2014 Breaks Heat Record, Challenging Global Warming Skeptics

God is God wrote:

Lydiard is God wrote:

Total BS. All you need to know about this global warming/climate change crap.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

That's funny. Your link actually supports the thing you were trying to disprove. The scientific community absolutely does accept anthropogenic global warming. Otherwise, the skeptic you cited would not have said:

I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject.

Also from the linked site

[/quote]"I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend."[/quote][/quote]

Except it was the coldest winter on record, and one of the coolest summers.

Other than that it was hot.

Not true

Alternate Reality wrote:

Look up records and articles from the 60s and 70s when the same nutbags were claiming the earth was going through a catastrophic era of global cooling.

Learn the difference between pop culture and science. Once you have mastered this challenge feel free to get back to me.

You forgot to put the 'some' in italics. And a selective quote doesn't change the fact that Dr Spencer, an expert on real-time satellite data, calls BS on man having any disastrous impact on the climate. He is disappointed in his colleagues venal desire to get funding to spout whatever their socialist masters want dimwits like you to hear."And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end."

CoachB wrote:

God is God wrote:

That's funny. Your link actually supports the thing you were trying to disprove. The scientific community absolutely does accept anthropogenic global warming. Otherwise, the skeptic you cited would not have said:

Also from the linked site

"I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend."[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Lydiard is God wrote:

You forgot to put the 'some' in italics. And a selective quote doesn't change the fact that Dr Spencer, an expert on real-time satellite data, calls BS on man having any disastrous impact on the climate. He is disappointed in his colleagues venal desire to get funding to spout whatever their socialist masters want dimwits like you to hear.

"And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end."

It is often difficult for me to believe that there are people out there who can write the kinds of things that you write without it occurring to them that these same scientists could make millions upon millions of dollars from coal, oil, gas, electric and auto companies if they would simply take up their side.

Scientists, like most academics, are champagne socialists themselves, and couldn't bear it if their precious climate change armageddon turned out not to be true. They have invested too much of their reputations into it to turn to the dark side now.

Lydiard is God wrote:

Scientists, like most academics, are champagne socialists themselves, and couldn't bear it if their precious climate change armageddon turned out not to be true. They have invested too much of their reputations into it to turn to the dark side now.

Translation: 'Lydiard is God' has been caught in an obvious lie and has invested too much of his reputations into it to turn to the obvious truth now.

It's sad really.

LOL at the ostriches at this point.

Here's what that socialist magazine Forbes has to say about this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomzeller/2015/01/18/the-end-of-the-partisan-divide-over-climate-change/?partner=yahootix

"From the stock markets and Wall Street to the boardrooms of Big Oil — and even the living rooms of Republican voters — the era of reflexive skepticism and denial of basic climate science appears to be coming to a close."

"The American Petroleum Institute...released its annual State of American Energy Report two weeks ago. Amid its bullish assessment of the nation’s ongoing boom in shale oil and gas, the leading fossil fuel trade group clearly and unequivocally acknowledged the threat of global warming."

"The nation’s largest and most powerful oil lobby stating in no uncertain terms that climate change is real, that it’s a threat to American prosperity, and that clean energy technologies promise a solution."

Game. Set. Match.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2014-0-32-deg-c/

runningart2004 wrote:

I think pumping C02 into the air at alarming and unnatural rates is bad. I think dumping toxins into our lakes and rivers is bad. I don't see how anyone can think this Is ok unless someone has a plan to occupy another world after we've made this one uninhabitable in a few hundred years

I do think the Earth will increase or decrease its temperature regardless of what we do. The bigger question is what effect do we have and does that effect have long term consequences? Should we let industry pump CO2 and pollutants into the environment at whatever rate they wish? Greed has always won out over whether or not your river or lake is habitable .

Alan

1) CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.

2) The present temperature of the Earth is not ideal for human beings; when it has been warmer in the past life has been much easier for human beings--the advantages of a somewhat warmer Earth vastly outweigh the disadvantages of a somewhat warmer Earth.

Hate to Point Out the Obvious wrote:

Lydiard is God wrote:

Scientists, like most academics, are champagne socialists themselves, and couldn't bear it if their precious climate change armageddon turned out not to be true. They have invested too much of their reputations into it to turn to the dark side now.

Translation: 'Lydiard is God' has been caught in an obvious lie and has invested too much of his reputations into it to turn to the obvious truth now.

It's sad really.

'It's sad really' is the typical pretentious and condescending platitude of the left's intellectual elite. The type of fvckwit who thinks they can control everything and everyone, and make the world a 'better' place. What have I got to lie about? Oh, and you don't think oil and gas companies have scientists working for them? Except, I don't suppose they would be hired to make pronouncements on how climate catastrophe secondary to carbon emissions is just around the corner.

Of course, as the other guy said, it may also be in those companies' interests to beat up the problem to promote clean energy. If it is more profitable to produce clean energy, then they will.

The truth is the warming has statistically flat lined for the last 15 years even thought the climate models predicted is to get much worse. The "climatologists" don't understand why the warmup has paused.

The Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling since its beginning. We are perhaps now going through a period of warming (though has not warmed since 1998) and in the future we will begin another period of cooling. It is disengenous of climate scientists and even perhaps criminal of them to claim that CO2 Emissions are actually affecting the Earth's warming and cooling cycles. To also keep harping on the "warmest on record" is insincere as well when "on record" only goes back to 1880. So when they say "on record" it only means 135 years out of 4.6 BILLION. These climate scientists are looking like fools.

Lydiard is God wrote:

Scientists, like most academics, are champagne socialists themselves, and couldn't bear it if their precious climate change armageddon turned out not to be true. They have invested too much of their reputations into it to turn to the dark side now.

You obviously don't know many scientists.

Ummm...they already have extremely well-established positions and enormous investments in the carbon-based energy markets. And you think they would be just as happy if the energy markets moved away from carbon-based sources where their mega-billion dollar investments would be stranded and large numbers of new competitors would be just as well placed if not better placed to compete?

Seriously - could you actually be that stupid?

Sally V wrote:

The Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling since its beginning. We are perhaps now going through a period of warming (though has not warmed since 1998) and in the future we will begin another period of cooling. It is disengenous of climate scientists and even perhaps criminal of them to claim that CO2 Emissions are actually affecting the Earth's warming and cooling cycles. To also keep harping on the "warmest on record" is insincere as well when "on record" only goes back to 1880. So when they say "on record" it only means 135 years out of 4.6 BILLION. These climate scientists are looking like fools.

Translation: The Earth has warmed and cooled many time over the last 4.6 billion years. Therefore it is impossible that human activity could be impacting the climate today.

reality cheque wrote:

1) CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is plant food.

2) The present temperature of the Earth is not ideal for human beings; when it has been warmer in the past life has been much easier for human beings--the advantages of a somewhat warmer Earth vastly outweigh the disadvantages of a somewhat warmer Earth.

1) Plant food and pollutant are not mutually exclusive sets.

2) Fine tuning the Earth's temperature to ensure a good outcome is vastly beyond what any sane individual thinks that we are capable of today.

Please try not to post such purified ignorance.

Hate to Point Out the Obvious wrote:

Ummm...they already have extremely well-established positions and enormous investments in the carbon-based energy markets. And you think they would be just as happy if the energy markets moved away from carbon-based sources where their mega-billion dollar investments would be stranded and large numbers of new competitors would be just as well placed if not better placed to compete?

Seriously - could you actually be that stupid?

That's the workings of a market economy. Eventually, technology will solve whatever problems we are faced with, or we (or at least the energy company) will go extinct. Why wouldn't energy companies invest in what they thought was prudent as far as alternative energy sources go? They need a Plan B, just like anyone else.

And why do you prats always preface your pearls of wisdom with smartarse nonsense like Ummmm-like you were some sort of fvcking sage.