The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

Snopes...???


The last bastion of truth and or integrity...???



Facebook 'fact checker' Snopes.com accused of defrauding website to pay for prostitutes | Daily Mail Online


I'll refrain from the more lurid parts of the article even though they show more poor decision making.



From the article.

Lead fact-checkers...









So that's the definitive source of truth in scientific news debunking, we're supposed to use...???

Not to mention "any" news in general...???


No Thanks...


Also, Breitbart has found a additional 427 more scientific papers in the second half of 2017 not metioned in the Snopes article.

Are they all wrong...???

Unlikely...



>

Daily Mail has no credibility. Snopes has plenty of credibility.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

A few more years I will be saying "told you so" to all the man made global warming believers.

On what basis do you think we are not seeing anthropogenic climate change?

[freebeard]

Snopes has plenty of credibility.

If one searches on 'snopes credibility' on DuckDuckGo, the first [non-ad] citation is factcheck.org:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=snopes%20c...ity&t=palemoon

What we need is a Snopes/Factcheck rap battle.

[Xist]

Neil, did you completely ignore Forbes saying Daily Mail may have a point? I will share it again because scrolling is so tedious.

The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You shouldn't believe the FUD. There is no data manipulation. The science is strong and as certain as we can be.

Read "Merchants of Doubt" - and follow the money. Fossil fuel companies are desperate to keep earning record profits.

Exxon knew in 1978 that humans are causing climate change.

So you just chose to ignore the fact that the institutions keep falsifying data to support their own cause?

The climate changes, man has had some effect. The idea that man is the driving force behind climate change dies a little more each day.
The best example the ipcc just admitted they were overestimating the effect CO2 had on the climate by double what it actually is. Their words, not mine.
I guess what the ipcc says is FUD too.
With a little luck in a few more years the ipcc will meet the same fate as the Chicago carbon credit exchange.

[freebeard]

On what basis do you think we are not seeing anthropogenic climate change?

The point is that AGW is a counter to an on-coming Ice Age. As was believed in the 1970s. Chemtrails accelerate the cooling trend.

[Xist]

I remember something about the weather September 11th - 14th, 2001, when all flights were grounded. Looking for it, I found this, which does not talk about the weather, but is fascinating: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/9-...emerge-n645711

When the first plane hit, the President was reading a book to school children. It is infrequent, but people still talk about where they were and what they were doing on September 11th. You may win that game if you can say "The President was reading us a story."

Both the U.S. and Russia were in the middle of war games. The emergency systems and procedures were up to fifty years old and almost nobody was familiar with them. Of the top ten officials, the only one to follow procedures was later sent to prison, but procedure put him in a secure bunker, out of communication with everyone else, not that everyone else was able to communicate well. Putin tried calling W. to ask why we went to Defcon 3, but there was not any way for them to talk. Condoleeza Rice finally talked to Putin and settled everything.

This is from 2004 and claimed that contrails warmed the U.S. from 1975 - 1994, but not for the ten years before the report? It also alleged that cirrus clouds increased in number every year, but I cannot find any support for that, but hey! One of the researchers was named Dung!
Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate

A Cracked writer claimed that temperature increased 2° within three days of September 11th:
[C]ontrails act as mirrors, reflecting heat away from the Earth's surface.
The Cracked page linked a source, which is dead. The Wayback Machine to the rescue! I needed to go back to 2013 to find it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130726...ntresearch.pdf
"DTR (diurnal temperature range) departures for the grounding period are, on average, 1.8 C greater than DTR departures for the two adjacent three-day periods."
That indicates the Cracked piece was misleading, the daytime temperature increased one degree, but the nightime temperature decreased one degree.

"There's nothing to see here. Move along" (paraphrased): BBC - Climate Change: The Blog of Bloom: 9/11 research challenged: contrails aren't turning up the heat
They studied contrails one kilometer in width and larger, said their influence would need to be one hundred times as large to have any real affect, but are probably three times as significant as the data suggests. So, 1/33rd of enough to make a difference: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/user-reso...l-of-contrails

James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and colleagues ran models that increased the contrail coverage in Minnis's study by a factor of five. Even with this significant increase, Hansen's team found that global mean temperature change was in the neighborhood of 0.03°C (0.05°F)—a minute amount.

NOVA - Official Website | The Contrail Effect

Researchers noticed a difference after September 11th, but that was only three days. We needed to look longer. Our results were similar: Jet contrails affect surface temperatures | Penn State University

[DSMHondaGuy]

Global warming, wait nope that's not working and a lot of scientists are showing how that wouldn't entirely be a bad thing as it would allow large areas of land that can't currently grow much to grow more crops, we shall call it climate change so no matter what natural disaster happens we can blame it on it. Look see polar ice caps are melting be afraid be very afraid do what we say or we're all going to die! look see sea levels are rising... WHAT wait sea levels are dropping how is that possible!!???

Simple psyhics, waters like heavy man, more was added, so it like crushed the ocean floor down more man, Earth ant a perfect sphere dude it's like a ugly spheroid **** moves around man.


Q: If the ocean floor is being crushed lower, and sea levels dropping, doesn't that mean sooner or later something has to equalize?

[redpoint5]

I listened to 2 Rubin Report podcasts on climate change during my 3 day, 1,600 mile travel to Montana and back.

I found the Epstein interview more interesting and compelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ

The Mann interview was also interesting, but I found it lacking in substance. If the science is so well known, then why can't there be consensus as to what level of CO2 is acceptable? It seems too convenient that "science" says humans are capable of adapting to natural climate change, but incapable of adapting quickly enough to the small portion that is attributable to human activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rF9HMHl_cY

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You shouldn't believe the FUD. There is no data manipulation. The science is strong and as certain as we can be.

Read "Merchants of Doubt" - and follow the money. Fossil fuel companies are desperate to keep earning record profits.

Exxon knew in 1978 that humans are causing climate change.

What science is strong? That the earth has been warmer than it is today for most of history?

What does a business wanting to remain profitable have to do with a facts truthfulness?

Humans do not cause climate change; not even close. They affect it, but do not change it. If we had the ability to change climate, we would engineer rain in the deserts to increase productivity.

Originally Posted by Xist

Neil, did you completely ignore Forbes saying Daily Mail may have a point?

That was among the worst articles I've read lately. In all those words, it said nothing. It alluded to damning Daily Mail accusations, but never mentioned what those accusations were. Then it went off the rails suggesting that biased people are incapable of finding truth. Nonsense. Everyone has biases.

[freebeard]

I like Rubin Report. He's a centrist.

I've made it 2/3rds through the Epstein interview. He seems like an earnest young man that has been exposed to Ayn Rand. Someone needs to inform him about R. Buckminster Fuller's Anticipatory Design Science, his ground-breaking articles in 1940 Fortune magazine, his World Game, 'metaphysically engendered materials', and so on and so forth. His mind would be receptive. And blown.

OTOH he insists 'fossil' fuels are life-based. He admits methane in Saturn's rings, but neglects carbonaceous asteroids and deep, hot abiotic processes.

His 'anti-nuclear argument' is specious. Energy is consumed and it's gone, but radiation has a long tail. Nobody got time for that.

He's right about fossil fuels being our 'free' energy period. Fracking isn't progress, it's declining return.

No love for Moon (tidal) power?