sick of this debate, I’m so sick of any skeptic site I go to there’s always someone in the comments who has their reasons as to why the skeptics are wrong and don’t understand the science or deny the science and have their heads buried in the sand. I try my best to be skeptical, I really do, but the arguments made by those who say that it’s not a scam are extremely convincing but then that’s why I come here and reach out to you guys because I’m sick and tired of CAGW always being on my mind 24/7. I’m tired of going back and forth and always being worried. I just want to be happy, I have a wife who is skeptical as well and gets upset when I try to stress my worries about this to her. Too many people who argue that NASA and NOAA aren’t messing with us, that this truly is settled science, 97% agree, 99% agree and those who disagree aren’t climate scientists and don’t know what they’re talking about. Too many people citing the sources of the peer-reviewed papers and the credibility of many climate scientists who say CAGW is happening and that human activity is making it worse. Sometimes I get to the point of thinking to myself if it is happening please let it be after my lifetime or please let something else take me out before it all hits the fan. I don’t want to be thinking or feeling like this, it’s ruining me and I really do need help. I’m so sorry for coming to you people like this, I know I’m doing it a lot and I’m sure people here are already sick of me, I don’t blame you. But for anyone who loves to debunk these topics, please feel free to do so with these 2 certain sites
    https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming please forgive me if I’m a bother, really just looking for peace of mind here

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Back on the meds Bobby!!

    • Neal S says:

      It really is quite simple. CAGW *IS* all a big SCAM!!! All the predictions have been falsified. Yet there is nothing that could convince the ‘true believers’ that it ain’t so. You’ve been lied to practically your whole life. It isn’t a surprise that it is hard to believe the truth when it gently comes a calling.

      If you follow the money, the money is all about perpetuating the scam. Is it any wonder that so many people are willing to tell lies when their livelihood depends upon it? You have been shown so many times in so many ways that there are those who would wish to use CAGW as a means to their end to gain world domination. Pinky and the Brain would love it.

      The only peace of mind you can hope to have, is to finally realize that you have been fed lies about CAGW being real. Then comes the real worries. The people who are pushing CAGW may wind up getting their way.

      Just about the only thing you can do right now about that, is to see that the Hildebeast is NOT elected. Vote for Trump and encourage all who you know to do the same. And then also spread the word to others about how CAGW is all a big SCAM. While the chances of convincing people may be low, the more they hear it from friends, colleagues, and neighbors, the better the chance they may finally come around.

      If you have a brain use it. And if you are using your brain, it should be clear. CAGW is all a big SCAM!

      And if you have done the best you can, then stop worrying. What will happen will happen. At least if you have done what you can, you can stop blaming yourself. I’ll revive and redefine what Camus already called … active fatalism.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Just forget about it.

      it just ISN’T happening to any extent to be even the slightest bit concerned about.

      Find something REAL to worry about if you really feel the need to worry. !!

    • fourtimesayear says:

      Perhaps some earlier posts would help convince you it’s not happening? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/sea-level-challenge/
      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/no-indication-of-sea-level-rise-in-miami/
      And one from a Tweeter: https://twitter.com/DaveMyFace/status/762142577848033280
      People are still buying and building on supposed sinking islands and prime shoreline as well. Nobody is evacuating Manhattan or Florida. Or Tuvalu. Stop reading alarmist material and start looking at real images instead of photo-shopped images of make believe sea level rise.

    • Robertv says:

      Don’t worry be happy Lyrics

      https://youtu.be/C7zjIMm6IqQ

    • Gail Combs says:

      BobbyK,

      It is quite simple ALL energy, except for geothermal, comes from the sun. CO2 can not CREATE energy it can only slow energy headed out to space. However the CO2 waveband is saturated and below the tropopause the energy absorbed by CO2 is passed off the another gas which then rises. (from Drs Will Happer and Freeman Dyson and Robert Brown of Duke)

      Paraphrasing Dr. Brown.
      What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
      That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

      When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.

      In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

      Dr Happer in his lecture for physics grad students at NCU agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

      See my old comments: Dr Robert Brown and Gallopingcamel (also a physicist) and Dr. Happer

      That leaves the SUN. So SEE:
      A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

      PAPER: Usoskin, I.G., Hulot, G., Gallet, Y., Roth, R., Licht, A., Joos, F., Kovaltsov, G.A., Thebault, E. and Khokhlov, A. 2014. Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity Astronomy and Astrophysics 562: L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423391.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey BobbyK! In the old days, the powerful would enslave the weak with swords and chains. They still do, but now the sword is aimed at your mind, and the chains are made from continual fear. You have been enslaved.

      Do something in defiance of your fear, something that puts you back in touch with the real world. Buy a kayak and take it to a stream. Teach yourself to paint. Read a book and then discuss it with an acquaintance. Learn another language. Take a friend to lunch, your treat. DO SOMETHING POSITIVE AND PRODUCTIVE. It takes years to become enslaved and will take time to get out of it. The only way to stop doing something is to do something else! DO SOMETHING POSITIVE IN YOUR LIFE AND DO IT TODAY.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      BobbyK,

      Your two links are a perfect reason why they are not credible. They employ the Authority fallacy and the Consensus fallacy as well. Worthless for Empirical driven research which requires they be reproducible by others.

      Here are a few fallacies to learn about:

      “argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an “expert” or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.”

      “bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.”

      http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

  7. handjive says:

    BobbyK, The Climate Anxiety Doctor Is “In”!

    “In the psychological literature, there is an increasing body of research demonstrating the toll that [Doomsday Global Warming] can take.

    [Doomsday Global Warming] can affect mental health both as a result of individual significant weather events, and as a result of more gradual changes in climate.

    A common thread running through all these effects is fear of an increasingly uncertain future, and the anxiety that fear generates is often not constructively addressed.”

    https://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/climate-anxiety-doctor
    . . .
    Obviously, if one doesn’t ‘believe’ in the Doomsday Global Warming, you won’t damage your mental health.

    You should try it.

  8. BobbyK says:

    You guys are really great, I can’t stress how much all of you help me and calm my worries and how much I appreciate it. Though there’s still one thing from my last post that I didn’t see answers to in the comments that followed, unless I was mistaken, and that was what any of you had to say in relation to these 2 sites https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming and feedback on these would be highly appreciated

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Bobby,

      I don’t have the time and expertise to help with the specifics of your affliction but let me tell you about a universal remedy I’ve been using.

      You see, I live in Progressive Boulder and as things happen to be around here, it is not unusual that I am talking to a person about something completely unrelated—like another street being dug up again—when all of a sudden she screams something about global warming, or Republicans killing prairie dogs or not wanting people to have healthcare because they want them to die.

      I’ve been in quite a few exposed situations in my life but this is always totally unexpected and upsetting. I don’t always take it well and I get startled. Not knowing your specifics I don’t dare to compare it but while I learned to handle these situations I sometimes need to calm my nerves when I get home in the evening. I don’t like bothering doctors with it and I never consulted them about it but I found that self-medication works wonders.

      I’ve been using Scotch on the rocks for many years now and I have yet to be disappointed. As a matter of fact, last night I took several consecutive doses, then did some more work into early morning hours and went to bed completely calm. I slept like a baby until I had to get up for a meeting and I still feel the good after-effects. As a matter of fact, I can’t remember which Progressive moron upset me yesterday—if any of them did at all—and the best thing is I don’t give a damn.

      This 100% organic and natural over-the-counter remedy has always worked for me and I know people for whom it’s been a life-altering miracle.

    • Gator69 says:

      Bobby, why do you fall for obvious alarmist propaganda? Statements by organizations do not necessarily reflect the views of their memberships. That only .001% of climate scientists reject global warming says nothing about the cause of that warming. Any idiot knows the Earth has warmed since the LIA.

      How can you trust anything said by people who are so obviously dishonest? If alarmists were not constantly lying and cheating you could then point too their work as meaningful. But they do lie and cheat, and are not worth our time or concern except to stop them from enslaving and killing more innocent humans.

      You need a good George Patton Sicily intervention.

  9. BobbyK says:

    I get what you’re saying, I wish I understood all of this better. It can just be extremely difficult to believe that so many people from NASA and NOAA and whatever organizations that tell us that CAGW is happening are lying to us. That so many highly respectable scientists would all be in on a lie just to make money. It doesn’t make sense. You’d think by now someone in on this would’ve had enough and come clean but that doesn’t seem to be happening. It’s something that can be very difficult to accept especially when NASA is posting articles on their website all the time about ice hitting records low. I know Tony likes to refer back to an article they posted last October about gaining ice but since then they’ve posted many more about the ice loss. I pointed this out in a comment on an earlier post not too long ago but didn’t get any feedback on it.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Bobby, the Communist Party ballots in the former Soviet Bloc typically achieved 98-99% approval rates of the electorates. I understand the rates in North Korea are higher, somewhere between 104-105%.

    • Neal S says:

      Help Trump get elected, and then see how quickly CAGW disappears when $$$$s are no longer being thrown to support it.

      The fact that you can’t understand something, and do not believe it, does not mean that it isn’t so.

      Consider a field of sunflowers. Is it a massive conspiracy that causes all the sunflowers to face the sun during the course of the day as they are growing? Do the sunflowers talk to each other and come to a consensus as to which direction they will face at any time?

      No. Simply, each sunflower independent of any others, is reacting to the stimulus of the sun.

      You can see for yourself with historical newspapers, that what we are now being told does NOT match what we had been told before. Large organizations are provably lying through their teeth. You can see for yourself with the tools that Tony has provided, they we are being lied to consistently. And this is using some data from those same organizations that are doing the lying.

    • gator69 says:

      …especially when NASA is posting articles on their website all the time about ice hitting records low.

      Bobby, ice melts.

      Even at current “all time lows”, there is more ice in the Arctic now than the average of the past 9000 years. If I tell you that I am older now than ever before, and that the average age of my past ten years is older than that of any previous decade, does that surprise and shock you?

      Patton awaits.

    • Gail Combs says:

      BobbyK says “…It can just be extremely difficult to believe that so many people from NASA and NOAA and whatever organizations that tell us that CAGW is happening are lying to us. …”

      Actually it is perfectly understandable. Most people have mortgages and families to feed. They are willing to get bullied into lying because of the fear they will lose their job. Look at Dr Gray, Dr Ball, Willie Soon and just recently Tony. Speaking out threatens your ability to survive.

      Regulations now keep people from being able to form the small businesses so easily formed in the 1950s and 60s. Felons are NOT allowed welfare of any sort. food stamps, housing …. and now ‘Climate Den1ers’ are being threatened with legal crimes because we will not shut-up like good little serfs.

      Americans have been gradually herded into boxes where the elite can extract our wealth. Corporate jobs prevent us from advancing and challenging THEIR positions of power or even objecting to the situation.
      ……….

      This is ALL political. For background to understand this read:

      Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization? – The Globalist The decision was made back in the 1930s under FDR to wipe out the USA as a sovereign nation.

      Congressman McFadden 1934 Speeches before Congress McFadden was driven out of Congress and was assasinated when that punishment did not shut him up. (If you do not want to read the whole thing do FIND for the word Russia.)

      Dumbing Down America Our Education system was DELIBERATELY sabotaged to produce good little unthinking serfs over 100 years ago.

      Was Karl Marx and his philosophy about helping the ‘down-trodden’ or was it really about re-enslaving the middle class that had escaped serfdom? My comment on the Karl Marx

      The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

      The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.
      ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

      Sounds like Marx was against a middle class and FOR a serf class and an elite class to me!

      One last point. Do you think you would hear word one about socialism in the Elite owned newspapers WITHOUT the elites blessing?

  10. BobbyK says:

    LOL no it doesn’t shock me, what is shocking is that those who we’re supposed to trust would be so deceitful about something like this. What else I don’t understand is saying that the sea ice is increasing but only on the surface and this is only because of climate change and the claims that even though the sea ice is expanding the land ice is still melting at a fast dangerous rate, I still have yet to see that debunked

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “… I still have yet to see that debunked”

      Bobby,

      I can guarantee you there is a lot of crap out there that never was or will be debunked, not because it was any good but because it was of no consequence anyway and nobody wasted time on it. The only reason so many honest and talented people are spending their time on debunking the global warming crap is because they understand the consequences of letting the totalitarians win.

      Science works differently. When you see people throwing crap on the wall—and when nobody scrubs off immediately what by chance got stuck there—you hear them shout that it’s pure gold, you are not watching science. They were supposed to show credible evidence why the stuff on the wall was not crap, not Tony, you or any reader of this blog!

      They are supposed to show how their hypothesis allows them to come up with predictions and demonstrate that the things they predicted actually happen. Did you not see how they fail again and again, and when it becomes clear they failed they just move the goal posts instead of conceding there was something wrong with their idea in the first place? I’m sure you did.

      But since you can’t stop them from playing like the crooks they are, why don’t you turn it around—Saul Alinsky-style—and make them live up to their own rules? Don’t you ask yourself why after 4 weeks of having the video of Tony’s devastating Omaha presentation at the top of this blog nobody came to debunk it? Don’t you think it’s because they have nothing and they rather shut up and lie low than give Tony a reason to rip them a new one?

      You know that their temperature record manipulations are the foundation of the whole scam and you would think that when Tony bulldozed right through it they would do something—anything—to try and defend it. Why don’t they? They come and nitpick anything they can find and they will cheat, lie and obfuscate to try to make their point. Don’t you think they didn’t come because they have nothing?

      Listen to Tony’s presentation and as he keeps taking them apart ask yourself: Where are they? This makes them look really bad. Why are they not all over this?

      I’m telling you, if you won’t do certain things for yourself it’s not like other people can help you, and there may be a few who will say you got what you deserved.

      Have some respect for yourself and don’t let it happen.

    • gator69 says:

      LOL no it doesn’t shock me…

      Looks like somebody got over their anxiety issues in a hurry!

      My guess is that “Bobby” is not so much a thinker and concerned spouse of a skeptic, as he is a troll. “Bobby” is immune to any logic, and constantly and apologetically steers readers to alarmist BS rather than giving honest weight to real skeptic arguments. Note that “Bobby” never refutes facts, and is an emotional salesman of grantology.

      My apologies to those Patton slapped.

    • David A says:

      Bobby, zero acceleration in SL rise. Consider it debunked.

      Go to NIPCC, thousands of peer reviewed articles sumarised.

  11. BobbyK says:

    Please let me assure you that is not my intention at all, I assumed that your quote “If I tell you that I am older now than ever before, and that the average age of my past ten years is older than that of any previous decade, does that surprise and shock you?” was meant to be humorous. Apparently I was mistaken. I didn’t mean to come off as any kind of troll or trying to steer people towards any kind of alarmism. I come here all the time because I truly respect everyone here who gives good reasons as to why it’s better to not listen to the propaganda. As I said the first time I ever left a comment on here, I don’t understand the science or the math behind all of this and the only reason why I post articles from other sites is to hope to see them debunked so that I can have good reasons to not worry about them. I do have a lot of emotional problems but I’m not a salesman of grantology. I don’t even know what that means. I’m just a person who has the issue of as soon as people out there start talking about doom and gloom, end of the world type stuff, I freak, I panic, and I do anything and everything I can to find good reasons to not freak out and panic. I’m highly appreciative of all the info you’ve given me today and I’m highly apologetic that I took what you said to me in your last comment the wrong way, please accept my apology and forgive me. I promise not to come off the wrong way again. My name is Robert, the first initial of my last name is K but in many cases I prefer to go by Bobby. I’m here to hopefully gain a knowledge that no matter what kind of scary things are said about climate change I know better not to believe it and live a happy and peaceful life, once again my completely honest and sincerest apologies, I meant no disrespect of any kind. I’m so SO sorry Gator.

    • gator69 says:

      Apologies are fine, but I would rather see you think on your own, and not cower every time some mental midget says “boo”. A child could have debunked the links you gave, so why couldn’t you?

      …only .001% of climate scientists reject global warming…

      This is like saying that .001% of solar scientists reject sunrises.

      …NASA is posting articles on their website all the time about ice hitting records low.

      What record? Everyone knows that the Arctic has been ice free before. Ice melts when the planet warms, and everyone (except .001% of climate scientists) knows that the planet has warmed.

      How puny is your knowledge that you do not know these things? I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just trying to understand how you could not see through these meaningless claims.

  12. BobbyK says:

    How puny is my knowledge? Well, I’m 32 years old, I barely graduated high school. Didn’t even do so until I was 21 because in my later teen years I dropped out because I feel into such a huge deep dark depression that I could barely handle stepping out of my own room. I tried college for a little bit, didn’t understand it at all, failed horribly at anything I attempted, eventually I stopped going. The only jobs I’ve ever had are doing either pizza delivery or working at a call center. I currently do tech support for Time Warner Cable. I’ve never had much confidence in myself, probably because I grew up being put down by a verbally abusive bi-polar father and didn’t have much support from my crazy alcoholic mother. I’ve been in some pretty messed up bad situations and for the most part consider myself an uneducated loser. Yet somehow I have the love of a good woman who I’m lucky enough to call my wife. Sorry to open up like this, just trying to give you a good idea of how puny my knowledge is. I fist found this site by googling global warming debunked. As I said I freak out when people start talking about end of the world, you should’ve seen me during the whole 2012 scare. I was a complete mess, almost cost me my marriage. So after reading all of this, I really hope that I don’t come across someone who is secretly trying to steer people towards alarmist BS.

    • Gator69 says:

      Having the love of a good woman means you are not a loser. My advice would be to ignore the alarmists’ BS, and concentrate on keeping your spouse happy. Life is too short to spend it worrying about things that will never effect you.

      • Neal S says:

        Amen to that! Being a good husband is something that is under your control. Best to concentrate on that. Probably more important than anything else you could do. By all means, continue to read and try to learn, but you don’t have to have an answer for everything that is wrong in the media or on the internet. And every time you have a tendency to get worried, just remember that NONE of the prior alarmists predictions have ever come true. So why should you believe ANY of that now??

    • Gail Combs says:

      BobbyK,
      Given your history, having pulled yourself out of that abusive situation means you are a WINNER!

      Not all of us are good at college. That is one of the reasons I have a real problem with the push for every one to get a degree. A good friend of mine who was a successful small business owner in a trade never made it past 6th grade — very poor southern farm family where he had to work on the family farm.

      Many are much better off in a trade which is where their real talents are. Believe me I have a lot more contempt for idiots with Phds than I have for the reality based farmers and trade people.

      My advice is to figure out what you are good at and what you are happy doing and forget the pressure to go for formal schooling. As for education as opposed to schooling, the internet is a wonderful place to learn all sorts of things.

      My Hubby’s grandfather, a stone mason had a fourth grade education in Denmark. He came to this country and read his way through the entire public library. I have no doubt he had more real useful knowledge than most of the idiots teaching in our schools and universities today.

  13. BobbyK says:

    I worry about it now because of everything that’s being said, of course I come here the most and rely on the information here but at the same time my head always asks what if? I get paranoid and think to myself well it is NASA and the NOAA and whoever else who are out there working on this telling us that this is going on and we should be scared. It’s just hard to accept that they’d all be lying. I’m not saying that they’re right, I’m saying i don’t understand and I get paranoid and my anxiety gets the best of me. Especially when so many people argue against the skeptics and say that we’re all gonna be sorry when everything goes south and that we should be listening. People in comments on other skeptic sites or on posts on Facebook about climate change posting articles showing that supposedly climate change is happening or talking about where they live the summers have gotten longer and hotter and the winters have gotten shorter and less cold. If it’s not climate change that’s causing their longer hotter summers or shorter less cold winters then what is it? Or when people come here and argue against Tony’s posts and say he’s cherry picking and all Tony does is call them a moron but he never gives any scientific explanation as to why they’re a moron or why they’re wrong. I know everyone else in the comments does but I wish he would as well. They even opened the olympics with a presentation on global warming showing satellite images of melting ice and rising sea levels. So many people pushing the consensus and how this is the biggest threat that faces us and that we should be worried. Then at the same time I know there’s plenty of skeptics who argue against all of the alarmism and have their reasons for why their data is incorrect or cherry picked or just fear mongering propaganda. So I’m always arguing with myself “what if the skeptics are wrong?” “But look at all the people who are speaking out against what’s being said about global warming?” “But then look at what they’re saying back as to why the skeptics are wrong” I’m so back and forth and twisted up with all of this I don’t know what to do, so badly all I want to believe is that it’s nothing but a scam and all the alarmism is lies or just misunderstood science. People can always argue against what you guys say and you can always argue right back. It’s so confusing. And I worry that it will effect me within my lifetime when they say that things are going to get really bad in the 2030’s. Saying that temperatures are going to get too hot for humans to survive in, and once again I’ve found sites that debunk that claim, and then others that argue right back and say why the skepticism is wrong. Anyways I’m just babbling on and on here, any feedback on this of course is always appreciated, especially when it’s reasons against what I say the alarmists say. It’s just so hard to tell who’s right and who’s wrong and once again please understand I’m not trying to steer anyone against what this site is all about, it’s all due to my paranoia and anxiety. I thank you all so much for your time and replies, look forward to what you have to say to all this.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby says “… If it’s not climate change that’s causing their longer hotter summers or shorter less cold winters then what is it?….”

      Natural variation such as the ocean oscillations (PDO and AMO) plus variations in the sun. Mankind has nothing to do with it. Actually the Holocene especially the Modern Warm Period has had extremely nice mild weather.

      Not only has the warming out of the Little Ice Age been beneficial it occurred as a Step-Change!

      Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 — Naturally.

      ABSTRACT
      An ice core removed from the Upper Fremont Glacier in Wyoming provides evidence for abrupt climate change during the mid-1800s….

      At a depth of 152 m the refined age-depth profile shows good agreement (1736±10 A.D.) with the 14C age date (1729±95 A.D.). The δ18O profile of the Upper Fremont Glacier (UFG) ice core indicates a change in climate known as the Little Ice Age (LIA)….

      At this depth, the age-depth profile predicts an age of 1845 A.D. Results indicate the termination of the LIA was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures around 1845 A.D. and continuing to present day. Prediction limits (error bars) calculated for the profile ages are ±10 years (90% confidence level). Thus a conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the LIA climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10 years, suggesting the LIA termination in alpine regions of central North America may have occurred on a relatively short (decadal) timescale.
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

      Dr. Evans’ Solar Notch-Delay Theory predicts a delay of about 11 years from a change in solar conditions to a change in earth climate.

      So what happened around 1840? Solar Cycle 8. It began in November 1833 with a smoothed sunspot number of 7.3 and ended in July 1843. Max sunspot number ~210. The prior Solar Cycle 7,began in May 1823 with a smoothed sunspot number of 0.1 and ended in November 1833. Max sunspot number ~105. And thus began the Grand Solar Maximum, highest in 3,000 years which has just ended.

      http://www.solen.info/solar/cycles1_24.png

      In the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, Usoskin et al. “present the first fully adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity” covering the past 3,000 years, which record allowed them “to study different modes of solar activity at an unprecedented level of detail.” Their reconstruction of solar activity displays several “distinct features,” including several “well-defined Grand minima of solar activity, ca. 770 BC, 350 BC, 680 AD, 1050 AD, 1310 AD, 1470 AD, and 1680 AD,” as well as “the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19-23, i.e., 1950-2009),” described as “a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia.”

      SEE: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, it is very simple, nobody says that climates do not change. But leftists claim that it is dangerous, and man’s fault. Only leftists believe there is a problem.

      There is no consensus.

      CAGW is purely political, and not science.

      4.5 billion years of precedent says that everything will be just fine.

      There are zero peer reviewed papers that refute natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      Now quit being a hand wringing Nancy, and honor your wife.

  14. BobbyK says:

    Am I being a hand wringing Nancy? I’m so sorry. I’ve gotta admit, this helps a lot. It does calm my nerves. But I do still have some questions. The answers are probably obvious but it’s better to get it confirmed. If the information here is accurate and correct why are there those who argue against it? Why do people come here and tell Tony and others here that the graphs are cherry picked and he’s feeding us misinformation or that the skeptics don’t understand the AGW theory. I’m not saying they’re right, as always, just trying to understand. Is it that they don’t understand the science or do they just so deeply believe all the graphs showing warming and images of melting ice that they’re not willing to consider an opposing theory? I’m posting a comment left by someone on an article about global cooling “The records in sediments and ice cores tell us just how much CO2 affects temperature on Earth, something that can be recreated and examined in the laboratory. It is a shame that people who for some reason think that climate change is a liberal conspiracy believe this hokum add ignore the reality of what is happening now – Arctic sea ice in accelerating decline, Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets melting into the oceans and methane being released into the atmosphere from the thawing permafrost of the northern polar regions.” There are so many who seem so confident in what we’re being told about global warming. Then there’s so many who seem so confident in science that shows the opposite. If the information here is the real science, I’m just trying to understand why so many others say otherwise

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Stop trolling, Bobby. You are annoying.

      I’m just trying to understand why so many others say otherwise …

      Well, OK then. So tell me how you understand these responses and what they have in common:

      Question: “Is the American left in ‘gulag denial’, relating to the systematic oppression and extermination of tens of millions of political dissidents and other undesirables by the Soviet Union?”
      —–
      Response 1: ”The American left is not in gulag denial, not in the slightest bit. Your whole question is nonsensical.”

      – Bruno Rivard, Scientist and Political advocate of the alienated intelligent precariat
      —–
      Response 2: ” It was a prison system, similar to the one you have in the USA, but probably not locking up as large a percentage of the population.

      Not at all like the Nazi system, which was designed to kill millions of people on account of their racial classification.

      Camps as giant prisons were invented by the British in the Boer War. But only the Nazis deliberately used them to kill people.”

      – Gwydion Madawc Williams, Read a lot about the USA, past and present. A bungling pivot of world politics.
      —–
      Response 3: ” Huh? What, exactly, does the “American left” have to do with the Soviet Union?“

      – Anonymous
      —–

      That’s your homework for today, Bobby. If you can understand the thinking behind these responses you will have graduated and you will understand the scourge of mankind.

      You won’t have to ask stupid questions about things you are fully capable of figuring out on your own.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby,
      First there are many PAID disinfo agents. The DNC Wiki leaks showed this to be true. Their goal is to counter information like Tony puts out because by controling CO2 output they control the economy of entire nations.

      Second if you want to know what “The records in sediments and ice cores tell us…” I would suggest what William McClenney, a geologist has written. He has been following the research in Quaternary Science, an inter-disciplinary field of study focusing on the Quaternary period, which encompasses the last 2.6 million years.

      Here are the essays he wrote for WUWT all strung together.
      https://www.sott.net/article/279874-The-End-Holocene

      William was kind enough to send me over 300 of the most interesting papers…

      The other good reference is Lucy Skywalker’s essays which are much easier to read. (William has a warped sense of humor.)
      http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
      http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Ice-CO2-records.htm

      • Gail Combs says:

        Gary Allen tells us why they wish to control the US economy and cripple it by sucking the wealth out of the USA and using our wealth to build up other countries like Mexico, India and China.

        The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen Published June 28th 1976

        Before such a merger can be consummated, and the US becomes just another province in a New World Order, there must at least be the semblance of parity among the senior partners in the deal. How does one make the nations of the world more nearly equal? The insiders determined that a two-prong approach was needed; use American money and know-how to build up your competitors, while at the same time use every devious strategy you can devise to weaken and impoverish this country. The goal is not to bankrupt the US…Rather, it is to reduce our productive might, and therefore our standard of living, to the meager subsistence level of the socialized nations of the world.

        Notice that the plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up.

        You may be assured, however, that the Rockefellers and their allies are not talking about reducing their OWN quality of life. It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of
        the New world Order.

        http://read.genre-books.com/view-books/WQQTO/04-2016/the-rockefeller-file.books

        Decades later you get verification of this goal from Pascal Lamy, former Director-General of the World Trade Organization.
        See: http://www.theglobalist.com/pascal-lamy-whither-globalization/

        The European union is the template “The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now… on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. “

        https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm

    • gator69 says:

      Why do people come here and tell Tony and others here that the graphs are cherry picked and he’s feeding us misinformation or that the skeptics don’t understand the AGW theory.

      Because they cannot accept the truth, which goes against their belief system, and their agenda. They are science deniers. As I stated above, there is not a single peer reviwed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. Period. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

      The records in sediments and ice cores tell us just how much CO2 affects temperature on Earth, something that can be recreated and examined in the laboratory.

      Bullshit. Ice does not trap CO2. Gases migrate in ice over time, and it is not possible to use ice cores to establish CO2 levels.

      In 1992, a group of three otherwise respectable scientists answered this question with a 57-page article that went against the mainstream view [1]. These three dissenters (led by Zbigniew Jaworowski) subsequently endured professional contempt [2], career endangerment [3], and harsh criticism [4]. Between 1992 and 2007, Jaworowski produced three more notorious articles condemning ice core science [5], [6], [7].

      Mainstream scientists argue convincingly against Jaworowski, and they continue to reject him today. A notable exception is Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry, Joel M. Kauffman, who uses Jaworowski’s case to help reexamine the highly controversial issue of human-caused climate change [8].
      Jaworowski and his followers insist that ice cores are invalid media for determining CO2 concentrations in Earth’s prehistoric atmospheres, because:

      1-Ice sheets are NOT closed systems that trap gases mechanically and preserve them indefinitely. Instead, liquid saline water can exist in ice at temperatures below –70° C, within a permeable ice sheet where a capillary liquid network acts as a sieve to redistribute elements, isotopes and micro-particles.

      2-Air recovered from old ice is contaminated during field and laboratory operations.

      3-The widely accepted pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 level of 290 ppm rests on biased rejections of high CO2 readings in ice cores. Early studies on ice cores consistently showed a range of CO2 readings that were higher than later studies – in one case, a study by the same researcher on the same ice core showed different numbers in different years.

      Once again everything you believe to be true, and what is being said by the alarmists, are lies. This is why skeptics know they are right, because the other side is lying and denying science.

      Stop the trolling Bobby, we aint buying it any more. You claimed to have a good woman who is a skeptic, so go and cry to her, we have had more than enough of you.

  15. BobbyK says:

    Gail, I want to thank you in more words than I can say. Those may some very very long papers that discuss a lot of things that are like a total unknown foreign language to me, I could never begin to understand any of it. However, it does go to show me that there are a whole lot more things to consider when it comes to CO2 and climate change then the CAGW theory and what NASA and NOAA tell us. And CW, my deepest apologies, I didn’t mean to come off as trolling, it’s just when all this doom and gloom stuff is eating at your mind 24/7 and affecting your every day life and you want to find a healthy way to live a happy life, you may go to some extremes and may annoy some people to get the answer you’re looking for so you can stop worrying about it. And one more thing I’ve been wanting to tell you Colorado, as intelligent, informative, and helpful as you are, many of your responses offer a good amount of humor, which of course is what I think you’re going for. I think you’re the funniest guy on here

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby, make sure you read the GreenWorldTrust links. they are a bit easier to understand. Lucy started from ground zero and tried to figure things out and write about them in a way that the layman can understand. I suggest you look at the entire site.

      William’s essays are a bit harder going since he quotes extensively from scientific papers.

      For starters take a couple of days to read

      In a Nutshell: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Problem.htm

      Skeptical Climate Science Primer:
      http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

      I find when the going is a bit heavy, I read for about 10 to 15 minutes and then digest what I have read. It may take me a couple of days to get through a really long article especially if I have to look up words I do not understand.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      What do you mean I’m funny, Bobby? Funny how? I mean funny like I’m a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey BobbyK! You tell us that you are unable to understand the science behind the subject, but then repeatedly ask for proof that the CAGW “science” is wrong.

      There is a problem there… You are (metaphorically) saying, “I am completely color blind, but I want you to show me what “green” looks like.”

  16. BobbyK says:

    Colorado, you provide a lot of very good helpful intelligent information but I think at the same time it’s in your nature to have a good sense of humor as well which is not a bad thing. Not saying you’re here to personally amuse anyone, just think you’re a good person who likes to help as well as make people laugh. And Jason, I completely get what you’re saying and you make a very good point, I’m looking for an answer to something I don’t understand, probably why I repeatedly ask.

    • Jason Calley says:

      BobbyK, not understanding science (while a darn shame from my point of view) is not a life threatening condition. But even if you do NOT understand science, that is not your problem. Your problem is that you are worried and depressed, ostensibly about CAGW. My suspicion is that no matter how much science you learn, even if you completely and totally lost any worries about global warming, that it would not make you much happier. Some other problem would grab your attention and you would be just as unhappy as ever. What you need is not more science; what you need is to break the habit of unhappiness and worry. There is an old Buddhist saying that “drop by drop the pot is filled”. We create our world by a long stream of habitual actions and outlooks. You have created a world of worry, and I would guess that it has taken many years for you to perfect your state of constant upset. Consider what benefits you get from your worry. Perhaps you find it pleasant that people take time from their day to pay attention to you, to commiserate with you, to offer you advice (just as I am doing right now.) You may decide that you enjoy the attention so much that you are unwilling to change and thus give up that attention. Then again you may wish to actually do something that will break your current cycle of unhappiness.

      It has taken many drops to fill the pot — and it can only be emptied out drop by drop as well. If you wish to empty the pot, start today, do something small but which counters the expression of worry. Ride a bike. Take a walk around the block. Learn the words of a song. Of course any single action — not even learning masses of science — will never overpower years of habit, but many actions, drop by drop, a little better every day, will make you different and better.

      It is your decision. You may decide to stay as you are. Or not. Your decision.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Jason,

        Excellent advice.

        As a QC engineer I got saddled with answering customer complaints and found myself frustrated (no authority to fix problems) and more and more depressed.

        My solution was to start a small business doing entertainment for kids birthdays. There is nothing like a weekend spent with happy little customers to counteract the misery of a week full of customer complaints!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        “Ride a bike. Take a walk around the block. Learn the words of a song.”

        Watch something uplifting. Funny classics
        or something. Cheer up.

  17. BobbyK says:

    Jason, I don’t want to stay as I am, I do try to find activities that pull me away from my worries but they’re only temporary. And if it’s not what’s said about CAGW, though that is definitely the top of the list, it’s what’s said about endangered bees and that them going extinct will greatly decrease our supply of food, or it being said that we’re currently in the midst of the sixth mass extinction and humans are causing it or right now the doomsday clock is at 3 minutes to midnight. It just seems like right now is a very scary time to be alive and there’s lots of things threatening human existence. Perhaps all this scares me because I’m only 32 years old. Yes I know I’m going to die one day, we all are, and I know it sounds selfish but just as I’m sure as everyone else does I want it to be peaceful when I’m old and grey. I know a lot of the time for many people it doesn’t work out that way, I’m not a complete idiot, I just don’t want to go in some catastrophic event full of pain and fear and chaos. I know a lot of people say there’s no reason to worry about something like that happening within our life time but then a lot of other people say otherwise. I don’t know what the future holds, I want to have hope that I can look forward to living another 60 to 70 years happy and peacefully and I don’t have to worry about something catastrophic happening to the world or the human species during that time, but how times are right now make that difficult to believe.

    • Neal S says:

      Listening to, and believing the lies of the alarmists will make ANY years you have left less than happy. This is regardless of how many that might be.

      So why believe the lies, especially when NONE of the alarmists predictions have been borne out?

      While we do not get to choose our own reality, we do get to choose how we will react to it. For a multitude of reasons, I refuse to believe the lies. And … surprise!!! … I am NOT worried about any of those catastrophic predictions coming true. I suggest you try that.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby,

      Remember there are two reasons for all the doom and gloom.

      #1. If it Bleeds it Leads. Newspapers NEVER have happy stories unless they are the little hometown papers. (Hubby is 5th generation newspaper family.)

      #2. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” ― H.L. Mencken

      As the recent DNC-Wikileaks showed the politicians (democrats) are giving the orders to the newspapers as to what to print.

    • gator69 says:

      … what’s said about endangered bees and that them going extinct…

      Good grief!

      Bobby! Stop it with the alarmist bullshit. You can simply Google the truth…

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/

      … we’re currently in the midst of the sixth mass extinction and humans are causing it or right now the doomsday clock is at 3 minutes to midnight.

      What mass extinction Bobby? Why are you so utterly helpless when it comes to doing your own research troll?

      As long as species have been evolving, species have been going extinct. It is estimated that over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

      List of all species that may have gone extinct since the invention of “CAGW”…

      1979 – Last sightings of the Javan tiger.
      1981 – The Puhielelu hibiscadelphus becomes extinct.
      1981 – Last sighting of the green-blossom pearlymussel
      – The 24-rayed sunstar.
      1985 – The platypus frog
      1989 – The golden toad
      – The Atitlán grebe
      1990 – The dusky seaside sparrow
      1994 – Saint Croix racer
      1997 – The Hainan ormosia

      Ten in forty years. How many species are there? Good question!

      About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm

      So they are predicting 1,450,000 species extinctions? Well, at the current rate, that would take 5,800,000 years :lol:

      Alarmists just aren’t real good with math. Maybe instead of using models, they should try a calculator.

      Enough BS Bobby.

  18. BobbyK says:

    Ok, I really don’t understand why y’all call me a troll. From what I understand, a troll is someone who goes into the comments on blogs and says cruel and hateful things to people or spouts lies to scare them. That’s not what I’m doing here, all I’m doing is addressing my concerns on things and I do it here because I consider this to be the best place to go for these types of things. I came here for help and I don’t want to end up regretting that decision. I’m not trying to BS anyone. I’ve dealt with enough BS in my life, I don’t do it to others cause I know what it feels like. I always thought the responses that I would get here would be more helpful, not insulting my intelligence or judging me. I don’t come here and judge anyone or call them any names, I do everything I can to be completely polite and respectful because i feel the intelligence or everyone else here is far more superior than mine. As far as the article that calls off the bee-ocalypse, as much as I appreciate it, I’ve read it before, why it didn’t help were the comments that followed completely tearing the article and the author to shreds, such as : “Mr Ingraham—do not assume you can read a few papers on CCD and bees and make cogent, authoritative remarks in a newspaper piece—-this piece fails miserably.
    I AM a beekeeper, in Los Angeles, using feral honey bees, making public presentations, teaching beekeeping and selling honey. I am going to fill in your ignorance here with a few salient points. Making splits causes a yield of TWO WEAK hives, which is not the same as having the vigorous, healthy original hive. And just so you know, the splits the commercial folks are making from the survivors of pesticide, fungicide, herbicide exposure on industrial crops are the already weakened colonies that happen to make it. So, the splits are not especially fated to thrive, either. Your little tables showing statistics does not tell the real story of the insults being suffered by ALL pollinators from monocrop, industrial agriculture. The typical Consumerist answer to a problem—“just buy more” bees and queens is not addressing the real problems which are decline in clean forage from toxic chemical exposure, lack of forage diversity, trucking bees all over the country, narrow in-bred genetics. The loss of all pollinators, as well as decline in overall ecosystem diversity from the same insults, is the REAL issue. Your piece is also old ground previously plowed over by that corporate apologist and booster at Forbes, Jon Entine, another geek behind a computer who writes about beekeeping with a singularly narrow and uniformed arrogance. Like your ballyhooed Tucker and Thurman, the “economists” (never far from pontificating for the beauties of the “free market”) the people weighing in on the loss of pollinators and trying to urge us not to be concerned are akin to Climate Change denialists.” “There is a difference between the problem as presented by reporters who sensationalize the situation and the actual problem. There was never any responsible suggestion that apis mellifera were going extinct. Nor is there responsible scientific opinion that CCD is the main problem with bees. See the National Academy of Sciences report documenting that there is a decline in all of our insect pollinators. The author thinks that making splits and buying more bees is an adequate solution to the problems with apis mellifera, neglecting any comment about the strain having to do that puts on commercial beekeepers, increasing costs and business risk. In short, the author has set up CCD as a straw man, and has not done enough research into the real problems to write an informative article.” Higher colony numbers in this case are the equivalent of more calves in a dairy operation. More calves does not equate to more milking cows, let alone more milk. This article is simplistic in the extreme, and basically incorrect for that. Boil it down to this: Bee health is made up of a combination of diet, genetics, external threats (pesticide use, varroa mites, viruses, etc.), and management issues. We bee keepers and our bees are being threatened by all 4. A solution in one area is not going to solve the problem. An article that implies we are all Ok because, even though 60% of all MD hives died last year, we can just go out an pump up more bees shows no understanding of the economics of doing that. Technically, the author is correct: We can do that. But in doing so, we lose the honey crop for that year in any hive we split. Sooner or later, a bee keeper decides it is simply not viable to take the losses any more, and the system starts to crumble. The rising prices of commercial hive rental is an indication of this process in action. And keep in mind the numbers: At 2.7 million hives in this country, every single hive is responsible for pollinating the food for 125 people. One commercial bee keeper with, say, 5000 hives who goes out of business takes away the pollination of the food for 625,000 people. This is no joke people, and simplistic articles like this (particularly if ALEC is behind it) paint a ridiculous and misleading cartoon of a picture. I would have expected more depth from the Washington Post. At least go ask a DC bee keeper for input!”…The comments continue on like that so I’m sure you could see why I’d still be concerned about this. As far as anything I’ve come across that discuss the sixth mass extinction or human extinction, I’m not saying that this is related to CAGW, all I’m doing is addressing my concerns about them in hopes to find answers to show me that I don’t have to be concerned about them, I’ve looked elsewhere and haven’t had very much luck, that’s why I do it here.

  19. gator69 says:

    Ok, I really don’t understand why y’all call me a troll.

    You are either a troll, or an idiot. Nobody can be as stupid as you pretend, and yet have the love of a good woman. You insult my intelligence with each of your ridiculous posts.

    In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

  20. BobbyK says:

    I’m not insulting your intelligence, as I said I know for a fact that everyone else here is far more intelligent than I. I’ve said on here before I’m pretty sure I have aspergers which is a form of autism. In my mind, I’m very immature for my age, most of the time I feel like a 12 year old, I was brought up very naieve and sheltered, I’ve never understood much about the world or life or what I was taught in school, I don’t consider myself to be smart at anything, except spelling and some basic arithmetic, past that I’m pretty much a lost cause, so I promise you that your assumptions about me are wrong. I’m not insulting, I’m not trolling, I’m here for help, a peace of mind so I don’t completely lose it. I’ve been to so many therapists and been on so many different medications, it all works only for a short amount of time. I want to be strong and confident, for myself as well as the small amount of people in my life who love me and don’t treat me as an outcast. I came to this site every day for a long time before i ever decided to leave a comment because I was scared of this very thing happening. I never meant to upset anyone, I just needed people I could talk to because my wife gets angry with me when I start expressing these kinds of worries, so I came here hoping I would get a different kind of response then I do at home.

    • Neal S says:

      Stop worrying about something you really can do NOTHING about. All the alarmists predictions have been false. I’ll tell you what you SHOULD do something about.

      Do the best you can to be a good husband and a good provider. Do your best to love your wife sacrificially. Put her needs and desires first in everything you say or think or do. In the long run, this will be the BEST way for you to be happy. And THIS is something you can actually do something about.

      While it is true that one day you will die … will a single bit of worry about your eventual death do ANYTHING to help improve the quality of your life or that of those you love? (That being said, you should get some reasonable term life insurance, and you should take reasonable precautions to avoid dying too soon, but none of that requires worry)

      So even if the CAGW alarmist crap were true (which it is NOT) would any worry about it do anything to help? Really?

      So worry about this stuff (which isn’t true) is not on the road to happiness. Abandon your fruitless worries, and seek to do all you can to love your wife. This will be much better for EVERYONE. (us included)

  21. BobbyK says:

    Neal, I want to thank you, as well as Jason and Gail. Thank you for truly seeing where I’m coming from and not thinking I’m some deceiving secretive scumbag troll trying to steer people towards alarmism, thank you for your helpful words and articles you’ve posted to show me differently then what all the alarmists are saying, I truly appreciate it.

    • gator69 says:

      I also gave helpful words, like this…

      Apologies are fine, but I would rather see you think on your own, and not cower every time some mental midget says “boo”. A child could have debunked the links you gave, so why couldn’t you?

      Why have you not at least tried Bobby?

      I also gave you links to ease your pain, and yet you were more interested in moving on to the next fake catastrophe. You have to help yourself before anyone else can help you Bobby, you have to want to change, and I am not seeing that.

  22. BobbyK says:

    I do want to change, and I do appreciate the helpful words you’ve given. Pretty much my whole entire life I’ve wanted to be someone different from who I am. I brought up the matters of the bees and the sixth mass extinction because Jason told me that even if I didn’t worry about CAGW I’d worry about something else and I was showing him that he was right, I wasn’t trying to troll or steer anyone towards anything. I’ve always dealt with anxiety and paranoia on things and have had major difficulty getting over it. I have such a huge problem with this because no matter what science someone puts out to show that CAGW isn’t happening, someone else comes along and shows their science for why the skeptic is wrong. I do my best to convince myself that the skeptics are right and all the alarmists are crazy. Like there’s this one person who loves to commenton skeptic sites, goes by the initials CB, I don’t believe she’s made an appearance here yet, she’d get eaten alive, but almost any other skeptic site I’ve been to, down in the comments, there she is, arguing with the skeptics, talking about the science showing the dangers of fossil fuels and what too much CO2 is doing, posting pictures of melting ice and links from NASA and NOAA, I wish she’d come here and someone could make her shut up. Or something else that’s exploded on the internet are articles either from or about a scientist by the name of Guy Mcpherson, his theory is that at the supposed rate that CAGW is happening, with how fast it’s getting hot, how fast the ice is melting, and with poisionous methane rising from the waters where ice is melted that it’s too late, that the precaution that we’re taking now should’ve been done 40 years ago and that we’ve past the point of no return and by 2030 global temperatures are going to get too hot for humans to survive in and it’s going to wipe out our species. And the scary part is he has a lot of people who agree with him and support the theory. A lot of people who claim to have followed and studied climate for a long time and say that the science is correct. I’m not saying that I agree myself, I’m not trolling or trying to steer other people towards these claims, I’m just explaining why it’s difficult for me to change, others have spoke out against Guy Mcpherson, but then others come right back to show why they’re wrong and he’s right. I know you’re probably going to laugh at me and call me an idiot or a troll. I can only hope that’s not what happens. Again, only expressing why I still have worries and hoping to see these specific alarmist theories put to rest

  23. Colorado Wellington says:

    It’s better than even money that you are not real, Robert K. but the invention of some global warming sicko who’s laughing somewhere how easy it is to lead people here by the nose.

    And if you are real you are one slippery and manipulative son of a bitch. Good people are taking time out of their life to offer some guidance and you are jerking them around.

    Either way, you are no good.

    God help you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I’m agreeing with you CW.

      Some LOW-END psych student trying to play pre-pubescent games.

      I do NO believe your rant any more Bobby.

      If you were as SICK as you pretend to be, you would be under direct care by now.

  24. BobbyK says:

    Ok……….that’s even much worse of a response then what I was expecting to be bad. I thought people were here to debunk the claims made by the alarmists, I want to see them debunked, I need to see them debunked! You continue to assume that I’m posing as someone else and trying to raise alarm, if you knew me you’d know that it’s the exact opposite, I only explain the things that concern me to see them debunked! I’m not laughing, I’m not trying to be slippery or manipulative, people ask why I worry and all I’m doing is giving an answer, all I’m doing is explaining why I have difficulty with this whole matter and why I go back and forth, I know people are offering guidance and I’m not trying to jerk anyone around, especially not here, I’m sorry that you take my posts that way. I’m trying to ease my anxiety and paranoia, I’m trying to completely get this out of my head, I’m trying not to go crazy over all of this, I’m here for help and you tell me I’m no good? Instead of putting reasons to debunk what I said in my last comment you completely judge and tear me apart with such cruel words? I ask for help and instead I get crushed? Why? Why can’t you accept the fact that I’m just here to see my worries put to rest? Why do you have to go against me? Especially when at first you were helpful? I’m not real? I’m just being honest. I never meant for a second for what I came here with to make people assume that I’m trying to make them believe what the alarmists are saying. There are just certain things from certain alarmists that I haven’t seen alarmists that I haven’t seen discussed at this site yet so you can either continue to judge me and have wrong assumptions about me or you can hopefully explain why the claims from Guy Mcpherson are incorrect, that’s what I would prefer to see, I just want to sleep better at night so I have to find any way I can to take care of all of this. I haven’t said one cruel thing to anyone here, I haven’t judged or called anyone names, I’m not fighting against you, I’m just trying to get your help and that’s all, please, I’m sincerely truly asking, help me, please. I can’t take this sh*t anymore! I’m so f*cking sick of it and it’s ruining me! Please! Instead of assuming that I have some alterior motive for the things I say, help me and debunk them! For the love of God, please!

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, it is very simple. Read this carefully, then repeat it over and over until you have it memorized. Then the next time an alarmist says “boo”, repeat this execrcise.

      “There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers. Alarmists cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

      They will never be able to provide you with that paper. Never. I have challenged them for years, and they have failed utterly and completely every time.

      Melting ice is to be expected during an interglacial, because we are warming naturally, exactly as we have seen before. Everything the alarmists cry about is either perfectly naturtal, or a fantasy spawned by a model.

      Guy Mcpherson is a a biologist, and has no clue what he is talking about, other than that it brings him notoriety and money.

      Repeat!

      “Alarmists cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers.”

      Now go and troll no more.

      • AndrewS says:

        Gator69 I’m glad you said “climates” -For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally.- because there is no single overall Earth Climate! This is perhaps the most important point that the doomsters(of pseudoscience and the media) do not understand, and as a result we get pummeled with the inanities of ‘climate change’, which used to be algor’s little baby called ‘Global Warming’. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of different climate zones and types represented all around this planet, and they do not all move in tandem with each other. Proof of this is seen quite easily in the opposing osscillations of the polar regions.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby, you say “Instead of assuming that I have some alterior motive for the things I say, help me and debunk them! For the love of God, please!”

      And I pointed you to Lucy Skywalker’s articles that does just that. So instead of writing long essays without paragraph breaks please READ!

      Index of Articles

      Questioning the CO2 Ice Hockey Stick

      Can one readily grasp the basic science that shows the official position is untenable – that humankind’s CO2 emissions are not causing catastrophic warming? Has a Pointer to the Skeptics handbook and several other articles of use.

      KNOWLEDGE is a weapon against Psy Ops being used against the general public in what is called the lying stream media.

  25. BobbyK says:

    More than ever before I want to say thank you to Gator and Gail and I can’t apologize enough for my behavior on here, I know I was losing it and being very annoying but I really think my eyes have opened more and I’m going to do my best to comment on posts here in a new and different way, being way more supportive on the views of Tony’s and those who agree with him. Of course I’ll still have my questions and may every now and then express something I hope to see debunked but not like before. I think I’ve had an epiphany and my nerves have severely calmed down. It was just so difficult to know what to believe when so many out there are posting things are posting their scientific arguments against the skeptics and talking about the tragedies that are happening around the world supposedly due to climate change but if so many people here can still look at all of that and still have an argument against it and say that it has nothing to do with climate change, or even if it is due to climate change there’s nothing catastrophic about it and that there’s not going to be any runaway warming then to me it makes a lot more sense to follow the more logical explanation. I just wish more people understood and believed what the people here do. Instead they’re talking about extreme weather and rising temperatures in their areas and around the world and posting articles with pictures of melting ice and talking about dangerous methane. But if so many here can still look at all of that and say it’s all fear mongering propaganda and these people don’t understand the science behind climate change and say there’s nothing to worry about, then that is definitely ground to look at things a different way and not freak out.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Knowledge and logic are powerful weapons Bobby.

      Also, always follow the money.

      Most of us here are ordinary people with some scientific background. We are paid nothing. However those on the other side make major $$$$ especially the World Bank, the politicians and their buddies.

      Climate change is potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for bankers)

      Nobel Chutzpah Prize 2015: UN, World Bank need “$89 Trillion” to fix climate

      Spot the Vested Interest: The $1.5 Trillion Climate Change Industry

      And for skeptics??
      Kochs, Exxon “influence”??? — Yale experts hunt through 40,000 documents for Big-Oil smear, find almost nothing

      The progressives and CAGW scientists are so dirty they are projecting their own greed and lack of honesty on to skeptics.

      Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. — WIKI

      We are all still waiting for our Big Oil Checks and meanwhile scrambling to make ends meet.

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, climate change and “extreme” weather are as natural as a sunrise. The only climate change you should fear (and I hesitate to say this, because I don’t want you to freak out as the planet starts to cool) is a cooling change. Wamer is good, cooler is bad.

      Regardless of what happens man really has no control of global climate, so as men, we should not overly concerm ourselves with it (with the possible exception of preparing for it).

      PS – Preparation is a great way to calm anxieties.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Bobby, try gardening and non-refrigerated food preservation like canning and drying. (Make sure you learn how to do it correctly – Community Colleges and extension services have classes.)

        Gardening is a great way to relax and exercise and you will eat a lot healthier. Even in the city I had over 100 plants. Fresh herbs look great and add a lot to your meals.

      • BobbyK says:

        So I do have a question for you and I’ll ask it here, if all of Tony’s posts are correct and his graphs aren’t cherry picked and the people here aren’t misinformed and truly understand the science…..where are Mosher and Hunt coming from? What is their science based off of? How do you know 100% for sure that they’re wrong and you’re correct? I’m only asking because their arguments seem pretty convincing. If what they say is so wrong how can they be so sure of themselves and argue against everything the skeptics say?

        • Me says:

          Are you playing the sympathy card or for real?

        • Me says:

          Let me ask this in another light then, are you playing to people so as to get them to give up info that they wouldn’t normally do by playing the I don’t understand and am afraid sympatyh card?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “where are Mosher and Hunt coming from”

          Mosh is a low-end salesman.

          Jim Hunt has to pretend to be a press agent.

          They are both RABID CON-ARTISTS.

  26. BobbyK says:

    I’m for real 100%, have been in every post, I’m not jerking anyone around or trying to steer anyone towards alarmism, I’m generally curious and am interested to know because I choose to believe the skeptics over the alarmists but I don’t understand the science so again I’ll say but word it a little differently, I do have a question for you and I’ll ask it here, if all of Tony’s posts are correct and his graphs aren’t cherry picked and the people here aren’t misinformed and truly understand the science…..where are Mosher and Hunt coming from? What is their science based off of? How do you know 100% for sure that they’re wrong and you’re correct? I’m only asking because they seem so convinced of their arguments. If what they say is so wrong how can they be so sure of themselves and argue against everything the skeptics say? I’m only trying to understand

    • Me says:

      What one is costing you money out of your pocket?

    • Me says:

      How many times do they cry wolf and predict things that never happen?

    • Me says:

      Ya know, seems like you want answers but never listen to it and keep coming back because you seem to listen to the alarmist and warmist. Why?

    • Me says:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

      Now listen to this, how many times does the climate scientist use the word predictions with modles, there was a person that argued to the point that they were not predictions but projections, anther climate Bullshitter, David Appel.
      And you wanbt to listen to these people?

      • Me says:

        And then he goes on to say for certain periods of time? Yeah, because climate changes always! Always did and always will!

      • Me says:

        Now notice how Cox uses a graph of temp anomilies but then goes to what look like Al Gores co2 graph from his movie! LOL!

      • Me says:

        And then notice how the 1930’s was way below the 1998 and 1998 was an el-nino year same as last year but 1998 is below 2015! Yeah, it is Bullshit!

      • Me says:

        Then notice how Cox goes on with NASA, the people that landed people on the moon, with his claims, Really? Who are these Moon landing people they speak of? Apparently Harrison Schmitt was one of them that walked on the moon! Apparently he doesn’t trust the AGW\ACC BS either.

      • BobbyK says:

        I don’t want to listen to these people. I want to see them debunked. That’s why I come here. My problem is I’m never decided on anything, I have no clue what to believe or what to have have faith in. I can’t think for myself. I just do whatever people tell me to do and it’s like my head likes to play with me and jump to the worst possible scary conclusion. I do understand the point you’re making in showing me this video though and I do appreciate it. Now my question is what are your arguments against the comments below that video that argue against Roberts? Can you read through them and give reasons as to why they’re wrong?

    • gator69 says:

      and the people here aren’t misinformed and truly understand the science…

      According to studies…

      <i<Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?

      Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.

      http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims.html

      And this is not the first study to discover this. In spite of the “test” being weighted toward alarmism, skeptics still scored higher in science than alarmists.

      Now the question is, why would you listen to those who know less about the science? Why give any credence to Mosher and Hunt, especially when they clearly cherry pick and mislead?

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate or how we got here. Nada. Zip. Zero.

      Now stop trolling Bobby.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Yeah, Why give any credence to Mosher? When his degree is in ENGLISH and his work is in SALES aka PROPAGANDA!

        Gator’s degree is in Geology, Tony’s BS is in Geology and advanced degree is in Engineering, Mine is in Chemistry and Hubby’s in Physics.

        If you really want degrees, how about Dr David Evans?

        “David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees in mathematics and electrical engineering over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) from Stanford University, B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc. from the University of Sydney. He is an expert in Fourier analysis and signal processing, and trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University…

        David’s main job is researching mathematics (Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, multivariable polynomials, and related topics)…. Notably, David consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, and was the lead modeler in developing FullCAM, the world-leading carbon accounting model that Australia uses for analyzing the carbon in Australia’s biosphere for the Kyoto Protocol.”

        And you can go look at how he rips apart the theoretical physics that CAGW is based on. He found a math error, a BIG math error. Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics

        And Dr Evans Notch-Delay Solar Theory we should know if he is correct within a decade.

        Notice that all of this was crowd source reviewed where his findings were open to public debate. Initially an error was found so Dr Evans went back and recalculated and refined his theory.

        This is how science SHOULD BE DONE!

      • gator69 says:

        Actually my degree was in Remote Sensing, but I spent most of my time as a Geology student, with a smattering of Climatology on the side.

        And yes, Mosher and Hunt are salesmen.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Probably the most important part is that none of us are psychiatrists.

        More likely than not—in my judgment—BobbyK’s pleadings here are a sick warmist play and I would not be surprised if we found the commenters at some “progressive” site laughing about the efforts to “help BobbyK” and discussing next steps of this drama.

        In the possible—though in my view less likely—case that “BobbyK” is a real person describing his real torment, he cannot be helped by any of us saying anything to him. Even if somebody happened to be a practitioner with a degree in psychiatry, they couldn’t help him here except urging him strongly to contact a psychiatrist and enter intensive therapy for his deluded obsessions. As a matter of fact, anyone convinced he’s a real sufferer should do so.

        Real or not, the “BobbyK” character demonstrated repeatedly to be absolutely impervious to reason and argument. It doesn’t matter what we say; he ignores it and moves on. At this point I would trust myself to write a fairly simple program that would create BobbyK posts because it hardly has to react to other comments. It just needs to carry on about the same.

        In either case “BobbyK” is a troll though we could have never-ending discussions what kind of troll he is and what is his real purpose.

        If this is some cynical adolescent play, “BobbyK”, go to hell, whoever you are. It doesn’t take any intelligence to do what you are doing. There are real suffering people out there. It’s very easy for a piece of human garbage like you to sit at your keyboard, emulate them online and exploit the good will and compassion of decent people.

        But if you and your story are real, Bobby, seek psychiatric help! The longer you let this fester the worse it will get for you and your wife. That’s the only counsel I can give you.

  27. BobbyK says:

    Ok Colorado, I will point out where you’re wrong and where you’re correct in that comment. First of all, look as much as you want, do whatever extensive research you’d like, you’re not going to find anything about me or anyone else here at any progressive sites. For you saying I have a paranoid delusion about climate change, you have a paranoid delusion about me. I’m not some sick warmist playing any games. I am a real person describing my real torment, I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to accept that but I promise I AM NOT F*CKING WITH YOU!

    I know I need serious psychiatric help, I plan on seeking it as soon as possible. I’ve been to psychiatrists before, I’ve been on pills for OCD and anxiety, then for some time I was w/o insurance, now that I finally have it again I’m going to seek help. Forgive me that I grew up with a bi-polar verbal abusive father and that while he was alive my mother was a crazy drunk and I grew up around a bunch of crazy drama and yelling. I’ve lived in fear my whole life. I’ve said on here before the 2012 scare, I was a wreck, almost cost me my marriage. I was almost committed!

    So sorry that the sh*t I’ve been through in my life f*cked me up in the head so much that it causes you to make these very wrong and cruel assumptions about me. I’m not arguing what any of you are saying, I’m asking you to argue against the arguments against you! I want to truly believe in my head and heart fully 100% without a doubt that what the alarmists say is nothing but a big scam and that I have no reason to worry that what they’re saying is going to happen is actually going to happen.

    I want to see you giving full factual scientific reasons debunking those who say that even though climate change is a natural occurrence our activity is causing it to move at a faster accelerated rate, I want to see you argue against those who say that saying that the 30’s and 40’s were warmer that today is misinformation and a lie, I want to see you argue against those who say that the climategate e-mails is nothing more than a media invention. That is my real purpose, to gain a knowledge on this that I won’t be able to dispute in my own head and I will be able to fully know that it is all a scam regardless of what anyone else says.

    This is not, I repeat THIS IS NOT SOME CYNICAL ADOLESCENT PLAY! Go to hell? That’s what I fear the most. That that’s where I’m gonna end up. Why the f*ck do you think I struggle so much with this and why I’m so scared of dying?! I’m a piece of human garbage? A real piece of human garbage would call you something even more insulting back, instead, regardless of how you insult me I’m still asking for your help because I am a real person who really is suffering. I have never and will never have the intention to emulate anyone or exploit the good will and compassion of decent people. I am real, I am going to seek psychiatric help. I know this is getting worse.

    There’s one very very big thing that I’m trying to grasp that no one can seem to answer for me and that is this: If it’s all a big scam, if us adding fossil fuels into the air isn’t adding too much CO2 into the air and causing a greenhouse gas and causing global warming to move at a faster accelerated rate and making it the biggest threat to humankind then why are there so many people out there saying otherwise? People who don’t work for NASA or NOAA or any other climate change organizations and aren’t any paid salesman? Why do they believe all of this is really happening if it’s not? Why do they argue against you so bad if they’re wrong and you’re right? What is their science or their scientific belief based off of? What have they been taught if it’s incorrect? Why do so many people say this is really happening if it isn’t? Can you please explain that to me?

  28. BobbyK says:

    Ok, I’m so sorry for this. I originally started typing out a rant against the alarmists and people like Guy Mcpherson and others who push the idea that global warming will cause major problems in the next 5 to 15 years and eventually cause human extinction by 2030. I even looked up an article that’s debunking human extinction and Guy Mcpherson I’ll link it here http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2015/09/27/debunking-near-term-human-extinction/……..then I started to read the comments below……..now I’m really freaking out and I’m really really hoping that you can debunk the comments that I’m about to copy and paste here because they have me terrified. Once again I’m so so so sorry for this but I really need to know if what’s being said here can truly be proven to be false, please don’t get mad at me, I beg of you, but I don’t know what else to do…..I’ll start posting the comments now “With escaping methane now known to be blowing craters in the Siberian permafrost which people can confirm on my web page http://chasingthesquirrel.com. ( I have linked and featured an article, click the crater picture.)

    We will not be seeing only a four or six degree C rise in global temperature. We are going to experience extreme temperature rises and the earths biosphere can not adapt fast enough to keep people fed. Mass starvation and a total collapse of social order on an international scale will occur. At that point NTHE will become a roll of the dice, possibly nuclear dice, and these dice could be loaded with extinction odds.

    Mainline global warming concerns have never paid enough attention to Siberian methane releases but when they are added to rising CO2 level predictions the combination gives us a doomsday scenario. When contemplating NTHE we look over all the pain and chaos to logical conclusions but the intervening chaos will determine the outcome and we can not predict what that will be with logic. Logically it is a slippery slope far ahead and it is as slick as melting permafrost on a methane crater rim.” “But to some the fact that in a 100 years there could be a dozen people still alive walking the earth makes all the difference. To the rest of us a die off that gets 99.999999 % of the current population is close enough to EXTINCTION that we call it the same thing. Guy McPherson admits a small number could servive in underground shelters and such but he simply does not consider that surviving and I agree with his point of view. Civilization as we know it will be extinct never to return. All we are doing here is cogigating about a rounding error. Civilization as we know it depends upon resources all of which we are using up. Homo Technicalus will soon walk with wooly mammoths and dinosaurs. Life will become bitter and short with any remnant of humanity with its limited genetic diversity soon evolving into a creature that will not resemble us.” “But what if the only people left are lizard people. Would that count as extinction? The Lizard Illuminati will find a warmer changed earth agrees with them; which is of course why they allowed uncontrolled growth in the first place. Some of them will make it through no doubt. That has been the plan all along. At some point they will come out of the closet and while pork has been an acceptable substitute thus far; they will at some point switch to their preferred food. Humans. Personally I think a world inhabited only by lizard people counts as extinction.

    Guys point which you have not dealt with in your rebuttal is that the biosphere will collapse and we will not be able to grow food. Plants can’t adapt fast enough and while some tropical plants could be moved north and south away from the equator the time when this can and should be done will coincide with the exact time when humanity will experience a maximum fighting amongst themselves. No resources will be available to undertake the gigantic effort of moving plant species around the world as climate changes around them. At that time all significant resources will be dedicated to war and free movement will be impossible.

    Simply moving north will not be a solution because everywhere one goes they will find an environment in total collapse. Chaos will prevent farming which the vast majority of people will not know how to do anyway. Starvation not heat will be the big killer. Far more often than not any crops planted will fail because the climate they expected to grow in won’t exist. Problems on top of problems is what will cause extinction.

    Where did you get S=G/E*2 ? It could be used to describe population going forward for as problems mount the rate of death will go up by an exponential power and population could decline by an inverse square or something approximating it. If that equation were a true physical law, extinction would be guaranteed. As it can only describe what is going to go on and is not a law it may be invalid when population gets small. That would be a fortunate thing.” “Hello RE, I’ve read you on NBL. I have a moment since I am waiting for a Death Certificate delivery involving a family funeral matter. For 15 years a portion of my Federal Contract work has been with DARPA research projects.

    One aspect of H+ in co-development between CERN, Fermi Labs, S. Korean Gen-test & Epi-gen / Dr. Benner Applied Molecular Evolution = virtual guarentee that an aspect of humanity will transcend carbon based lifeform extinction.

    HOWEVER, it is no secret that all of our radiation reducing & Seivert absorbing Genetically modified bionomes are linked to an urgent need to resolve issues with 446 Nuclear reactors. (62 more in stages of construction – vs – 5 in decomissioning process)

    Please check our Pentagon web site or the military info in over 37 other countries. The reason that Climate change displacements are a near extinction factor is because we are already understaffed with qualified nuclear physicisits and other consequence management experts at 82% of our nuclear plant sites.

    We welcome innovations, education and applications to manage future plants. However, currently a number of climate, Pandemic or EMP threats could cause a chain reaction of reactors going critical in unison. Understaffing and overheating are a serious threat to the world wide nuclear grid. Although you may not have looked at the nuclear reactor issue I assure you MIT and many other top labs often run computer models on fallout patterns and loss of human management during chain meltdown events, which involve further loss of control to most plants in a casscade effect. Subsequent radiation from reactors, not warfare, has more intense and longer term half-life than conventional nuclear weapons.” “Don’t really feel this has been denukned at all. I wish it had. You casually assert that because we can survive Lagos temperatures that we can survive global averages 4 degrees higher than baseline, without addressing the obvious hugely significant issue of resources and food chains. If there is no food or clean water, it doesn’t matter if it is only a little bit sweaty or if we move 500metres higher up the mountain. You also failed to address the nuclear issue – that of an impending industrial collapse inevitably leading to meltdown of all the world’s nuclear reactors, or the vast methane deposits now burping itself at an increasing rate into the atmosphere, or the fact hat while historical records are worthy of comparison, this period of atmospheric change is unprecedented in its lightning speed. It took 80000 years for the Siberian Traps volcanoes to change the amount of carbon in the atmosphere which led to the permian mass extinction, to the extent that we have done in 250 years. This is unprecedented. And we’re not slowing down our pollution. You also didn’t address global dimming – that we have no choice but to KEEP polluting because the moment the haze from out planes, cars and power plants clears, a dramatic further rise in temperature will take place too. Catch 22. Unprecedented numbers of feedback loops all converging and amplifying each other. Any hope of small numbers of animals surviving killed by such rapid change – the rate of climate change exceeds the average rate of evolution for mammals by a factor of 1000 – 10000. In addition to methane fireballs and worldwide nuclear meltdown. I’m glad having clicked on this link that you aren’t claiming anthropogenic global warming is a conspiracy, but I am irritated by proud claims of debunking something without coming close to address the myriad of causes underlying the hypothesis of near term human extinction” “The concept that will be gone in the not so distant future is not religious. Why? Simply because it’s based on an array of scientific arguments. We’re only making this association because we’re culturally wont to link the notion of death with religion and since as we’re dealing with scientific issues here (regardless of how ”truly” scientific we will each of course claim to be) for us the distinction between religion and science is a given. Therefore, in the polemic between rivaling scientific viewpoints over an issue it’s common to accuse our opponents of religious thinking. But I wish to remind that biological expiration is a natural process. Misfortune, disaster and horror-inspiring phenomena on both individual and collective levels, are part of the natural world. As such, there’s nothing unscientific about predicting mass death or extinction and inculding it in your modeling. I also wish to remind this: in the interwar period the consensus among cosmologists was for an eternal universe and contemporary research that argued for a beginning seemed in their eyes to be infomed by religious bias. But that ignored the existence of religious/metaphysical systems based on the notion of a universe that didn’t have a beginning as was the case with (neo)platonism.

    You write that McPherson ”condones” abandoning hope. Well, he certainly thinks that widespread hopes for modern civilization itself fixing the problems it has spawned are false. So it follows that believing it won’t make it true. That’s a statement of fact. I am sure McPherson (as do all of us who hold the same view) doesn’t really object to hope existing in people but he wouldn’t try to push it or ”condone” giving it up. But the reality remains. Hope will practically amount to nothing. McPherson would indeed ”condone” dismantling modern civilization. Not because it will save us but in order to give other species a better chance. Of course he knows as well as the next guy that this won’t happen. We will never come together and decide to dismantle civilization. It will be destroyed not because but in spite of our will. And as it falls it will take us down with it. And here we see exactly why NTHE is not a religion, a cult or an ideology. It is precisely such worldviews that most aggressively push hope and its twin sister fear and speak of collapse unless you do as they say and promise rewards in heaven and whatnot for doing their bidding. The only thing NTHE can guarantee you is your death and the death of everybody you love. What you do until that time comes is entirely up to you. As a matter of fact, you are allowed to keep indulging false hopes, considering it’s psychologically easier to handle.

    So NTHE doesn’t require belief in a deity or belief in some of kind of prophecy that is about to be fulfilled. Just like all science, it takes place within a completely atheistic worldview. Our extinction will simply be the unexpected result of the collective actions of humankind. It was nobody’s ”fault” and nobody’s intention. But such are things with macro-historical developments. There’s a principle that’s called ”heterogony of ends” and so far it has always applied in history. It states that the actions individual and collective human subjects undertake in pursuit of near-term goals will in the long run produce results different than all of the active agents had initially intended for. That’s what will happen with modern civilization. When the Soviet Union fell, Fukuyama naively made haste to proclaim that the ”end of history” had come, as if America was to preside over a ”free world” in saecula saeculorum after a tragic period of totalitarian oppression had finally come to pass. Indeed at that point history was a tragedy come full circle. As the tragedy ended, the farce began. Soon the joke will end, and the punchline will be a killer.”

    I really hope to see some good hard fact finding evidence against all of this. Something more than just saying that these people don’t know what they’re talking about or that they’re nothing more than crazy alarmists, can what’s being said here, especially what’s said about methane in the first comment and this chasingthesquirrel.com website, again I know you all hate it when I do this and I promise I’m going to seek help very soon but in the meantime, please be kind and show me that all of this can be debunked and that this science is incorrect.

  29. AndyG55 says:

    You shouldn’t have put a link to your page Bobby K , you DIPS**T !!

    http://chasingthesquirrel.com/

    Here is K-Dog with his mate Guy !!

    Y0u truly are a LYING piece of human excrement, Bobby K

    SPRUNG BIG TIME !!!!

  30. BobbyK says:

    Whoa whoa whoa OK, everybody calm down. First of all, I’m only 32 years old, I live in San Antonio, Tx. I am not on any kind of level a scientist. I contacted my insurance company this morning and got them to send me a list of psychiatrists in my network and within my zip code that I can go to and get on anxiety pills. My job is answering phone calls doing tech support for time Warner cable, I have short spiked hair, I have psoriasis, and as of last night I found out I need to get serious about losing weight cause I’m currently at 230 lbs. All I wanted was for someone to give good scientific explanation against the arguments in those comments I posted, something more than just YouTube videos or saying that it was warmer before and methane didn’t hurt us. I was hoping for a real scientific explanation referring to points made in those comments with scientific reasoning explaining why the things said in those comments are wrong. You guys keep jumping the gun and assuming I’m something I’m not, and to go as far as to assume that I’m guy McPherson?! Someone who I’m desperately trying to see scientifically debunked for my own peace of mind, calm down Andy, I’m not him, I just need to see a scientific explanation as to why the theory that temperatures are going to get so hot and methane is going to get so bad that it’s going to cause a world wide catastrophe in the next 10 to 15 years is wrong, or to worry that it’s something I need to worry about happening within my lifetime is wrong. Without referring me to some video or other website, can someone please give a scientific explanation breaking down why this isn’t something that I need to worry about?

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey BobbyK! “Without referring me to some video or other website, can someone please give a scientific explanation breaking down why this isn’t something that I need to worry about?”

      You have been given many, many, scientific explanations. The fact that you have rejected them does not mean that they are wrong. I also refuse to believe that you are stupid; your writing and verbal skills are very good, and even if you are weak on science, you are obviously bright enough to understand the explanations if you wish too. That “if you wish to” seems to be the sticking point. You apparently do not wish to understand. My suspicion is that you receive so much gratification from your angst that you are unwilling to give up your unhappiness. It is more pleasant to hold on to your worry than it is to accept the REAL science that refutes CAGW. Alternately, you may be an alarmist troll, and at some point you will disappear and tell yourself the lie that “none of the sceptics could support what they claim!”

      Either way, no, we cannot give you a debunking of CAGW which YOU WILL ACCEPT. That is your problem, not ours.

    • Gator69 says:

      Bobby, or K-Dog, or whoever… science is about observations, and observations show us that the Earth can get warmer without tipping points. So when some grantologist claims otherwise, you can be sure that science is not involved.

      You don’t have to be a climate expert to refute the obvious.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The gig is up, so you can stop the PATHETIC LYING.

      Nobody believes or cares about your imagined “issues” or about your made up life story.

      NOT INTERESTED.

      You will never believe or accept any of the science put forward here, because you are not here to learn, but to TROLL.

      I’m really glad that your braindead belief in the cult of AGW causes you mental issues, … you deserve it.

      But go and work them out elsewhere.

  31. BobbyK says:

    OK so for those of you assuming I’m not real let me show you who I really am

  32. BobbyK says:

    See there’s my disgusting ugly mug? See the flakes on my face? I have psoriasis, there’s me in my superman lanyard and my sons of anarchy shirt, I love sons of anarchy, best show of all time, here’s a pic of my time Warner badge

  33. BobbyK says:

    See that? That’s my work badge

  34. BobbyK says:

    The reason I always wear a goodie in public is because this is what my elbows look like

  35. BobbyK says:

    Hoodie*

  36. BobbyK says:

    Here’s my other elbow

  37. BobbyK says:

    And this is the psoriasis cream I put on my skin

  38. AndyG55 says:

    YAWN !!!

  39. BobbyK says:

    So for those of you who want to continue the crazy paranoia that I’m Guy Mcpherson or some kind of lying troll playing some sick twisted game, please let this assure you that I am not, I can take pictures around the building where I work, the big break room and such if you’d like if you need more proof, or you can accept that I am who i really say I am and am here because the thought of climate change scares me and I’m looking for the facts to debunk everything the alarmists are saying. Yes I understand that some of that has already been pointed out to me but I still come across arguments that argue against the skeptics and all I’m doing is looking for those to be debunked as well. That is solely and 100% honestly the only reason why I’m here. Stop assuming otherwise, it’s making you look as paranoid about me as I am about climate change.

  40. AndyG55 says:

    “which people can confirm on my web page http://chasingthesquirrel.com.”

    Your web page, your words.. K-Dog.. STOP LYING !!

    And no-one said you were Guy.

    That comment seriously got to you didn’t it. ;-)

    Your pathetic, self-pity game is OVER. !!!

    Everyone here now knows what it is.

    Take it elsewhere.

  41. BobbyK says:

    You know Andy? You made this incredibly cruel and wrong assumption about me. You assumed that I’m Guy Mcpherson or this K-Dog person and called me a LYING piece of human excrement. I haven’t ever insulted anyone on here, haven’t called anyone any names, and you call me something like that. I’m still not calling you anything back.

    Before I ever first commented on here, you were one who’s info I loved to read when you would argue against Marty and cfjksd I think it was, Cfool as you called him. I’ve done my best to show you that I’m not who you think I am, to show you that I’m being 100% legitimate, honest, and instead of apologizing to me for making such a cruel assumption about me and calling me such a cruel name, you continue to be mean and tell me nobody cares. You want to say that my issues are imagined or that my life story is made up? How dare you. You have no clue what I’ve been through. The troubles I’ve faced and what I’ve had to survive.

    I can assume that you didn’t grow up most of your life wishing that your father was dead for all the sh*t he always put you through and then the day he actually did die you didn’t know how to take it, or for most of your life growing up with a crazy alcoholic mother who drank because of her cruel verbally abusive bi polar husband. So many times my brother and i tried to convince my mother to leave him, but she never did. See my parents are 2 people who never should’ve married, much less had me. My mom had my brother with another guy, anyways. growing up with those 2 royally f*cked me up. I wish that I was making it up, I wish these issues were imagined. I wish all the time that my life had been different and that I would’ve had a happier childhood, unfortunately that’s not true and this is the reality I have to face.

    So, you can continue to insult me and tell me that I’m lying or you can be the bigger man, realize that I proved you wrong on your assumptions about me, and we can continue on friendly and not arguing. The choice is yours.

  42. AndyG55 says:

    “which people can confirm on my web page http://chasingthesquirrel.com.”

    Your web page, your words.. K-Dog.. STOP LYING !!

    Be a man, not a worm….

    Just accept that you STUFFED UP.

    And stop digging deeper and deeper.

  43. BobbyK says:

    Ok, wtf else do I have to do to prove to you that I AM NOT K DOG, I AM NOT LYING! My name is Robert, last initial is K but I myself am not K dog, I’m looking to see K dog debunked! Most of the time I go by Bobby, I AM 32 YEARS OLD AND I LIVE IN SAN ANTONIO, TX!!!!! I was born February 12, 1984 in Maryland, moved to Texas when I was 9 years old in 1993, lived here ever since. I have a wife, we first got together September 15th, 2005, got married June 22, 2011, my father passed away of pancreatic cancer on July 30th, 2011. 3 days after his 60th birthday. Luckily him no longer being in our lives eventually put a stop to my mother’s drinking. My wife and I live in a house with 3 dogs and 2 cats, no children yet. Anyways, you need more proof? let me know and I will gladly give it to you. I am not k dog

  44. BobbyK says:

    I copied and pasted those comments from http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2015/09/27/debunking-near-term-human-extinction/, look down below in the comments on that site, those aren’t my comments, those are comments that he posted on that site, I put them here to hopefully see them debunked

  45. AndyG55 says:

    Yawn. Deeper and deeper

  46. BobbyK says:

    Do you need me to call you? Do you need to hear it clearly in my voice that I really am 32 years old and i don’t have the voice of a middle aged man? Give me your number, I will gladly call you from my phone that has a San Antonio area code and let you hear that I really am who I say I am

  47. BobbyK says:

    Why don’t you care? Why are you being like this? I thought the people here were supposed to debunk the claims made by the alarmist and to help those who have climate anxiety. Why are you rejecting me? Why can’t you accept the fact that I really am who I say I am and debunk the alarmist claims I put on here? That’s what I always see everyone here do, why should I be any different?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Diddums !!

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, as Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

      Where is the extraordinary evidence of CAGW?

      As I have stated before, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally.

      So the next time a grantologist and/or leftist tells you that for the first time in 4.5 billion years, something other than natural variability is causing our global climate to change in a perfectly natural and expected manner (which would be extraordinary), you now know to ask for extraordinary evidence.

      Start with asking for even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. They will respond with a paper or more that use their models as evidence, models which fail to predict climate changes we see, making them invalid and sad. Next when you laugh at them, they will threaten your children with more outlandish scary stories, all of which are based not on reality, but their sad and pathetic models.

      At last you can can go enjoy time with your wife knowing that everything is as nature intended.

  48. BobbyK says:

    Not answering my question but if you still believe that I’m some old guy who goes by k dog, here ya go

  49. BobbyK says:

    I have read what you linked Gail, thank you for believing me and all of your help instead of making wrong assumptions about me no matter how hard I try to show these others that they’re wrong, just have one more to show

    • Sunsettommy says:

      You are indeed BobbyK,

      Suggest that you don’t be so easily spooked over their alarmism. Their basis for their beliefs rests mostly on many climate models,that are not testable,which means they can’t be shown if it is good or not.

      How can those 100 + climate models in the IPCC report that run to year 2100,be useful when it is 84 years into the future!

      The Scientific Method MUST be followed to find out if a hypothesis is a good one:

      ” I. The scientific method has four steps

      1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

      2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

      3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

      4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

      If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. ”

      http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

      Climate models fails.

  50. BobbyK says:

    I know Gator, idk why I get so freaked out. It just jumps me to instant anxiety when people argue against the skeptics, I’m sorry. I just really really hope that me posting pictures of myself with my Time Warner cable work badge which clearly shows the name Robert, me posting a picture of myself with a piece of paper that says “HI ANDYG55 IT IS 08-22-2016 HERE AT TIME WARNER CABLE IN SAN ANTONIO, TX AND I AM NOT K-DOG” and me posting a picture of myself with a picture behind me that shows TIME WARNER CABLE San Antonio finally proves that I am not lying, that I am not trying to con anyone, I’m not some twisted lying alarmist, I’m not trying to steer anyone towards fear, I’m not Guy Mcpherson, I’m not K-Dog, my entire time here in all my comments I’ve always only been myself, nothing more, nothing less. I’m sorry it had to come to this to prove it but please let me assure that I am on your guy’s side, I’m here to be a friend, I just need some help sometimes and that’s all, I promise.

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, I have gone toe to toe with authors of the IPCC reports, and they do not debate publicly fior a reason, there is no there there. All they have are invalidated models and fudged numbers.

      OTOH, skeptics have data and historical precedence that refutes all of their ridiculous claims. Remember that the alarmists are making an extraordinary claim, so make them prove it to you. Do not settle for “because I said so”, science requires hard evidence, or it is not science. And the more extreme the claim, the greater the evidence must be.

      My best advice Bobby, laugh at the alarmists, and love your wife.

      • gator69 says:

        Now if you will excuse me, I have several hundred hummingbirds that I must feed. This time of year I go through 1.5 to 2 gallons of nectar a day, and they are a fussy bunch.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Relax, you convinced me easily.

      What specific claims are they giving you?

      I have my own Climate forum which is now 7 years old,You can ask me there too.

    • AndyG55 says:

      First step.

      Ask questions WITHOUT all the “poor me, I’m, anxious” crap.

      Cut the pointless diatribe.

      Then read and listen to what people say.

  51. BobbyK says:

    Noted, I will simply ask questions without adding in all the personal things. So i took Gator’s advice and started to look up how climate change is natural, then I came across this site comapring the history of natural warming to today’s so called warming https://www.wunderground.com/climate/PETM.asp, at first I’ll admit I got a little alarmed when it started talking about how the world today is warming 10 times faster than it has in the past but then I started to look at it from a skeptics point of view and noticed that there’s really no specific sources for how this information came to be, just links to other sites, some that don’t work or one asking to subscribe to Scientific American and i was like ooooook……but then I came to some others that I would like to see debunked https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp#warming http:// and news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm can you guys in your own words scientifically debunk what’s being claimed in these articles? Also, what is your forum Sunsettommy, would love to see it

  52. BobbyK says:

    Hmmm, not sure why that second one didn’t like correctly, I’ll post it again http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Methane’s contribution to present-day global warming is second only to CO2.”

      There is no proof that CO2 causes any warming in an open atmosphere.

      Second to nothing is still nothing.

      And its third anyway, with H2O being miles out ahead of any theoretical warming effect, which is only ever temporary AFTER the H2O has done its cooling job in getting up there as clouds.

      And those methane craters/holes that they are finding have been there for eons, they are nothing new.

      No try thinking a bit deeper….. how do you think that methane got into this permafrost there.. it’s coming from ground that once grew stuff when the world was actually warmer.

      And then look at the UAH NoPol temperatures this century before the current El Nino…

      NOT WARMING

      Its all a MYTH. a children’s fairy tale, easily dispelled by real data.

      • AndyG55 says:

        and look at UAH NoPol before the 1998 El Nino

        COOLING

        • AndyG55 says:

          Whoops wrong graph.. ( did I really say that ;-) )

          That one is from 2010 to before the El Nino

          COOLING !

          This is the one I wanted..

      • David A says:

        Bobby, notice Andy’s trophspheric T chart. The troposphere, even in polar regions, is, per CAGW theory, expected to warm faster then the surface!

      • David A says:

        Bobby, your temperment, IMV, is not fitted to debating CAGW proponents.

        Instead I really think taking care of your Lady, and your job is both duty and honor and priority.

        Ok to ask questions, but I suggest you read the NIPCC ” Climate change revisited” and study CO2 science web site. ( only when you have private time)

        CAGW is not a real concern, but suppose it is, what the hell can you do about it? Let it go and create a happy life. This world is a cinema, watch, enjoy, have a sense of humor, and play your part.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And before 1979, you can only look at REAL data from places like Iceland.

      GISS, HadCrut etc are a load of massively manipulated junk.. not real.

      Here is a graph from 8 different Iceland stations.

      You can clearly see the climb out of the end of the Little Ice Age (coldest period in 10,000 years) then a steep climb to 1930-1940 which was WARMER than now

      You can also see the cooling to the period that the Arctic alarmista want to use to show warming starts at the very coldest period after that , ie 1979

  53. Gail Combs says:

    Bobby,
    Here is more ‘Follow the Money’
    Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming

    Soros is a Jew who sold his fellow Jews to the Nazis.

    He is known for messing with a country until it’s economy crashes and then he walks in and buys up assets for next to nothing. Obama’s Corp of Army Engineers was accused of intentionally flooding American Farmland a few years ago (2011). Soros then stepped in and bought up the bankrupted farms. Flooded Farmers Sue Army Corps Of Engineers“The flood covered thousands of acres of land farmland in Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas.” And in 2011 the headlines read “Why Is George Soros Selling His Gold And Buying Farmland”

    Mahathir bin Mohamed, Prime Minister of Malaysia said, Soros, as the hedge fund chief of Quantum, may have been partially responsible for the economic crash in 1997 of East Asian markets when the Thai currency relinquished its peg to the US dollar. According to Mahathir, in the three years leading to the crash, Soros invested in short-term speculative investment in East Asian stock markets and real estate, then divested with “indecent haste” at the first signs of currency devaluation.

    Soros wrote in his book, The Crisis of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered, that he is politically active in many East European countries, including Russia, through his Open Society Fund, aiming to change the political system in these countries.

    Vladimir Putin: George Soros Is Wanted “Dead Or Alive”

    Russia have officially declared that Billionaire George Soros is a wanted man in their country, citing him and his organizations as a “threat to Russian national security”.

    Putin banned Soros from Russia last year due to the fact that Soros helped to nearly destroy the Russian economy in the early 1990’s

    (Investment Watch has some other very interesting top stories right now.)

    Soros is NOT a nice guy and Solar and wind farms have funneled money out of the pocket of Americans into the pockets of the wealthy campaign bundlers for Obama like Soros. The switch from cheap reliable coal and nuclear to useless solar and wind is driving manufacturing out of this country and bring the USA to the edge of bankruptcy.

    The USA is losing FOURTEEN FACTORIES A DAY!!! Factories build wealth and we as a country no longer do so. Right now our biggest export is TRASH! I kid you not, paper cardboard and plastic waste shipped to China that is turned into cheap inferior goods to be sold at Wally Mart and the like.

    The result of our loss of good paying manufacturing jobs is that now our biggest employer is Kelly temp service followed by burger flippers and store clerks. Our country is being sucked dry. Our tax dollars are being exported to other countries to build their roads and bridges and schools while ours crumble.

    Also our real unemployment is around 23% Explanation of how the US government fudges the numbers

    The goal of the globalists like Soros and the Clintons and Al Gore is the destruction of the USA as a international power using Global Warming and unrestricted third world immigration to literally break the system. Obama’s DOUBLING the US national debt is the result leaving the USA too broke to continue functioning as a first world country.

  54. BobbyK says:

    I wish you guys were at the top of all this. I wish you were the ones in control of the media showing all of this info. Instead there are so many people out there who are now terrified. Look up climate anxiety, so many people scared that we’re all about to die due to extreme heat, rising sea levels, what it’s going to do to our resources, our crops. Way too many people saying “look at the evidence, this is really happening” Going on and on and on about how human activity like burning coal is making the warming go way too fast. But for some reason there’s still a worry I can’t seem to get out of my head, even with everything I’ve read on here it still eats at me and I know you’re gonna laugh but I really need to see a good scientific breakdown debunking of what Guy Mcpherson claims. I need something more than he’s just a biologist and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m going to post a some articles, please look through them, even read the comments below of the people who agree with him and the things they’re saying please seriously scientifically debunk this. http://guymcpherson.com/2012/06/were-done/ http://guymcpherson.com/2016/01/six-paths-to-near-term-human-extinction/ https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/tag/guy-mcpherson/ http://www.vice.com/read/near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-very-soon even a guy named Scott Johnson posted an article against Guy https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/ but then Guy came back with http://guymcpherson.com/2014/12/how-scott-johnson-gets-it-wrong/ I’m sorry to do this but i need to see that what people are saying in these articles, from the publishers to all the people in the comments below who agree with all of this can truly be scientifically debunked. More than these are just leftist crazy people or that this is all a scam, can you please provide real scientific material that this theory is truly all wrong? Please?

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, if there were a tipping point, we would have seen it in the past. All of the scary stories are based upon failed models. Period.

      If you cannot understand this, nobody can help you.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Gees you are really pushing this Guy McPherson bloke.

      Why would that be, K-Dog !

    • AndyG55 says:

      in that last link, Guy says

      “I’m working to dismantle civilization.”

      What does that tell you about this cretin !!!!

      He produces NOTHING by way of evidence that in ANY WAY contradicts anything that Scott says.. just one big ad hom rant

      WAKE UP, K-Dog !!! You are being USED !!!

    • Neal S says:

      I will make it simple. If this guy is right, there is nothing we can do about it, so you may as well stop worrying. If this guy is wrong, there is nothing needed to be done, so there is nothing to worry about. So no matter which way … there is no need to worry. There is nothing to be gained by worry.

      In the first article … “We know Earth’s temperature is nearly one degree Centigrade higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution.”

      Actually, as Tony has amply demonstrated time and again, we are NOT actually nearly one degree Centigrade warmer than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. If this is this “Guy’s” premise, then since it is FALSE, you need NOT concern yourself with anything else he writes.

      How many times do these alarmists need to cry wolf when there is NO wolf, before you will finally understand … there really is NO wolf.

      In the old testament, we were instructed that if what a prophet would prophesy, would not come to pass, “thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
      Deuteronomy 18:22

      When, if ever, has ANYTHING the alarmists warmed about turned out as they had predicted??

      Do yourself and everyone else a favor. Stop listening to, or reading the false prophets of doom.

  55. BobbyK says:

    Ok, I have already given photo evidence that I am not K-Dog, the only reason why I’m posting this is because it scares me how many people agree with him. Can you please give more specific scientific details? Can’t you give something more that would seriously scientifically crush everything that’s being said in these articles? I really think it could help me if you could do that. I know it’s asking a lot but can’t you give a real broken down scientific debunking as to why all of this is wrong? I’m not trying to make you angry, I’m just asking to be shown the science that proves 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s wrong since there’s so many people who agree with him.

  56. BobbyK says:

    No……

  57. BobbyK says:

    And if someone said that the sun rise in the west and a bunch of people agreed with him no I wouldn’t believe it cause I’d know that they were wrong, I get where you’re going with this. But that analogy doesn’t help me. This is more complex, I don’t need an example of something different, if you can please possibly provide it, a good broken down scientific debunking against what they’re saying in those articles I posted. I need to see, I need to know that those claims can be truly scientifically debunked by being shown the science

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, has the Earth spontaneously combusted in the past?

      • BobbyK says:

        Well no obviously not but what does that have to do with anything? Why aren’t you answering my request. I know you say that co2 and methane aren’t drivers of climate, a lot of other people argue that they are. I choose to believe you but I don’t understand it. As what’s being said in those articles, claiming that because of co2 and methane that it’s just going to keep getting hotter and hotter and that global temperatures are going to become too hot and methane in the air is going to become too dangerous for humanity to survive in and by 2030 it’s going to wipe us all out. Many are agreeing with this cagw theory, they don’t even question it, they’ve just accepted the theory that we’re done, that we’ve gone past the point of no return and there is no hope. I know you and many others here do not, I choose to believe that it’s not going to happen and I have nothing to worry about but I don’t know that. I’m asking you can you please possibly provide good hard hitting factual science to show me that all these people are either nuts or just fear mongering propagandists and there’s no way that the science you’re showing can be argued against?

        • gator69 says:

          Many are agreeing with this cagw theory…

          “Many people” believe Bigfoot is real.

          Bobby, the laws of physics do not change. The Earth has been much warmer than now, and there has been no real threat to life due to that warmer climate during these warmer times.

          In fact, it is during cooler periods that life is really threatened on planet Earth.

          What part of “There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here… For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally”, do you not get?

          Bobby, would you freak out tomorrow morning when the Sun rises in the east, if some bucnch of highly paid leftist assholes said it meant the apocalypse?

          Need I really refute their ridiculous model based claims?

          Again Bobby, as a CAGW believer once said… “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

          Where is this extraordinary evidence?

          • BobbyK says:

            I get what you’re saying, I know it seems like I don’t cause I do. If you want to refute their ridiculous model based claims, please do! That’s what I’m looking for! “There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally” That very statement calms me down a lot but then there’s people like climate scientists who argue against it. I’m not saying that they’re correct, I want them to be wrong. They don’t deny that climates haven’t always changed naturally, but they claim that human activity does push it to an unprecedented amount. Saying that carbon emissions and warming is even worse than predicted. Others say to look at just how much ice has melted or how fast it’s melting or record high temperatures going on around the world if you want the evidence. Please understand that I’m not arguing against you, my overall goal here is to make sure that those who argue against the skeptics, no matter what they say, are wrong. While looking at the sites that popped up when I googled runaway warming debunked I came across this site that argues against the skeptics https://newint.org/features/2011/05/01/guide-to-climate-change-denial-debunking-climate-skeptic-myths/ Of course there’s people in the comments below who argue against the article, some who argue back but I would love to see what’s said about it here

          • gator69 says:

            Others say to look at just how much ice has melted or how fast it’s melting or record high temperatures going on around the world if you want the evidence.

            Bobby, what happens to ice when you take it out of the freezer? Does it melt?

            The Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age. So some ice melted, as would be expected.

            Who are the real climate change deniers Bobby? I certainly do not deny that climates change.

            Bobby, does the Sun ever change it’s direction?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You didn’t bother reading one bit of the REAL data I posted further up the threads.

            I can provide real data and graphs to back up the following, but I’m going to waste my time with you after this post.. get it K-Dog

            Take your Guy buddy and stick it elsewhere.

            1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

            2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

            3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

            4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

            5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

            6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. zero trend for 40 years

            7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

            8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

            9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

            10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

            11.Temperatures in northwest China have not shown a warming trend in the last 368 years.

            12. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

            13. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling

            14. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

            That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

            There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.

            The ONLY real warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects.

        • Gail Combs says:

          CO2 is a by product of civilization and that is why the Elite and the United Nations wants to TAX it.

          It has NOTHING to do with the climate which is set to cool not warm since we are now at or near the end of the Holocene. The only question is whether or not the Holocene will go long.

          Lisiecki and Raymo in a landmark paper took an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep Ocean Drilling Project (and other) cores.

          A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

          ….However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….

          http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf‎

          Since we are at half precession cycle when we should be headed back towards glacial conditions… maybe… this is where the real climate discussion should be. Also the descent into glaciation is punctuated by swings to high temperatures so warm weather does not mean a thing.

          Some people, like Dr Brown, physicist at Duke University, think we have a bi-stable climate with a cold phase and a warm phase and when the solar insolation is in the transition zone the climate becomes rough with abrupt swings.

          “The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”! — Neuman and Hearty (1996)

          If anything we should INCREASE the amount of CO2!

          “…Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv” (Tzedakis et al., 2012)

          And another paper:
          Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

          “….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

          This is why people like Gator and Tony and I, who have varying amounts of training in geology, think CAGW is a hoax.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Sorry I messed up the block quotes.

            BTW “We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial” is what I mean by ‘go long’

          • gator69 says:

            Hey Gail! I don’t think CAGW is a scam, I know it is a scam.

            Just yesterday I was working with a new business partner, and while we were at lunch he told me that a friend of his had been a climatologist for the Navy. His friend had converted him to skepticism by explaining the natural cycles that the alarmists always fail to mention. He had no idea that there had been a little ice age that ended in the mid 19th century. And when his ex-navy buddy explained the rebound in temperatures, the pieces fell together for him and he started thinking on his own, noting the urban effects on modern weather stations all on his own.

            I showed my new business partner my files on climate change science, and he is now going to use me as a resource for further studies on the actual science. He loves to debate on the internet, and now has a new arsenal against the crazy leftists.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Sorry, you are correct Gator we never fell for the Hoax in this household. (As I said rotten Engrish)

            Glad you were able to convert your business partner and that he now has attack ammo.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Let me give you another analogy then. Nobody can give a proof to a jealous man that his wife is not cheating on him. Once the obsession sets in the man is driving himself crazy imagining how she fooled the gumshoe he hired to follow her.

  58. RAH says:

    We have no big climate story here in Indiana. But as I write this we do have a weather story. Biggest tornado outbreak for the state this year is going on. At least two described at “large and dangerous” so far. One up ENE of Kokomo and one down by Indy. Many others reported but only two that appear to be possible killers so far.

    BTW, it you wanna live at tornado central in Indiana the Kokomo and nearby surrounding areas is the place for you.

  59. RAH says:

    OK here it is. Joe Bastardi is calling it. The depression I was talking about Joe now believes is going to become a CAT II when it goes across Florida and a major hurricane when it comes ashore in Louisiana or Texas. A very Katrina like track is what it’s looking like. So Dave your sister is not out of the woods yet at all! Pass this info on to here. Watch todays daily update.

    http://www.weatherbell.com/

  60. AndyG55 says:

    And this one is for K-Dog to read….. pass it on.. ;-)

    The graph below shows unequivocally that there is NO ANTHROPOGENIC SIGNATURE IN THE TEMPERATURE DATA, and it comes from Phil Jones which is an added bonus, and so warmists will have a hard time disagreeing with it.

    Here is a quote with some figures as it pertains to that graph:


    The IPCC may want to explain why the global surface temperature increased at virtually the same rate from 1860-1880, as it did between 1910-1940, and from 1975-1998 and 1975-2009. Human CO2 emissions increased by almost 3500% from 1860-1880 to 1975-1998 and yet the rate of warming stayed essentially the same. The warming between 1860-1880 must have been natural because the IPCC’s logarithmic equation for calculating radiative forcing (RF) increases from CO2 increases only gives us 0.28 W/m2 of RF (or a total temperature increase of 0.02°C with the hypothesized positive feedbacks included). The data for human CO2 emissions are from CDIAC and can be seen here (note that units are million metric tonnes; to convert to CO2 multiply by 3.67 and then to convert to gigatonnes divide by 1,000). The time-periods and warming trends below are from the 2010 BBC interview with climatologist Phil Jones.

    Period———Length in Years———Trend/Decade———Total CO2 Emitted
    1860-1880—————21———————–0.163ºC—————12 gigatonnes
    1910-1940—————31———————–0.150ºC—————110 gigatonnes
    1975-1998—————24———————–0.166ºC—————480 gigatonnes
    1975-2009—————35———————–0.161ºC—————770 gigatonnes

    Same warming trend (and that is in an alarmist adjusted graph),

    yet massively different amounts of CO2 emissions.

  61. BobbyK says:

    OK…. Andy….. DUDE!!!!! You posted a picture of Guy McPherson and K-Dog, I then posted a picture of myself holding a piece of paper that said “HI ANDYG55 IT IS 08-16-22 HERE AT TIME WARNER CABLE IN SAN ANTONIO, TX AND I AM NOT K-DOG” Now tell me, does my 32 year old face look ANYTHING like the picture you posted of those 2 much older gentlemen? I don’t know if you’re just messing with me and calling me K-DOG to try and get a rise out of me or if you’re just completely ignoring my photo evidence but let it go, I am not K-DOG, that’s a stupid f*cking wanna be gangster name, I have no idea why someone that old and white would call himself that, but it’s dumb. The only reason why I posted comments from someone who calls himself K-DOG is because I wanted to see them debunked. Why would I be looking to debunk myself? I go by Bobby or Robert, anytime I put a name for myself on social media or in a video game, it’s always Bobby, you can call me K-DOG til you’re blue in the face and I will never be K-DOG. I don’t listen to rap, I don’t talk or dress like a gangster, I’m a 32 year old lame white boy and I accept that. The more you call me it, the more desperate you look trying to tell me I’m something that I’m not. So we can either continue to have this stupid K-DOG debate or we can accept that I’m not trying to bullsh*t you, that I’m here only to seek help and the only reason I post articles here from the alarmists is to see them debunked. Yes I might post stuff from Guy McPherson here but that’s only because what he says about climate change worries me and I want to make sure that what he’s claiming can truly be argued against. So far I’ve only found people who truly argue against his near term human extinction theory here. Anywhere else I look, trying to see him debunked, people are just agreeing with him and saying we’re f*cked. I don’t like talk like that. I don’t know the guy, I’m not friends with him, I know that I certainly don’t like him and what he says, but it’s difficult to find many people who argue against it, that’s why I’m here. So we can try to be friendly with one another or you can continue to calk me that stupid name that I can provide any truth you ask for to prove that I’m not him, the choice is yours

    • AndyG55 says:

      YAWN !!!

      Give it up.

      You are not fooling anyone. !!

      There is no way that drug addled retard in the photos you posted types these posts.

      You should not use your son in such a manor, it is disgusting.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Noted that you have yet again totally ignored all the facts and data, given above

      and gone straight to trying to push your mate Guy’s hallucinogenic crap cult.

      You truly are a sick little k-dog.

    • gator69 says:

      So far I’ve only found people who truly argue against his near term human extinction theory here.

      Now that is just a lie Bobby. What exactly is your game/problem?

      And don’t give me any garbage about anxieties, as by now we can all see that whatever it is, it is self imposed.

      I have shown you that there is nothing to fear, that what we are seeing is perfectly natuiral and to be expected. I have also shown that those who say otherwise are not basing their claims on reality, that they are doing it for political/idealogical/monetary reasons, and that they have nothing but BS to offer.

      So Bobby, why do you cling to BS?

      • BobbyK says:

        What I mean is it’s very difficult for me to find people arguing against Guy Mcpherson, not the whole CAGW theory in general, just what he’s saying. I’m not playing a game, my problem is I’m still on the fence about climate change. It’s on my mind non stop 24/7, from the moment I wake up til when I go to sleep, and even then worries about it have recently started to wake me up. I know what you’ve shown me and the reason why I still worry is because people still argue against what the skeptics say, but if you say that you know 100% that it’s a scam then can you refute the international energy agency predicting an increase in temperature beyond when we’ve had humans on the planet by 2035, can you refute comments like this one I saw someone post about methane “methane breaks down quickly, about 12 years, but remember ch4 breaks down into co2 on a 1 to 1 basis. on a 12 year profile ch4 is a 100x more potent than co2. as long as there isn’t a large one time release, methane isn’t as dangerous but the potential is there and the largest amount is in the artic where it is warming fast” is there any truth behind this or can it be refuted? Or this comment here “The Pope is deceiving people by suggesting there is some possibility of solving a climate change problem. The facts clearly show there are reinforcing feed-backs on a scale far beyond anything humans are able to deal with even if all fossil fuel burning stopped today. Methane is on the rise. CO2 equivalent level is over 600 ppm when accounting for it. Even if there were not gigatons of methane, there is the loss of refection due to arctic ice melt effect The best effort humans can make now is to completely stop burning fossil fuels, ending industrial civilization, horrific in and of itself, but unavoidable given the rate of habitat decline, resources, population over-shoot. But even that effort would do little to stop the runaway warming which is already in the pipe-line & there would be a 1 degree C. added forcing in just a few days from all the sulfates which presently provide a global cooling effect. All that dirty coal burning has some counter global warming effect. That is why there seemed to be less warming just before the clean air act. Even now, we are days away from industrial civilization with decreasing energy, banking systems failing, political systems failing. Even if we somehow kept some degree of civil unrest at a manageable level in a decline of civilization, there are 400 odd nuclear time-bombs waiting for our lack of maintenance. None have been decommissioned or are likely to be in the sixty years it would take if the job was ever started. The facts tell us, as bad as the economic-political situation is, they know it is far worse. And so they will fight to the bitter end to maintain something resembling the current order as long as possible, until not only they know it, but the population know it, we are dead” Again, any truth behind this, or can you refute it? Or can you say that all these graphs https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+graph&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioopbNo8nLAhXBMSYKHY3mCsIQsAQIHA&biw=1285&bih=940 are all fraudulent and the data is manipulated? I’m doing my best to find a good scientific refuted debunking of the claims that are being made by Guy Mcpherson and I’m having a hard time with this. I’m sorry, I know this is driving you crazy but what he says is driving my worries up the wall here. So can can you possibly refute these videos? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy0pli8E9ic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsU5ZG_BPVw please again understand that all I’m doing is whatever I can to find all of this refuted, debunked, call it what you want, I just want to see if you can prove that what’s being said and shown here isn’t something to worry about causing any kind of world wide catastrophe in my lifetime

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          You know you are very transparent don’t you, Bobby?

        • Neal S says:

          The warmists keep claiming that there has been significant warming. They point to doctored surface temperature records to support this. Yet the satellite record does not show this. The radiosonde record does not show this. Tony has shown over and over and over and over and over and over again, that the surface temperature record is a complete fabrication.

          It doesn’t matter what the chain of inferences are. The claim that there has been significant surface warming is a lie. So any claims about what is going to happen are totally unsupported.

          Please list all the alarmist predictions have have been borne out. Since there are so many alarmist predictions, it shouldn’t be hard at all to find many that have come to pass.

          I have a question for you personally. What in the next year or two to come that you can read about or observe yourself would convince you that the CAGW is a load of low quality crap.

          Surely there must be something that would convince you that the whole CAGW thing is false. If you can’t come up with anything, then you are immune to reason, and I suggest you then just go away. Because absolutely nothing will convince you.

          But if you can come up with at least a few things that you would find convincing, let us know, and we might be able to discuss this further.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Doggie K is NOT here to be convinced.

            He is here to push the Guy Pearson/K-Dog line.

          • gator69 says:

            CAGW has already been falsified. Only the press refuses to report on it, and the grantologists won’t admit it.

            According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            (Page 24, Middle column, above)

            According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

            He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

            We are now well past 18 years and counting. But that means nothing to Bobby, because he needs his anxieties.

          • BobbyK says:

            OK, this response is for Neal, Neal what might be able to convince me is if you could point out specifics in what’s being said in the comments I posted and refute the things being said there specifically, can you refute this comment I found about methane “methane breaks down quickly, about 12 years, but remember ch4 breaks down into co2 on a 1 to 1 basis. on a 12 year profile ch4 is a 100x more potent than co2. as long as there isn’t a large one time release, methane isn’t as dangerous but the potential is there and the largest amount is in the artic where it is warming fast” or can you refute this “The Pope is deceiving people by suggesting there is some possibility of solving a climate change problem. The facts clearly show there are reinforcing feed-backs on a scale far beyond anything humans are able to deal with even if all fossil fuel burning stopped today. Methane is on the rise. CO2 equivalent level is over 600 ppm when accounting for it. Even if there were not gigatons of methane, there is the loss of refection due to arctic ice melt effect The best effort humans can make now is to completely stop burning fossil fuels, ending industrial civilization, horrific in and of itself, but unavoidable given the rate of habitat decline, resources, population over-shoot. But even that effort would do little to stop the runaway warming which is already in the pipe-line & there would be a 1 degree C. added forcing in just a few days from all the sulfates which presently provide a global cooling effect. All that dirty coal burning has some counter global warming effect. That is why there seemed to be less warming just before the clean air act. Even now, we are days away from industrial civilization with decreasing energy, banking systems failing, political systems failing. Even if we somehow kept some degree of civil unrest at a manageable level in a decline of civilization, there are 400 odd nuclear time-bombs waiting for our lack of maintenance. None have been decommissioned or are likely to be in the sixty years it would take if the job was ever started. The facts tell us, as bad as the economic-political situation is, they know it is far worse. And so they will fight to the bitter end to maintain something resembling the current order as long as possible, until not only they know it, but the population know it, we are dead” can you please use specifics in these comments alone and explain why what’s being said here is wrong? Or can you watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy0pli8E9ic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsU5ZG_BPVw and point out to specific things that are being said in these videos and explain why they’re wrong?

          • gator69 says:

            Bobby, those claims are based upon the falsified models that I showed you. Not falsified by my definition, but by the definition of the very people who tell you that CAGW is not a scam. You know, those same people who make millions off of this BS.

            Wake up, unless you revel in your anxieties.

          • AndyG55 says:

            And K-Dog spews another load of garbage as he shills for his mate Guy.

            I repeat, because, as noted, he has NO INTENTION of looking at real data.

            There is CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data period, or in the longer term HadCrud adjusted series.

            END OF STORY.

          • gator69 says:

            There is CO2 WARMING SIGNAL…

            Methinks you left out a word in there somehwere.

          • AndyG55 says:

            There is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data period, or in the longer term HadCrud adjusted series.

            Silly error, doh !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            There is absolutely NO empirical evidence that indicates that CO2 causes warming in an open convective atmosphere.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “The facts clearly show there are reinforcing feed-backs on a scale far beyond anything humans are able to deal with even if all fossil fuel burning stopped today. ”

            BULLSHIT !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “would do little to stop the runaway warming”

            Stop with the RUBBISH quotes. Makes you look even more like a AGW scammer.

            There is NO runaway warming.

            There has been a small, natural, and highly beneficial, climb out of the coldest period of the last 10,000 years.

            In the real data since 1979 there is NO WARMING in any region except those affected by El Nino and ocean oscillations.

            The fabricated warming you see in GISS, comes from urban heat and data manipulation.

        • gator69 says:

          Bobby, you want to believe in CAGW, because you need the anxiety. Nothing we say will ever change that, as we have proven on this thread repeatedly.

          CAGW is a failed hypothesis, just like Bigfoot.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Notice how he has never accepted any of the REAL data that any of us has put up. Never even a recognition of that data.

            Always the WHINEY “I’m so anxious” line, as if it all he has. (as if anyone cares)

            And when he gets called on his crap, he doubles down and tries to pretend he is not a shill for the AGW cult, this Guy Pearson cretin especially.

            Poor little doggie.. Sprung !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Rolled up newspaper needed , I reckon.

  62. BobbyK says:

    Recorded much earlier today but this is to AndyG55 https://youtu.be/sAWOZfIseQA

  63. BobbyK says:

    Ok, so you say bullshit, you say the quotes are rubbish and the data is based off of urban heat and data manipulation, can you please provide scientific evidence to prove that? I’m not an agw scammer but the more I read about this trying to be debunked I keep coming across things that scare the living shit out of me. It makes me worry that this is a more complicated complex science then other people understand, and maybe I’m wrong, god I hope I’m wrong but so many people are agreeing with this near term human extinction theory and I’m not finding enough debunking theories to convince me that these people are wrong. So instead of just saying bullshit or calling me a scammer or k-dog or an idiot or saying people believe in bigfoot can you please PLEASE show refuting evidence against what these people are saying: “The initial forcing of climate change in the modern era is the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2. Unfortunately this has already released a monster, and that monster is the amplifying feedback of melting Arctic ice and permafrost, to say nothing of the ultimate warming of the methane clathrates in the ocean floors. If we voluntarily stopped burning fossil fuels today, it would not halt or even slow this inexorable process which is no longer in our control. This is already releasing methane, the heat-trapping properties of which dwarfs CO2, and it is an exponentially increasing trend. Thus no, peak oil will not cause methane emissions to go down, they are going to increase no matter what. So without going down the entire list, this one aspect of climate change alone is sufficient to demonstrate that peak oil is not going to save us (to say nothing of what will happen when people can’t afford to extract oil, which is that they will burn every remaining tree). Total climate chaos is already a done deal, the ultimate virulence of which is being masked by inertia in the system (deep oceans absorbing heat and CO2) and sulphate pollution that reflect UV radiation. When we stop burning fuel, the sulphates will disappear as well, and the average temperature will rachet up dramatically.” “Both CO2 and methane are likely to go up, not down, once most of global industrial civilization of ours shuts down, because:
    – it is well known fact that historically (last couple hundred thousands years), CO2 levels correlated precisely with temperature. Temperature is expected to rise much higher after industrial civilization collapse (realization of thermal inertia of (mainly) oceans, rapid reduction and disappearance of presently obvious “global” dimming in a few years by settling down of large amount of man-made athmospheric aerosols such as soot). Known estimates tell that temperature will go up roughly 2…5 degrees celcius if mankind would magically disappear tonight. This will most likely be even higher at the time of shutting down of global industrial civilization. So, if correlation between temperature and CO2 will remain the same (and it likely will), then with further increasing temperatures, CO2 athmospheric content will also increase on its own;
    – it is well known that one of most important natural CO2 “sinks” – is Life. Both in ocean and on land, living things such as green plants and some microorganisms “breathe” CO2 just like we humans breath oxygen. Given expeceted amplitude and, most importantly, unprecedented for existing life speed of temperature increase around the globe – this CO2 sink, i mean Life, will most likely have its efficiency (in this regard) reduced dramatically. Oh, and most of it will die, too – just a sidenote;
    – clathrate gun hypothesis – which in my opinion is not a hypothesis, but a sad reality once most of June-July ice cover above vast, shallow Arctic ocean shelves will disappear (i expect is to happen in some 8…12 years). Estimated amount of methane hydrates (clathrates) not deep under sea bed of those shallow Arctic ocean shelves is above 1100 gigatons. This much was accumulated in sediments there during last few (3…4) millions years, during that time the long trend was very gradual cooling (something about 0.8 degrees C per 1 million years average), and glaciation cycles had those shallow shelves turning from sea to land back and forth. Much of that methane will end up in the athmosphere during next few centuries, and significant portion – during initial few decades couple years after said shallow Arctic ocean shelves will start to be hit by massive directly absorbed by water insolation during June and July – without reflective ice cover (which until now was always there at this time of the year – when insolation in Arctic, due to Polar day, is higher than anywhere else on the planet).” Again let me repeat I’m not an agw scammer but the more I read about this trying to be debunked I keep coming across things that scare the living shit out of me. It makes me worry that this is a more complicated complex science then other people understand, and maybe I’m wrong, god I hope I’m wrong but so many people are agreeing with this near term human extinction theory and I’m not finding enough debunking theories to convince me that these people are wrong. So instead of just saying bullshit or calling me a scammer or k-dog or an idiot or saying people believe in bigfoot can you please PLEASE show refuting evidence against what these people are saying

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “… please PLEASE show …”

      You like to wallow in your misery. Why change what works for you? Can you imagine the sudden void in your life that would appear if you started using facts and reason?

      • gator69 says:

        Bigfoot stories seem to work well for Bobby, because “so many people are agreeing with” the theory of Bigfoot. And nobody has proven that Bigfoot does ot exist.

        Plus Bobby loves his misery. His precious.

    • AndyG55 says:

      SHILL, SHILL, SHILL !

      PLEASE ….. Go find the stuff yourself,

      You have ignored anything we put in front of you….

      … and just keep on keeping on with your WHINING and CARRYING ON.

      Its PATHETIC that a human adult should ACT that way.

      SHILL., little doggie, SHILL.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And seriously, you spew out a whole mess of incoherent science fiction/garbage, total BS from the very start to the very end……..

      …. and ask people to debunk it ??

      Go and debunk the Bros Grimm, little doggie.

    • AndyG55 says:

      let’s se..

      after several lines of WHINING and self-pity, we get to..

      “The initial forcing of climate change in the modern era is the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2”

      BULLSHIT.. There is very little so-called “climate change”, if anything it is becoming more benign.

      There has been no warming in the whole satellite era apart from regional, non-CO2 forced, warming due to El Nino and normal ocean oscillations.

      Once you accept that FACT… nothing else matters, the rest is just wasted space.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Furthermore, the slight, but very beneficial warming we have had started way before human CO2 could have possible had an effect.

        There is absolutely no CO2 fingerprint even in the much “adjusted ” series like HadCrut3.

      • AndyG55 says:

        forgot the graph…

    • AndyG55 says:

      Furthermore.. the first 3/4 of the current interglacial was WARMER than now, and there was often zero Arctic sea ice..

      Where is the “methane” explosion from that…

      You are either totally GULLIBLE and BRAINLESS and unable to have even one logical thought….
      … or a slimy little SHILL for your mate Guy, and his cult.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “of melting Arctic ice ”

      Another piece of BS and mis-information.

      Yes it has melted a bit since 1979, purely in line with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation.

      But that 1979 level was actually coming down of an EXTREMELY HIGH level from the COLDEST period in 10,000 year, the Little Ice Age.

      During most of the first 3/4 of the current interglacial, biodata shows that there was often zero or near zero summer sea ice.

      The AMO is now starting to swing downwards again, which will lead to increasing sea ice over the next couple of decades.
      This will be very unfortunate for the people living up there, who are just getting used to being able to actually USE the Arctic like it used to be used in Medieval Warm Period times.

      You really have to put things into the perspective of REALITY rather than the manic ramblings of an incoherent science fiction writer.

      Here is a graph of flipped NH Sea Ice levels superimposed on the AMO.
      See if your brain can see the correlation.

  64. BobbyK says:

    Alright so I’ve done a little more research and I’ve come across a few more things that have calmed my nerves down somewhat, such as this article http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/ and a few others, I know this site isn’t one that most of the people here favor but I just want to show that I am looking for more things that disagree with the doom and gloom runaway warming methane theory so there’s this here http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=262 , as well as https://www.skepticalscience.com/toward-improved-discussions-methane.html and then outside of skepticalscience there’s this http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-time-bomb-could-have-huge-economic-costs/ so as I said, looking over these have make me feel better but I still have some questions.

    There’s still a lot that was said in those comments I posted that you did not cover specifically, I’m hoping you still will but you say “you spew out a whole mess of incoherent science fiction/garbage, total BS from the very start to the very end” can you please explain how you know that it’s incoherent science fiction/garbage?

    If you say that the claims that “even though climate change is a natural thing, the amount of fossil fuels we’ve put into the air since the start of the industrial revolution is pushing the warming to move too fast and causing a dangerous greenhouse gas and the effects of it are now irreversible and we’re not going to see a cooling trend because we’ve done too much damage and it’s only going to continue to get hotter” is wrong, how do you know it’s wrong? I’m trying to gain the knowledge on that.

    If you say that CO2 is not a pollutant and not a driver of climate when those who are in the field of climate science say that it is, how do you know that they’re wrong? You say that “the first 3/4 of the current interglacial was WARMER than now, and there was often zero Arctic sea ice” Can you provide evidence of this and were there human beings on the planet during this time? Can you provide evidence that what’s happening right now isn’t going to effect human beings in a negative way? That’s what I worry about, not that this is going to destroy the world, but can you provide evidence showing that there isn’t a chance of this having a negative catastrophic effect on human beings?

    • Gator69 says:

      Bobby, there is not one instance in 4.5 billion years when a warming planet was a bad thing. Not one instance in 4.5 billion years when “greenhouse” gases ran out of control. Not once.

      All of the alarmist claims are based upon models that have been falsified at the 95% confidence level. All of them are based upon failed models, and the models failed because the hypothesis of CAGW is a failed hypothesis.

      100% of Bigfoot experts say that Bigfoot is real.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Little shill… I suggest you find yourself a nice little padded cell to live in.

      That way you will be safe… and so will everyone else.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Getting results …

    • AndyG55 says:

      A little video for doggie to share with his masters.

      https://vimeo.com/14366077

    • AndyG55 says:

      A bit of climate history for little crash hat doggie.

  65. AndyG55 says:

    SkS is NOT research it is PROPAGANDA..

    Run off little doggie shill.

    And really , the Stoat. You have GOT TO BE JOKING !!!

    You have TRULY outed yourself as a AGW tragic this time.

    ” Can you provide evidence that what’s happening right now isn’t going to effect human beings in a negative way?”

    There isn’t anything happening right now that is outside the bounds of NATURAL variability.

    The current climate is probably more BENIGN than it has been in the last 200 years.

    Go and buy yourself a big stack hat so that the sky doesn’t fall on your head. Idiot !!

  66. AndyG55 says:

    probably way beyond little doggie to comprehend

    https://epic.awi.de/30624/1/M%C3%BCller_et_al_2012.pdf

    But if he looks up the term “Neoglaciation” he might actually learn something.

    …. and learn why geologists laugh at the absurdity of the CAGW scam. :-)

    The world has been WARMING slightly out of the COLDEST PERIOD IN THE LAST 10,000 YEARS.

    Of this, we should all be eternally grateful !!!

    Still, nowhere near the Holocene optimum. !

  67. BobbyK says:

    Ok so posting from SKS was a big BIG mistake, I’m sorry. But if you had actually read the articles I posted you would’ve seen that they were refuting the alarming claims about methane. All I was doing was trying to show that I had found other articles refuting the big methane scary doom and gloom stuff, that it had calmed down my worries somewhat and I felt pretty good about that, then you guys made me feel really dumb and bad. Look, the reason I come here, why I’m not going anywhere else to ask people questions is because I consider you guys to be my science teachers or educators on this subject. I know I’m not the smartest, I’ve always known that but I’m not here to be insulted. I haven’t once, not once insulted anyone here or even disputed anything you guys have told me. I’ve never argued and said you’re wrong, I just come to find certain alarming claims to be debunked and that’s it. I look for help and you continue to insult my intelligence and call me names, and continuously and wrongfully assume that I’m some AWG scammer, yet I’m the troll. Educators don’t insult those who they feel are intellectually inferior to them, they educate them to point them down the right path. So I’m hoping we can act like adults and stop insulting the one who doesn’t understand the subject of climate change. If you continue to laugh at and insult me and assume that I’m a scammer then it’ll become clearly obvious that you have some paranoia issues yourself you’ve still got a lot of growing up to do. So, gentlemen, I ask you can we all act our age and show respect to one another and not jump to conclusions that I have some alterior motive when I’m looking to see alarming claims debunked or are we going to continue to laugh at and insult the intellectually inferior one?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Those that really want to learn, acknowledge facts and data put forward.

      You don’t. !

      Not once have you responded to any actual point of science/data/fact that anyone here has posted…

      …. just more pathetic whining and posting rabid alarmista links.

      You aren’t fooling anyone.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      “… or even disputed anything you guys have told me. I’ve never argued and said you’re wrong …”

      You either don’t get it or pretend you don’t. Dispute all you want but show evidence and conclusions based on logic and the laws of nature.

      “… and assume that I’m a scammer …”

      Nobody really knows what’s driving you but some assumptions make more sense than other in explaining your bizarre appearances.

      “… can we all act our age and show respect to one another …”

      If you want respect, show it to others. Don’t just move on and ignore what people wrote after they spent time on your issues.

      And act your age, dammit. Or behave like a bloody fool and be treated like one.

  68. gator69 says:

    So, gentlemen, I ask you can we all act our age and show respect to one another…

    Yes Bobby, please act like a man. Please learn how to reason and think like an adult male, and not like a frightened and helpless child.

    And as for respect, please do not insult our intelligence with alarmist BS again.

  69. BobbyK says:

    Alright I get it and I will follow that advice. I get out of touch and lose sense when it comes to this topic because there’s so many different opposing views. So many people argue that cagw is happening and say that co2 is a pollutant and say that those who say it’s not don’t understand the science and don’t know what they’re talking about. Others say we’re experiencing global cooling and we have more ice then ever. Some say we’re all about to die, others say it’s going to kill us but not right away, some say the models are right, some say the models are wrong, some say that the warming is increasing more rapidly then the ipcc models could predict, some say there’s thousands of peer reviewed papers saying this is happening, others say there’s no evidence, some say bad dangerous methane and co2, others say natural methane and co2, lol do you see where I can get lost and confused with all of this? But I’ll do more research myself instead of immediately posting it here, I didn’t mean to make anyone feel like I was insulting their intelligence. I’m the last guy who has any right to do that, I may have some questions if I can’t find the answer I’m looking for but I won’t post full on quotes or other websites, I’d really like to start off on a new foot and be a better commentor and hope that from here on out we can all just get along

    • gator69 says:

      … some say the models are right, some say the models are wrong…

      This is not a matter of opinion Bobby. The models have been falsified.

      And again, ALL of the alarmist claims are based upon failed modles. So the only people who do not know what they are speaking of, are the alarmists.

  70. BobbyK says:

    So I’ve been doing a lot more research looking into climate change being an all natural occurrence and how CO2 and methane and fossil fuels have nothing to do with warming and I came across this video which I felt was very informative, also gave me a chuckle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE but then the comments below, over 9,000 of them, majority of them just trashing the video and giving their own scientific refutal as to why the information in the video is wrong. I was hoping some of you could look through some of those argumentive comments and possibly refute back, like the comments from the one who calls himself Monk Yahto and others arguing against the video

    • gator69 says:

      Monkeyhat is just an alarmist Bobby. How many times must we explain that alarmists are Bigfoot hunters.

      All alarmist claims are based upon failed models and not reality.

      Are you as stupid as you pretend?

    • AndyG55 says:

      As soon as a Monkey calls in the “consensus” you know they have LOST any scientific argument.

  71. BobbyK says:

    Ok so this is going to be a very long reply and I apologize but i didn’t at all find the answer I was looking for from my last comment. There’s a lot more I was hoping to see covered and possibly refuted as well other than that he’s just an alarmist or bringing up the consensus is losing the argument.

    Now before you go off and start calling me a scammer or a troll or an idiot or doggie or anything like that, just remember like I’ve told you time after time after time, all I’m doing is checking to see if there’s any truth behind what’s being said here or if these people just have their science wrong. So before you go just saying bullshit or that this is nothing more than just cagw alarmist leftist junk, please breathe, take a moment, and come back with a better reasoning as to why these claims are specifically incorrect. Understand I’m not insulting your intelligence, I’m asking you to use your intelligence. I’m coming to you as a very interested source here. So if everything that is being said here can truly be refuted with a better scientific explanation, I ask you please, explain away.

    And it’s not just the claims being made by him but by soooooo many others who commented on the video. But starting with him, like the claim that other greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming like methane being the largest, or saying that there is not enough plant life to convert the CO2 to Oxygen because of deforestation and loss of the mangroves or saying that the growing ice sheet in Antarctica is because so much of the ice cap is melting that it is diluting the salt water. Or the claim that the defamation filed against Competitive Enterprise Institute where they tried to get out of it by saying it was protected speech and they were just exaggerating. Or saying that there are islands that are inhabited that are already underwater from rising sea levels. I also came across another argument saying CO2 has very little effect on climate, but slowly forcing the atmosphere to become warmer has an effect on more water vapour and more melting ice, both of these causing a bigger impact on the climate, water vapour with greenhouse effect and ice melting causing less albedo. CO2 levels may have been over 100 times the current levels, but back then the luminosity of the sun was way lower. People who grow plants may use that same effect to their advantage in greenhouses, but they don’t have 10% of that greenhouse full of ice and 70% of it (liquid) water. The last glacial melt, there was a lot of CO2 at first which caused an increase in temp to 50-60 degrees Celsius in the end. There’s also boatloads of money coming from oil companies that try to make counter-data to prove that global warming is a myth and to lobby that governments don’t impose too strict rules on them.

    Again, I’m only posting this as a very calm and interested source so before we go jumping the gun and assuming that I’m trying to pull something here, understand that all I’m doing is trying to grasp a better all around knowledge of this subject and I’m coming to the people here, specifically only here to give me a better understanding of the science if what’s being said here is wrong, please without laughing or insulting or any other kind of disrespectful manner, please explain why it’s wrong.

    • Me says:

      Na, you have your mind made up and playing some game, probably to be spun and published later in some other crap study like Cook and Lew did. Because you can’t be that stupid? But on the off chance you are that stupid, ya get what ya deserve!

    • AndyG55 says:

      You post a whole incoherent rant of whiney, whingy…

      … followed by a techno yawn load of puked up CAGW TOTAL BULLSHIT.

      You are passed a JOKE, doggie et al.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Bobby, you can’t possibly be as stupid as your writing suggests. You would not survive a week outside a padded room. You would start your days by asking if there is any truth to the claim that 1” roofing nails are best for your digestion or if you should go with 7/8s.

      You’d also want to know what’s the best way to hit one’s skull with a hammer and how much force should be used.

    • gator69 says:

      (Yawn) Bobby, all of this nonsense is based upon failed models, and not reality.

      How many times must I explain this to you?

      Now go watch some Bigfoot videos, and try to debunk the commenters. Start with this one…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56QWJjI_Fis

      Eugene Bell says, “What is so hard to believe? Now I have read, but I don’t know if it is true or not, that at one time they thought that gorillas were just the figment of someone’s imagination. Why would there not be a thought to be extinct large apelike creature very closely related to humans? Why would this species not hide out if they are intelligent enough to do so, considering what man has done with every other species we could find?”

      And Barry Newman says, “Connor Bayou park Robinson township Michigan. You will find them there. They see IR so trail cameras will not work. Passive devises will work though.”

      Please debunk.

  72. BobbyK says:

    You see? You say that it’s cagw total bullshit, you say it’s nonsense based upon failed models but you don’t actually point out to anything specific in these claims and explain why it’s wrong. Why can’t you do that? If what’s being said is wrong explain why it’s wrong.

    If saying that other greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming like methane being the largest, or saying that there is not enough plant life to convert the CO2 to Oxygen because of deforestation and loss of the mangroves or saying that the growing ice sheet in Antarctica is because so much of the ice cap is melting that it is diluting the salt water is wrong, give specific science as to why that’s wrong.

    If saying that that the defamation filed against Competitive Enterprise Institute where they tried to get out of it by saying it was protected speech and they were just exaggerating, or saying that there are islands that are inhabited that are already underwater from rising sea levels is wrong, please give specific scientific explanation as to why that is wrong.

    If saying that CO2 has very little effect on climate, but slowly forcing the atmosphere to become warmer has an effect on more water vapour and more melting ice, both of these causing a bigger impact on the climate, water vapour with greenhouse effect and ice melting causing less albedo. CO2 levels may have been over 100 times the current levels, but back then the luminosity of the sun was way lower. People who grow plants may use that same effect to their advantage in greenhouses, but they don’t have 10% of that greenhouse full of ice and 70% of it (liquid) water. The last glacial melt, there was a lot of CO2 at first which caused an increase in temp to 50-60 degrees Celsius in the end. There’s also boatloads of money coming from oil companies that try to make counter-data to prove that global warming is a myth and to lobby that governments don’t impose too strict rules on them is wrong, please specifically why these claims are wrong. Please give me something more then it’s just bullshit based off of failed models.

    I know it seems like I’m debating but I want you guys to WIN the debate. When alarmists come on here and argue against Tony’s posts you guys always give specific scientific examples as to why they’re wrong so do the same thing for what I’m posting here. You argue up and down with them until they have nothing left and then the posts from them stop so debate the claims in what I said. Pick apart the claims in what I posted and explain why you specifically scientifically know it’s wrong.

    • gator69 says:

      The models have been falsified at the 95% level Bobby. The models were built on alarmist assumptions, and they were wrong, both the models and the alarmists.

      According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

      “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

      (Page 24, Middle column, above)

      According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

      He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      We are now past 18 years and counting.

      “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
      -Carl Sagan

      Where is the extraordinary evidence Bobby? All I see are claims based upon failed modles, and a failed hypothesis.

      Show me the extraordinary evidence Bobby, or any evidence for that matter.

      How stupid are you?

    • gator69 says:

      Oh, and Bobby, where is your refutation of Bigfoot? Soooooooooo many people say that he is real. In fact, 99% of Bigfoot hunters agree that Bigfoot is out there, just waiting for us to find him. It’s a consensus Bobby. And if you don’t agree, well who are you to question the experts? You are no cryptozoologist. You are just a Bigfoot denier.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby, if you want the mathematics PROVING the models are wrong, Dr Evans has gone through the math.

      Luckily he is a pretty good teacher and keeps the heavy math down to a dull roar.

      …New Science 20: Introduction. The series of blog posts continues on from the critique of climate model architecture that showed that carbon dioxide caused less than 20% of the recent global warming. This post begins the solar part of the series, where we search for what did cause the warming….

      Index to all the blog posts dealing with climate model

      Believe me the Warmists threw hissy fits but Dr Evans answers all the criticism.

      (My Husband, a physicist bought a calculus book to double check the maths.)

  73. BobbyK says:

    Why do you keep bringing up bigfoot? I don’t believe in bigfoot. Comparing people who believe in bigfoot to people who worry about cagw isn’t any kind of argument. And again all you bring up is the models being wrong. what about specifically refuting not enough plant life to convert the CO2 to Oxygen because of deforestation and loss of the mangroves? If this is a false claim can you please explain why it’s wrong other then the models being false. What about specifically refuting growing ice sheet in Antarctica is because so much of the ice cap is melting that it is diluting the salt water? If this is wrong can you please specifically refute it other than just the models being wrong. What about specifically refuting islands that are inhabited that are already underwater from rising sea levels? If this is wrong can you please specifically refute it other than just the models being wrong? What about specifically refuting CO2 has very little effect on climate, but slowly forcing the atmosphere to become warmer has an effect on more water vapour and more melting ice, both of these causing a bigger impact on the climate, water vapour with greenhouse effect and ice melting causing less albedo. CO2 levels may have been over 100 times the current levels, but back then the luminosity of the sun was way lower. People who grow plants may use that same effect to their advantage in greenhouses, but they don’t have 10% of that greenhouse full of ice and 70% of it (liquid) water. The last glacial melt, there was a lot of CO2 at first which caused an increase in temp to 50-60 degrees Celsius in the end. There’s also boatloads of money coming from oil companies that try to make counter-data to prove that global warming is a myth and to lobby that governments don’t impose too strict rules? Where are the specific arguments against these claims? Stop telling me about the models being false, argue specifically against these claims please

    • gator69 says:

      What about ALL of this alarmism being based upon failed models do you not get?

      Bobby, we are in an interglacial (the main reason you are alive today) and we should expect melting ice and rising seas. It is all perfectly natural, and has all happened before.

      Bigfoot hunters have just as much proof of the existence of Bigfoot as alarmists have for CAGW.

      So the question Bobby, is why do you not believe in bigfoot?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Its all true in the minds of the rabid alarmist, doggie..

      So off you go and PANIC your worthless troll life away !!

  74. AndyG55 says:

    1. Plant life has increase some 15% over the last few decades. There is still heaps of oxygen…. You can breathe now. !!!

    2. Antarctic melting? have you looked at the temperature down there.. DOH !!

    3. Last study showed Pacific islands had actually INCREASED in size.
    The sea level at Tuvalu is given in the graph. NADA. NONE.

    4. There are NOT boatloads of money coming from oil companies. It is a LIE
    Very few skeptics get any money from anywhere.. live off their own work.

    5. There is absolutely no mechanism for CO2 to cause warming in an open atmosphere. There is no scientific paper to support that myth even after trillions of dollars spent. Its is an unsubstantiated assumption.

    You are being fed LIES and MIS-INFORMATION by a load of AGW PROPAGANDISTS, and you are just way to dumb to see it.

  75. BobbyK says:

    Yes, I am dumb. Thank you. I never said that I wasn’t. As I’ve said before, barely graduated high school, didn’t even do so til I was 21 cause I dropped out for a few years, and before I dropped out I was in level 5 special ed classes. I know I’m dumb, you pointing that out isn’t going to make the truth that I already know sink in any further. It’s sunk.

    But moving on, it’s just difficult for me to grasp which science is correct and which science is incorrect on this whole debate. I don’t mean for it to be that way, it’s just how my head works. I know I’m gonna get A LOT OF CRAP for this but if you can refute everything I’m about to say and explain that there are other reasons for all of this then anything to worry about, please do so.

    It’s difficult for me not to worry when I come across claims that state we’ve past the point of no return, even if we were to cut out all fossil fuels at this point it wouldn’t make any difference because the warming is too severe now. Or the IPCC saying that the warming is happening even faster than predicted. Or that scientists are extremely worried about what they’re seeing with the siberian permafrost thawing and the methane coming from there. Yes I’m going to post some articles but only because I’m hoping you can debunk what’s being said in them. http://www.techinsider.io/russian-exploding-permafrost-methane-craters-global-warming-2016-6 http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_permafrost.htm http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0681-now-the-proof-permafrost-bubbles-are-leaking-methane-200-times-above-the-norm/
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/siberia-melting-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-151122124853964.html
    http://www.dw.com/en/dangers-lurking-in-the-permafrost/a-19451646
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/01/melting-permafrost-releases-deadly-long-dormant-anthrax-siberia
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/gas-siberia-underground-earth-bounce-climate-change-siberia-global-warming-a7153486.html

    If you can debunk the claims in those articles, please do.

    Or other claims such as : The current weather in any given region is not indicative of climate trends. What the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance. The climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend. CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM. It absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM. Energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above. Energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend. This process is governed by the laws of physics and is not open to debate. he mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons. Every CO2 molecule contituting that 9 trillon tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. People who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics. The remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life. Anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor. Without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid. People who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics. Without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place. Water vapor does not just magically appear. There are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events. Its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures. CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming. About 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age. external forcings intiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming. CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now. Climate deniers do not understand the science. The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives. Over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends. Furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we shoud see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere. Currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles. The earth has water vapor because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

    Again, this is all just stuff I’m coming across, if there are other reasons for all of this then anything alarming please explain that to me cause I’m really sick of worrying about all of this. And please be specific.

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, the models have debunked themselves.

      • gator69 says:

        And just for good measure Bobby, let’s destroy your entire rant right from the top.

        What the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance.

        Whoever told you that is a bald faced liar. Between 1935 and 2005 our Sun was the most active it has been in 1200 years.

        A History of Solar Activity over Millennia
        Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland

        So Bobby, ready for that Bigfoot hunt?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Always pushing the alarmist SCAM Line.

      Funny you never post the reality, always the most ridiculous of the fraud

      You seem to WANT to search for all the most rabid AGW pussulence

      Because you are ONE OF THEM.

      You are NOT FOOLING ANYONE. K-DOG and scum friends.

      You are a RABID CAGW alarmista SCAMMER.

      So stop F**KING TRYING TO CON US.

      You piece of low-life human excrement

    • AndyG55 says:

      I repeat, there is NO WAY that the mental retard that Bobby K purports to be, could possibly write the posts that appear here.

      If Bobby K is real.. he is being USED by some AGW cretin, probably K-Dog or Guy Slimeball.

      It really is absolutely disgusting for someone to use such a pathetic human to push their lies and scam.

  76. AndyG55 says:

    From your initial paragraph, you are probably the MOST PATHETIC HUMAN on the planet.

    But its all LIES, isn’t it Guy !!

    Using a mental retard to try to deliver your alarmist pestilence..

    Just how much of a LOW-LIFE are you, Guy !!!!!!!!

    • gator69 says:

      Whether wittingly or not, Bobby is being used just like the children that ISIS dresses in suicide vests.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Worse, he writes in one very long paragraph that is close to impossible to read.

        (And yeah, I know I am bad but at least I use some white space.)

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I still think it more likely that “Bobby” is playing some weird elaborate game but if he and his suffering are real—bizarre as it all is—I hope the people who did this to him find their match in hell. They happen to be the same people responsible for the energy poverty of entire races and millions of deaths.

  77. BobbyK says:

    Again with only bringing up the models, and there’s soooooo much that I put in there that you didn’t cover AT ALL! All you bring up is the models, there’s so much what I put in there that has nothing to do with the models. And please stop with the bigfoot cracks. There’s no such thing as bigfoot.

    And again and again and again I am not trying to push any scam lie, I’m not trying to con you, jeez you guys are so fucking paranoid! I really wish y’all personally knew me, then you would understand, I have very bad OCD and anxiety and my fear about all of this has me obsessed. I’ve never been anything else then what I’ve told you, and Andy, wake the fuck up! I made a youtube video for you showing that I truly am the 32 year old who lives in San Antonio, Tx and that I am not k-dog, I’m not being used by anyone and I’m not using any of you, stop being so paranoid about me because all of your assumptions about me are completely 100% false! I swear to you on my mother’s eyes and all the love that I have for my wife, I AM EXACTLY WHO I’M TELLING YOU I AM! I have given you any evidence that I can think of to prove to you that I am not k-dog and that I am not a scammer.

    Now moving on, the reason why I’m posting what I post here is because I AM FUCKING TERRIFIED! I’m losing my mind over this. I’m losing my happiness and losing enjoyment in things that I used to love to do because all of this is depressing me to a very unhealthy point. So please I am begging you, is there any way that you can break down everything that I put in my last post, every single claim in those words and on those sites that I posted and please show me that it can all be debunked? Please?

    Can you please give me a complete broken down explanation as to why everything in those descriptions about CO2 and the siberian permafrost methane claims is wrong if it is indeed wrong? Please, you don’t understand just how badly I need to see a very good broken down explained debunking. I’m so sorry to do all of this and put all of this on you but I’m really fucking losing it here and I can’t take it anymore. I don’t know what else to do or where else to go. All I want to do is be happy, I’m seeing a psychiatrist on the 16th but I worry that whatever pills I get put on are only going to help so much. I’m trying my hardest to not completely snap and go over the line here but I’m so fucking scared. So please, for the sake of my sanity, can you please go over what I typed in my last post, please look at those sites, and instead of saying that it’s all a bunch of fear mongering scamming lies, please break it all down and explain why it’s wrong, I am truly begging you ok? I am BEGGING you. I’m so sorry. Please don’t be mad at me, I’m just looking for help and this is the best way I can find it, so please.

    Again, I’m so sorry. I never meant to make you guys mad or make you think anything bad of me. I know that I’m weird and that I’m not right in the head, I’ve had to deal with that my whole fucking life. I just don’t want to be scared about this anymore, so PLEASE, just go over everything and debunk it, please?

    • Gator69 says:

      It is all based upon faked models, and not reality Bobby. The fact that your sources constantly lie should be enough for you to dismiss them.

      We have debunked every claim.

    • Gator69 says:

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here, it is all perfectly natural.

      Alarmist claims are pure fantasy, they have no basis in reality.

  78. Gail Combs says:

    Bobby,

    The Eemain the last interglacial was HOTTER than the Holocene with no human interference. That is why those like Tony, Gator and I with training in geology laugh at CAGW.

    There are also the Dansgaard–Oeschger events where the earth has warmed by as much as 10-15°C. Since Climastrologist can not explain D-O events they can not claim humans have an effect.

    • gator69 says:

      I was also a Climatolgy student (not something I am so very proud of anymore), but only after years of Geology classes. I will never forget wondering at how my Climatology prof seemed to think that climates had somehow settled, after billions of years of turmoil. Even back then I knew better than to question his weird world view, because his class was an easy A, and I did not want to screw that up.

  79. BobbyK says:

    I’m sorry that I lost it back there, when it comes to things like this I really turn into a scared little child. In a lot of ways I am not at all mature to any degree, it’s like at a certain age when I was young, my body kept growing but my mind didn’t really develop with it. I’m so socially awkward and I have such weird OCD and most of the time I’m lost in my own world that even I don’t understand. As I’ve said before, when I go to see this psychiatrist I’m also going to get tested for asperger’s, I’m also considering going to a neurologist cause I worry there’s something really wrong with me that goes beyond a chemical imbalance. But of course I’m also going to get put on meds for depression, anxiety, and OCD.

    I really broke down in my last post, to be completely honest when I got down to the bottom there, I was in tears. Not manly I know, you can laugh if you want to, but I can get really emotional. I really lack testosterone. It baffles me a lot of the time as to how my my wife can love me, guess I’m just lucky like that.

    But moving on, you know I always appreciate the information you show me, I just get scared when people show their scientific reasons as to why supposedly Co2 is a pollutant and claiming that there has been a rapid increase in warming since the industrial revolution and that there’s 1000’s of peer reviewed papers that show we’re warming rapidly. I mean if this is a false claim can you please show proof that it’s false?

    Or like I mentioned above about people claiming that we’ve past the point of no return, even if we were to cut out all fossil fuels at this point it wouldn’t make any difference because the warming is too severe now. I mean at this point if it’s not about a carbon tax or money or political gain, why do people say this if the science is false? Why do they believe in this science if it’s wrong? Can you please provide a scientific explanation as to why it’s false? Or the IPCC saying that the warming is increasing faster than the models could even predict? If this is false can you please scientifically explain why it’s false? Can you explain how and why the models are wrong?

    Can you please scientifically explain why the clathrate gun siberian permafrost methane bomb/human extinction claims are wrong if they are indeed wrong?

    If the claim that the current weather in any given region is not indicative of climate trends, what the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance, the climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend is wrong can you please explain why it’s wrong.

    If the claim that CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM, it absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM, energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above, energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend, this process is governed by the laws of physics is wrong, can you please explain why it’s wrong?

    If the claim that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons, every CO2 molecule contituting that 9 trillon tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events, that is why it is called a greenhouse gas, people who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics is wrong can you please explain why it’s wrong?

    If the claim that the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life, anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor, without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid, people who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics is wrong, can you please explain why it’s wrong?

    If the claim that without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place, water vapor does not just magically appear, there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events, its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures, CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age, external forcings intiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming, CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now, climate deniers do not understand the science is wrong, can you please xplain why it’s wrong?

    If the claim that The negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives, over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends, furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we should see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere, currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles, the earth has water vapor because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states,water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2 is wrong, can you please explain why it’s wrong?

    I know it’s a lot to ask and I’m sorry that I keep doing this but can you truly please give a broken down scientific explanation as to why all these claims are false if they are indeed false? And if they are why do people believe that this is the science if it’s wrong?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Go jump, Guy et al.

      • BobbyK says:

        You know Andy, I used to love you crush the people who’d come on here and argue against Tony’s posts. But now I have to accept the fact that you’re just a hard headed stubborn bully. You insult those who aren’t as smart as you for being dumb and as soon as you make an assumption about someone you won’t have it any other way.

        I found a website that had an article that was said to be a debunking of the theory that global warming would cause human extinction, then in the comments below I found comments from someone who called themselves k-dog arguing against the article, his comments scared the shit out of me so I copied and pasted them here hoping to see them debunked and you immediately took them as my words and just because you found a picture of this k-dog guy with guy mcpherson, that immediately made you jump to the conclusion that I was k-dog and because you made that assumption it immediately made it in your head that you were right and anything else I said wrong.

        I took pictures of myself, I took a picture of myself holding a piece of paper with a message to you saying I’m not k-dog. Then you made the assumption that I was k-dogs son and I was being used by my father.

        So then I made a video of myself talking directly to you showing you that I am who I really say I am and that I’m not k-dog, that I don’t know k-dog or guy mcpherson and yet you still say I’m k-dog. It’s now very clear to me that I could be sitting right in front of you and letting you watch me type on here and you would still call me k-dog or call me a scammer or say that I’m being used by someone. That’s just sad. I may get scared about the things that are said about global warming but you also have some serious paranoia issues.

        I know I’m not the most mature person in the world but you’ve got a lot of growing up to do. I come here to find the alarmist theories debunked and explain why they scare me and why I don’t understand the science and you call me the most pathetic human being on the planet, a mental retard, and a piece of low-life human excrement. Then you tell me to jump, suggest that I commit suicide. Trust me, if I didn’t have my wife I probably would’ve done that by now. But that’s not the point here. Bullying and harsh name calling really makes you look like a mature nice normal functioning person of society. I assume I don’t need to say that I’m being sarcastic.

        You have no compassion for the fear or mental disabilities of other people and you make them feel bad. I’m actually still willing to be cool with you and show you respect if you’re willing to do the same for me, but if your intentions are to only call me harsh names and cruely insult me don’t even bother cause then I’m just done with you and won’t respond to anymore of your hateful bullshit.

    • gator69 says:

      Bobby, obviously you are too stupid to understand what we are telling you. We have already answered all of your questions several times over. There has been no rapid warming. CO2 is not a polluitant. It has been warmer. Everything appears perfectly natural.

      Go back and reread our posts, and keep rereading them until you get it. Enough mindless spam Bobby.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Bobby,
      I am glad you now are writing in paragraphs.

      As to the WHY — MONEY.
      A carbon tax is a tax on the entire economic output of a nation. The United Nations very much wants the ability to collect its own taxes as that is another step towards a world government.
      From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: Thoughts on the New World Order gets into the ‘New World Order’ vision based on actual documents.

      You might want to read up on Lysenkoism another example of politics dictating to science.

      At this point you have been provide ample other reading to counter the Alarmist viewpoint. So pleas read the articles I and others have given you.

  80. gator69 says:

    I know it’s a lot to ask and I’m sorry that I keep doing this but can you truly please give a broken down scientific explanation as to why all these claims are false if they are indeed false? And if they are why do people believe that this is the science if it’s wrong?

    Bobby, can you truly please give a broken down scientific explanation as to why Bigfoot is not real?

    And if he is not real, why do people believe that he is real?

    We have given you scientific explanations Bobby. Science is about observing the world around us, and is not about fantasy models. CAGW is all about fantasy models, and not the real world we see. The models fail because they are not real representations of our planet, and the hypothesis of CAGW is a failed hypothesis.

    Why is it, that when I show you that your priests are lying to you, you keep going back to them for more?

    And what of their “scientific explanations” Bobby? Remember what Sagan said?

    Skeptics need not offer any extraordinary proof as we are not making any such claims. We are simply saying that it is business as usual, and the planet agrees with us.

    Alarmists say that man is endangering the Earth with CO2, and the planet is calling them liars. No warming for nearly two dedcades Bobby.

    Ready for that Bigfoot hunt yet Bobby?

  81. BobbyK says:

    I know you’ve given me explanations but people keep arguing against those explanations and saying that climate change is a more complex science then the skeptics understand. I have issues knowing who’s right and who’s wrong because I’ve seen every single claim made by the skeptics (including that the models are wrong and that the satellites show no warming) scientifically debunked but I’m doing my best not to believe that kind of debunking so that’s why I’m trying extra hard to see the scientific explanations made by the alarmists debunked by you guys.

    I copied and posted a list from someone explaining the physics behind global warming and explaining why CO2 causes warming because I was hoping you could use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk everything being said

    So I will go through this again and give this one more shot. Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the current weather in any given region is not indicative of climate trends, what the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance, the climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend?

    Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM, it absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM, energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above, energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend, this process is governed by the laws of physics?

    Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons, every CO2 molecule contituting that 9 trillon tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events, that is why it is called a greenhouse gas, people who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics?

    Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life, anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor, without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid, people who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics?

    Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place, water vapor does not just magically appear, there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events, its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures, CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age, external forcings intiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming, CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now, climate deniers do not understand the science?

    Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives, over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends, furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we should see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere, currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles, the earth has water vapor because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states,water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2?

    Can you please also pick apart and debunk the claims being made about the clathrate gun siberian permafrost methane bomb/human extinction theory?

    Can you please give me so much more than just it’s a fantasy/failed hypothesis? Can you please give me something more than just the models or the money or the satellites? Can you please specifically pick apart and debunk these claims cause if you can’t then I’m just going to have to assume that the claims being made are correct and I don’t want them to be correct

  82. Gail Combs says:

    Here you go Bobby,
    Proof it was actually warmer in the Arctic than it is now so you can forget the Methane bombs. aka Swamp Gas

    “New York Times – May 18, 1926
    Lincoln Ellsworth of the Amundsen-Ellsworth transpolar expedition told The Associated Press here today that he saw much open water at the North Pole when he and his sixteen companions passed over it last Tuesday night in the dirigible Norge”

    That means Lincoln Ellsworth in an airship saw open water at the norh pole on May 11, 1926.

    This is May 11 2016 (this year)

  83. Gail Combs says:

    Flight of the Airship ‘Norge’ over the Arctic Ocean
    ………..

    May 11 is the 131st day of the year (Julian date)

    This is this years temperature graph for north of 80N latitude. Look at the temperatures they are well below the line that is freezing for that date.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And, Bobby, I know you are too dim and brain-washed to comprehend..

      .. but the stuff these a***holes are giving you to publish..

      .. has no more credence in science than does Bigfoot or Alice in Wonderland

  84. BobbyK says:

    In case you didn’t read it the first time Andy, I’m going to say this one more time

    You know Andy, I used to love you crush the people who’d come on here and argue against Tony’s posts. But now I have to accept the fact that you’re just a hard headed stubborn bully. You insult those who aren’t as smart as you for being dumb and as soon as you make an assumption about someone you won’t have it any other way.

    I found a website that had an article that was said to be a debunking of the theory that global warming would cause human extinction, then in the comments below I found comments from someone who called themselves k-dog arguing against the article, his comments scared the shit out of me so I copied and pasted them here hoping to see them debunked and you immediately took them as my words and just because you found a picture of this k-dog guy with guy mcpherson, that immediately made you jump to the conclusion that I was k-dog and because you made that assumption it immediately made it in your head that you were right and anything else I said wrong.

    I took pictures of myself, I took a picture of myself holding a piece of paper with a message to you saying I’m not k-dog. Then you made the assumption that I was k-dogs son and I was being used by my father.

    So then I made a video of myself talking directly to you showing you that I am who I really say I am and that I’m not k-dog, that I don’t know k-dog or guy mcpherson and yet you still say I’m k-dog. It’s now very clear to me that I could be sitting right in front of you and letting you watch me type on here and you would still call me k-dog or call me a scammer or say that I’m being used by someone. That’s just sad. I may get scared about the things that are said about global warming but you also have some serious paranoia issues.

    I know I’m not the most mature person in the world but you’ve got a lot of growing up to do. I come here to find the alarmist theories debunked and explain why they scare me and why I don’t understand the science and you call me the most pathetic human being on the planet, a mental retard, and a piece of low-life human excrement. Then you tell me to jump, suggest that I commit suicide. Trust me, if I didn’t have my wife I probably would’ve done that by now. But that’s not the point here. Bullying and harsh name calling really makes you look like a mature nice normal functioning person of society. I assume I don’t need to say that I’m being sarcastic.

    You have no compassion for the fear or mental disabilities of other people and you make them feel bad. I’m actually still willing to be cool with you and show you respect if you’re willing to do the same for me, but if your intentions are to only call me harsh names and cruely insult me don’t even bother cause then I’m just done with you and won’t respond to anymore of your hateful bullshit.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You are not fooling anyone.

      Stop SHILL posting for Guy and K-Dog.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I’m just done with you and won’t respond”

      Is that a promise?

      All you do is cut paste the same meaningless whiney fantasy rant anyway.

    • gator69 says:

      I know you’ve given me explanations but people keep arguing against those explanations and saying that climate change is a more complex science then the skeptics understand. I have issues knowing who’s right and who’s wrong because I’ve seen every single claim made by the skeptics (including that the models are wrong and that the satellites show no warming) scientifically debunked but I’m doing my best not to believe that kind of debunking so that’s why I’m trying extra hard to see the scientific explanations made by the alarmists debunked by you guys.

      Actually, skeptics understand the science begtter, and that is what makes us skeptical.

      Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science

      Two seperate Yale studies (2012: “Advances in Political Psychology” & 2015: “Nature Climate Change”) came to the same conclusion, skeptics know more about climate science than the believers. So we now have destryed that myth, like Bigfoot.

      I copied and posted a list from someone explaining the physics behind global warming and explaining why CO2 causes warming because I was hoping you could use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk everything being said

      So I will go through this again and give this one more shot. Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the current weather in any given region is not indicative of climate trends, what the facts and the evidence indicate is that the planet should be in a cooling trend, owing in part to a period of decreased solar irradiance, the climate is not in a cooling trend, it is in a warming trend?

      Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that CO2 does not interact with energy at wavelengths above 4000 nM, it absorbs and reflects energy at wavelengths below 4000 nM, energy arriving from the sun occurs at 4000 nM and above, energy reflecting off the earth’s surface occurs below 4000 nM, such that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb it and reflect some of it back toward earth, causing a warming trend, this process is governed by the laws of physics?

      Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the mass of the atmosphere is 5.3 x 10^18 kg. 0.03% of this is carbon dioxide, which is trillions of tons, every CO2 molecule contituting that 9 trillon tons is capable of facilitating an unlimited number of heat transfer events, that is why it is called a greenhouse gas, people who do not understand this do not understand the laws of physics?

      Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the remaining 93% of naturally occurring CO2 emissions belongs to the earth’s carbon cycle, wherein every natural atmospheric CO2 input exists in balance with an environmental carbon sink, such as the oceans and plant life, anthropogenic emissions have no such offset, and such they are contributing to a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the heat-trapping physical properties of carbon dioxide warm the planet enough to allow liquid water to exist in all three states: solid, liquid, and vapor, without this carbon dioxide, there would be no water vapor, only ice, and the earth would be frozen solid, people who think water vapor can occur without an existing greenhouse effect do not understand basic physics?

      Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that without the greenhouse effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, no water vapor would exist on earth in the first place, water vapor does not just magically appear, there are hundreds of millions of tons of methane in the atmosphere, and each molecule represents an unlimited number of heat transfer events, its mere existence in any concentration means that it contributes measurably to average sub-tropospheric temperatures, CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages, but it did amplify the warming, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase at the end of the last ice age, external forcings intiate warming, which in turn initiates the release of carbon gases which then accelerates the warming, CO2 has not been the root cause of natural warming in the past, but it is the root cause of anthropogenic warming happening now, climate deniers do not understand the science?

      Can you use your own knowledge of physics to pick apart and debunk the claim that the negative impacts of CO2-driven global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives, over the past 35 years of global warming, solar irradiance and climate have been on divergent trends, furthermore, if the sun was responsible for global warming, we should see warming in the high atmosphere and the low atmosphere, currently we are seeing warming only in the troposphere, below the level at which carbon dioxide settles, the earth has water vapor because of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide facilitating a greenhouse effect which allows water to exist in all three of its physical states,water vapor is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2?

      Can you please also pick apart and debunk the claims being made about the clathrate gun siberian permafrost methane bomb/human extinction theory?

      Can you please give me so much more than just it’s a fantasy/failed hypothesis? Can you please give me something more than just the models or the money or the satellites? Can you please specifically pick apart and debunk these claims cause if you can’t then I’m just going to have to assume that the claims being made are correct and I don’t want them to be correct.

      Bobby, you wouldn’t understand. Or did you forget that science is not your strong suit?

      Let’s flip the converstaion, and have you prove you understand the physics. Now, without copying and pasting, explain the intrcate physics of cliamte change.

      What’s that? You cannot? Then how in the Hell do you expect us to “debunk” what is purely magical in your world? We could say anything, and you would have no way of disputing it, short of copying and pasting material that you understand as well as a dog understands Nietsche.

      And Bobby, this is why I do not take you seriously. We have debunked CAGW several times over, in language that even a child would understand, but not you. Then you ask us to break down the physics of a science that is still in its infancy, science that is miles over your head, when you cannot even understand basic logic. Your story does not add up Bobby.

      Can you please also pick apart and debunk the claims being made about the clathrate gun siberian permafrost methane bomb/human extinction theory?

      For starters Bobby, it is not a theory, because it has never made it to hypothesis. It is pure fantasy, based upon failed models. The Earth has been much warmer in the past, with zero of the CAGW fantasy scenarios showing up. No methane bombs, no clathrate guns, no human extinctions. If it has not happened before when it was much warmer, it will not happen now. Simple logic Bobby, can you follow?

      Can you please give me so much more than just it’s a fantasy/failed hypothesis? Can you please give me something more than just the models or the money or the satellites? Can you please specifically pick apart and debunk these claims cause if you can’t then I’m just going to have to assume that the claims being made are correct and I don’t want them to be correct.

      Again Bobby, if you cannot follow simple logic, you can never understand complex science. You are a shill for the alarmistys, trying a cutesy way of confronting skeptics. We have read the alarmists complaints about how they need to “change up their message”, and “try differnet approaches”, because the public just is not buying this crap anymore.

      You made a valiant attempt for “the cause”, but failed utterly by failing to refute our debunking. You have nothing to offer here except failed models and spooky stories made up by greedy leftists.

      I have two homework assignments for youn Bobby.

      Assignment number one:

      1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

      2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      Assignment number two:

      Find Bigfoot.

      (Hint: You will have more luck finding Bigfoot)

  85. Gail Combs says:

    Bobby,

    Instead of reading K-dog or who ever go over to Lucy Skywalker’s site and read her journey to understanding the CAGW fraud.

    I will give you the link again
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

    As far as I am concerned it is K-dog and Guy Pearson who are the really nasty scumbags and sadistic bullies scaring people so they and their buddies can have power and wealth at the expense of the rest of humanity.

    These sociopaths are willing to completely wreck civilization in their quest for power. This is their vision of the future. They hope to be on the hill behind the walls not realizing once their usefulness is at an end they will be on the outside.

  86. AndyG55 says:

    I have told you before what to do.

    1 Stop the whining and carrying on.

    2. Instead of posting long meaningless AGW diatribes full of junk science, keep it concise and to the point. ONE point per post.

    3. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, READ and UNDERSTAND what you being told in response.

    While you continue to post these whingey SHILL-type, nonsense posts, full of science fantasy, and continue to IGNORE the science put in front of you, you will continue to get treated like a low-life alarmist SHILL.

  87. BobbyK says:

    Greetings ladies and gentlemen. I know it’s been a little while and that’s because I wanted to wait to post here again until I was a changed person. I am happy to report that I am finally on some meds. I’m currently taking clonazepam and zoloft and the results from the meds thus far is phenomenal. I have a much more clear head, I’m not in some dark hole of depression and anxiety and I’m not freaking out about the claims made by the alarmists.

    I can’t apologize enough for what I’ve put everyone here through, trying to find more and more things for you guys to debunk. Instead I’m going to post the debunking myself because I’ve already come across some very good information against the claims of the “arctic death spiral and methane time bomb” as well as the chasing ice documentary and the claims of global dimming.

    And Gail, thank you so much for http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm I still have a lot to look into with that but there’s so much good information from what I’ve come across so far and it’s become like my bible lol

    So I just want to let everyone know that you don’t have to worry about posts from me that will make you worry that I’m some shill alarmist scammer, my head is much more clear, and I just want to do the right thing here.

    I just want to start over and do everything I can to prove that I am on your side.

    Sincerely hoping to be a friend here,

    Bobby

    • Neal S says:

      Congratulations Bobby. While not all mental issues are treatable with medication, if you happen to have one that IS treatable, then it is important to get on and stay on your course of medication.

      Reviewing some of your old posts may be either instructive and possibly amusing, or you may find it depressing. If the former, have fun, if the latter, don’t bother reviewing those old posts.

      Try to remember to put the woman who puts up with you, first in your thoughts and in everything you do.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I’m happy to hear you got medical help and I wish you well. With a clear head I hope you will be able to use your critical thinking faculties and process data and information the way the rest of us do.

      You don’t have to work on proving that you are on our “side”. If you use common sense, reason and logic you are automatically on this side.

    • gator69 says:

      I hate to agree with CW constantly Bobby, but the only side you need to be on is the same side where the whole truth is found. After decades of observation, I have found that leftist claims are based upon half truths, and whole lies.

      PS – I’ll bet your wife is happier too.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Is this a good time to remind ourselves that logic and appeals to reason don’t always make our wives happy?

        Nah, let’s keep it simple for now. :)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Good on you, I hope for your sake the meds keep you level.

      Read my post just up above. 3 points to remember.

      Best wishes… but don’t revert. !

  88. BobbyK says:

    Thank you for the kind words, they truly mean a lot. This is all a process. Of course I still have questions but it won’t be like before. I’ve been doing research and came across a very good article here http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=51 but there’s some rebuttals below that concern me and I wanted to ask if it was ok if I put what those are. I’m asking first because I want to do this in a much more respectful manner and not have you guys get mad at me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.