UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol bolts warmist narrative: Calls Gore’s claims ‘complete madness’


By: - Climate DepotJanuary 7, 2016 2:10 PM with 309 comments

Via: http://cliscep.com/2016/01/06/interviews-with-richard-tol/

There’s an interesting blog based in Belgium called Trust, yet verify. If you’re not familiar with it, do take a look, there are plenty of good posts there. The blogger, Michel, describes in a series of posts starting here how he started out as a devout believer in what we were being told about the climate crisis, then started to look into it in more detail, asked questions, was not satisfied by the answers and the tone in which they were delivered, and gradually became more sceptical – a very familiar story.

Tol is one of the most highly cited researchers in the field and an IPCC author, writing for WG2 about economic impacts.

The world is in uproar about the climate, but you claim that climate change is not a problem?

Tol: “There is no reason to believe that climate change is so terrible at the moment. Unless you raise funds for Greenpeace or are a politician who presents themself as the savior of mankind: then you gain by exaggerating things. The reality is that the climate hardly affects our wellbeing and our prosperity. There are happy and rich people living in boiling hot Singapore, but also in freezing cold Canada. There are unhappy and poor people in boiling hot Kenya but also stone cold Mongolia. Climate change is not the main environmental problem. Dirty air causes currently roughly four million deaths each year.”

Are you concerned that the future of your children is at risk due to climate change?

Tol: “Not for a moment. It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness. The best estimate is that sea level will rise half a meter this century. That is from the ground to our knees. The Netherlands has the money and the knowledge to do something about it. It is the poorest who are affected by climate change. It is the grandchildren of the people in a country like Bangladesh who are at risk from rising sea levels. But why are we suddenly concerned about the grandchildren of people that we care little about? Poverty is a bigger problem than climate change. Do you help the poor by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by fighting poverty? An important question for which no one has a clear answer yet.”

There is also a follow-up post on a short response in the same newspaper in which an environmental activist attacks Tol, falsely claiming that he thinks only money matters and that his views contradict common sense.


Another much longer interview with Tol was carried out by BBC correspondent Roger Harrabin for his pre-Paris series on Radio 4. The full transcript is available at Carbon Brief.  This interview also illustrates the bias and prejudice of Harrabin:  he illustrates my point about painting, by noting that Tol is on the advisory panel ofGWPF, but incorrectly describing GWPF as “a climate skeptic lobby group” (in fact they are a think tank, not a lobby group, with no official or shared view, as Harrabin could have found out if he had looked at their website).

Then there’s this question from Harrabin: “Just looking at you now and from the point of view of the listeners, you look rather different from the average climate contrarian. They tend to be suited and booted and you have long hair and beard and a t-shirt. It’s a different look.”  Again, from the point of view of activists like Harrabin, anyone who dares to question imminent disaster is a ‘contrarian’.  But “suited and booted”?  Has Harrabin met the pony-tailed Jonathan Jones? Or any members of the Cliscep team?

From this interview we learn that

  • Richard Tol used to be a member of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
  • His early research was on the statistical link between greenhouse gases and climate change.
  • He set out to prove Nordhaus’s low carbon price argument wrong – but ended up proving Nordhaus right.
  • There is huge uncertainty in the impact and economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions.
  • The UK is a model for how not to implement climate policy.
  • He supports a modest carbon tax, and opposes subsidies for green energy systems.
  • Many of the more dramatic impacts of climate change are really symptoms of mismanagement and poverty.

There’s also quite a bit about his withdrawal from the IPCC Summary team, on the grounds of their excessive alarmism, and his view on the benefits of warming, and much more.

#

Related Links:

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks UN Climate Treaty Process As ‘Futile Effort’ Where Countries ‘Pretend To Reduce Emissions’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’

‘It’s All Wrong’: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol slams media for false claims about alleged 97% consensus

NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

Global warming causes polygamy?! Dr. Richard Tol mocks: ‘Men marry multiple wives to beat drought’ – ‘Cue claims that climate change will turn us all into bigamists’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Corrects Obama: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim – Tol says. ‘[The IPCC’s] reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann’

‘If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s (97%) paper is an excellent case in point.’

The paper only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks climate hype: ‘2015: the most crucial year for decades in the climate battle as were 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2009′

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Laments: ‘Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment’ – Tol: ‘There is no prima facie reason to assume that any given past climate was better than the prospective one.’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong’

Leading German Daily Paper: Climate ‘Apocalypse Will Not Take Place’…UN IPCC’s Dr. Richard Tol: ‘97% Consensus Does Not Exist’ – Germany’s print high-profile national daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which features climate economist Richard Tol titled: ‘The apocalypse won’t take place’ – ‘Tol is one of the most productive and most respected researchers in his field. He is (co)author of more than 250 papers in renowned journals and according to the Ideas-Repec databank, among the top 100 scientists worldwide.’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up’

 


  • mef

    Fair enough comments from Dr. Tol. However, I remain a bit skeptical of his timing. Now that Algore’s “prophecy” is clearly a failure for all to see, he decides to call him out? Why not say this nine years ago? 8, 7, 6, etc… It was just as absurd then as it is now.

    • Dano2

      Algore (isfat!) perdiktin!

      Drink!

      Best,

      D

  • Duke Silver

    I may be wrong but I believe Dr Tol has called out Albert before. He’s certainly been moving steadily in the direction of climate sensibility for a while now.

  • Sam Pyeatte

    The talk about sea levels rising has been going on for many years. I have lived by the sea in the Pacific NW since 1979 – that is 36 years, about a third of a century. I have spent many hours at the nearby marina over those years. The high tide mark is the same today as it was in 1979. If we are looking for a sea level rise of half a meter in a century, I should see a fairly linear increase of about 16 cm by now – never happened. Tidal changes up here are rather dramatic as it is common to get a 13 foot differential between low and high tide, depending on the lunar cycle.

    • Dano2

      Anecdotal tripe. Seems legit.

      Best,

      D

      • planet8788

        More legit than you.

        • Dano2

          Sez guy who doesn’t know it is warming and satellites weren’t launched until late-mid 1970s. Seems legit.

          Best,

          D

          • planet8788

            I know exactly when they were launced…. right after a 40-year period of global cooling.

          • Dano2
          • planet8788

            No conspiracy just fact….. And this has no error bars therefore useless.

          • Dano2

            Not useless at all. You made that up to deflect from the fact you were wrong.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            Not wrong… It’s data from different proxies… you can’t put them on the same graph

          • Dano2

            Science, bro. You can’t refute the paper that did this. You can’t refute any paper that does such. Not one. You can’t do it.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            No error bars… it is self refuting.

          • Dano2

            Weak flail. You can’t refute that paper where this appeared.

            Best,

            D

          • Rick Bohnsack

            planet. lo f’n l! You have a severe science allergy. You have been completely owned by Dano!

          • Isandhlwana79

            Rick, another AGW kook heard from…….LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            isand, give it up. You are in abject denial and one of the few remaining residents of the Island of Misfit Climate Clowns…..probably explains the maniacal “LMAOs”…

          • Isandhlwana79
          • Rick Bohnsack

            To clarify; a follower of the dwindling, hand waving extreme minority.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have no clue how many scientists refute the hypothesis. Why? Maybe your head is too far up your rear end??…………….LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.

            Speaking of rear ends, while you’re busy pulling lies and conjecture from your rectum, reach in with both hands and extract that delusional head of yours.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Rick, what are you trying to pull out of your mouth?…….LMAO!!

            BTW, the burden of proof lies with the AGW crowd, not the other way around. They can’t show any linkage between CO2 and temperatures. 20 years now with negligible warming according to RSS. All the while CO2 increases. So sad for you idiots that fell for that garbage….

          • Rick Bohnsack

            You clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a theory or hypothesis. The evidence not “proof”…there is no such thing in science as absolute proof…is overwhelming. That’s why we have an AGW hypothesis and GHG theory.

            Learn some science basics and then get back to me.

          • Isandhlwana79

            “No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.”

            Aren’t you using the word “disprove”? The evidence is NOT overwhelming. The evidence, at this point, shows NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures. RSS confirms that. Why don’t YOU learn a little bit before appearing as ignorant as you must be?

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Again, buffoon. LOOK UP the definitions of theory and hypothesis then get back to me when you understand these basic tenets of science.

            “NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures.” ???

            Wow, you are deep, deep down in that rabbit hole.

            Sorry, rube. It’s Friday and I’m out to meet up with intelligent life forms…your complete opposite.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Can’t refute what I just said. Figures. You have no clue about “basic science”. You are just another clown who is a legend in his own mind……LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            ” The evidence, at this point, shows NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures.”

            LO f’n L! You are gravely mis-informed . This is one of the most stupid, non-scientific things I’ve heard from any denier dolt.

            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

          • Isandhlwana79

            You are simply an idiot not worth any more time.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I understand, You’re embarrassed that the actual science doesn’t fit your belief system and you’ve been outed for your complete lack of understanding of the temperature/CO2 relationship

            While you’re licking your wounds, look up the definition of theory and hypothesis, rube….

          • Isandhlwana79

            Keep harping about “Hypotheses” and “Theories”. You can’t even figure out how to post a graph………LMAO!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I was flagged…probably by some science devoid rube like you. But look!…I found your profile pic!

          • Isandhlwana79

            Really, rube?…..hahaahahahaha…..couldn’t even get that to attach? Admit it, Nutsack. You are none too sharp, yet you have the hubris to call someone else “rube”….OH! the irony!!!………….LMAO!!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            It’s no wonder you can’t see it given where your eyes are.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Poor Nutsack. I almost feel sorry for your dumbass…….not really. Now go play with the other children………LMAO!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            What’s that? …. your voice is muffled…

          • Isandhlwana79

            hehehehe….keep trying there, Nutsack. You might eventually come up with something half-way witty. I doubt it though…..LMAO!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            The pic is flattering. I would have guessed you as shorter, though.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Too bad you don’t know how to attach it. Your ignorant pal, Dano, couldn’t help you? You must have a problem following directions……..LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            It’s right there. Another thing you’re in denial about. …or maybe your etch-a-sketch is broken?

          • Isandhlwana79

            Right where? In your own delusional mind? Tell us when you’ve figured out how to post it, Nutsack.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            About 10 posts up…It posted just fine. Are you on a Commodore?

          • Isandhlwana79

            Sorry, it isn’t there. Just because you think you posted something doesn’t mean it went through. You said you were “flagged”, so you admitted nothing went through. Which is it? get your story straight there, Nutsack.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I believe I was flagged earlier because I couldn’t post pics or graphs. I can now and the pic still appears on my screen. You must just have a shit computer….matches your brain.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Poor stupid, Rick. Your intellect just isn’t too great. You must know it too. Focusing on me? I’m in your brain rent-free now. I find it amusing. You have no clue how computers work just like you have no clue how the climate behaves.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            isand, you’re nothing more than a science devoid mewling little quim.

            You prove it with each successive post.

          • Isandhlwana79

            One thing is for sure, I know more science about both computers and climate than your sorry butt.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            LOL….. I have bio and chem degrees and.30 years consulting across numerous scientific disciplines, mainly involving climate science these past 10 years.

            Armchair “scientists” like you who rely on skeptic blogs for “knowledge” are a scourge to science.

            I have forgotten more about climate science than you’ll ever know.

          • Isandhlwana79

            A legend in your own mind too? Sure you do. Right. If what you said was true you wouldn’t let someone as insignificant as me get under your skin. You are one insecure dude. A mental midget for sure…..what say you now, Nutsack?

          • Rick Bohnsack

            “get under my skin”….lol, You’ve been owned by Dano (another scientist) and I. You don’t even know the definition of theory and hypothesis. You’re like a little gnat that keeps getting swatted away.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You just think I got “owned”. That’s when you got the false courage to jump in. You got destroyed by your own insecurities. I could not care less what you and the other “scientist’ think of me. But you? I’m so far into your insecure head you can’t stand it. Try some more, Nutsack. This is fun.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I just stumbled upon your exchange with dano. I’ve known him through various forums like this for a few years. I always find it entertaining when people don’t understand his succinct delivery. Like myself, though, he’s an actual scientist and thoroughly understands climate science.

            You’re a climate clown, isand. You deny the CO2 / temp relationship and therefore 150 yrs of radiative physics. You don’t know what constitutes a theory or hypothesis and what it takes to disprove them. You’re just not well versed at all in climate science…it’s glaringly obvious.

            We’re the complete opposite of you.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Then why are you wasting your time with a peon like me? I can tell you why. You are an insecure little man who has to impress people with your limited amount of knowledge. I am inside your head or you’d ignore a “gnat” like me. But you can’t and I find it amusing. Keep trying, Nutsack.

            BTW, NOBODY thoroughly understands climate science. That statement right there shows how ignorant you truly are. Bio and Chem degrees? from where, the back of a match box?

          • Rick Bohnsack

            lol…scale back your sense of self-importance, isand …it’s just free entertainment for me.

            When I see climate clowns like you make statements that they are so certain are valid, when they clearly aren’t, I can’t help but step in and call them out because, as I said before, the disinformation you rubes try to spread is a scourge to science.

            My degrees are from a Big Ten Univ. and I wrote my Sr. thesis on CFCs and the Antarctic ozone hole. I’ve been at the center of this “climate controversy” since the 70s….except that it wasn’t a controversy until politics reared it’s ugly head to muddy the waters about 10 years ago. Compared to you and your ilk, yes I thoroughly understand climate science.

          • Isandhlwana79

            No, you don’t have a “thorough understanding of climate science”. That is a lie. Any REAL scientist would know better than make an ignorant statement like that. The science isn’t settled and none of the REAL scientists are claiming such. You are simply a fraud.

            If you were so knowledgeable how come I don’t see you over on WUWT debating them? How about Dr. Roy Spencer, or any of thousand PHD skeptics? Why not? Insecure? Probably. You are an insecure little man. That goes for Dano, the clown, as well. When he makes the simplistic statement that climate change prior to humans was caused just by “orbital variation”, it exposes him as an ignorant fraud as well.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            You seem a bit enraged, isand…I can visualize the blood vessels popping out on your forehead as you hammer away at the keyboard….calm down….lol

            Thorough as in “in depth”. The word is not a superlative adjective, rube.

            WUWT…lol…I spent time over there a few years ago and took them to task on many occasions. A memorable one was calling out Bob Tisdale regarding his false claims on atmospheric CO2 saturation I met and spoke with Spencer at a fundraising event about 5 years ago. I liked him, but disagree with his PDO assertions. He tries too hard to minimize the AGH component and that’s why his ideas haven’t gained more traction in mainstream climate science.

            No need to defend Dano, but I assure you, he understands Paleoclimatology far better than you. He just doesn’t have the patience anymore to explain details and deal with the outright stupidity of some people.

            I’ve reached the same point with you, so see you around, climate clown….

          • Isandhlwana79

            Nice backtrack, Nutsack. You and Dano are first rate frauds.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            It shows up on my screen, here it is again.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Not here. But that isn’t surprising. You and all the other AGW kooks live in an alternate universe…..LMAO!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Weird. Shows up for me every time. Maybe I’m still flagged.

            Here’s a link: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Head_up_ass.jpg

          • Isandhlwana79

            A self photo, I see………LMAO!!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            It’s still there twice. I think your computer just sucks. At least now the humor will make sense to you. Climate science sure doesn’t.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have exposed your problem, seriously. You think that because I don’t see something you post, the problem must be with my computer. Is that the depth of your intellect? No wonder you can’t convince anyone in a debate. You are just too shallow there, Rick. Good day, it has been fun playing in the kiddie box with you. I have more adult things to tend to (and that doesn’t mean going out and getting drunk like you did last night).

          • Rick Bohnsack

            It shows up on 4 devices of mine. No surprise it “didn’t work” for you, though. You have established a track record of “not getting the picture”. I guess it’s from the kiddie box to the cat box for you. Have fun. I don’t drink.

          • planet8788

            Historically co2 lags temperature.. That is the only link. There is a strong correlation between co2 and the amount raw data has been adjusted. R2 of .97

          • planet8788

            If ghg theory is so overwhelming why don’t we know how much co2 will warm.

          • planet8788

            Uh.. Whatever. If you believe that you can’t read graphs either

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I’m thoroughly versed in the sciences. You are either willfully ignorant or in abject denial. Either is a pathetic excuse.

          • planet8788

            So you are a satellite data denier too?

          • planet8788

            And in what day did he blow me away… Showing that satellite and surface data are diverging at an amazing rate? Or was it his Facebook references? Being so well versed in the sciences. I am sure the explanation is a link away.

          • planet8788

            Here is what I mean.

          • planet8788

            And hasn’t warmed for almost 20 years…. with the minor exception of this current El Nino.

          • Dano2
          • planet8788

            Clearly no warming since 1998

          • Dano2

            Dishonest cherry-pick to mislead. But I’ll take the points on offer:

            o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            20 years is not small time. Moron. Best.
            You can’t explain the divergence between satellite and surface….
            You can’t explain the daily adjustment of surface temps.
            You lose… Your side is fudging the science so they can believe they are saving the world.

          • Dano2

            Smartie, I can score off those, thanks!

            o Scientists have been caught tampering, trashing, falsifying, suppressing [25 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            (the satellite scientists can’t explain the divergence either, so you got nothin’ but gavotte).

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            How about the 20 years comment…
            Didn’t score off that you. You are a complete and utter moron…
            You are more familiar with facebook than real science….
            That’s all one need to know.

          • Dano2

            How about the 20 years comment…

            How about it? Not germane to anything that was typed so sitting out there like some red herring, flopping around for nothing.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            How about the 1000 year old forest popping out from underneath the Mendenhall Glacier? There was no MWP? but yet… We still have glaciers today where there were rich lush forests 1000 years ago…

            You morons will believe anything.

          • Dano2

            You smarties aren’t capable of grasping the concept of staying on topic. Why can’t smarties stop themselves from changing the subject when their derp is pointed out?

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            Glaciers don’t grow in hot climate. I f you think it’s unrelated you are a moron.

          • Dano2

            So a couple square miles of the earth is representative of the entire planet, smartie?

            Tarnation, Margaret! Th’ whole world is covered in 2 feet a snow today!

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            Moron writes: So a couple square miles of earth is representative of the entire planet….
            Yep… that’s exactly how temps are measured…

          • Dano2

            Smartie smarts his way into embarrassment once again.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            Also clearly shows how the different data sets start close together and end far apart. Major issues with the surface data.

          • Dano2

            Or major issues with satellite data. You made that up.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            No… it’s easy to see if you open your eyese.

          • Dano2

            You made that up. You can’t show it’s true.

            Best,

            D

          • planet8788

            You can’t show its wrong.

          • Dano2

            You need to back your claim.

            You made this claim: Major issues with the surface data.

            Your claim, your burden of proof.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Yet none of that proves that CO2 or man is causing it. A shame you can’t prove that.

          • Dano2

            Aside from the fact science doesn’t “prove”, the evidence is a century and a half old, and the Detection and Attribution problem was answered decades ago. Where have you been?

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Correlation does not mean causation. I thought someone as knowledgeable as you would know that. I guess not, huh?

          • Dano2

            Weak flail. The evidence is not based on correlation. Try another flail, this time not a standard con reaction not germane to the assertion.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Not a weak flail at all. You are the one that refuses to recognize that simple concept. Furthermore, if you can’t “prove” the premise of AGW, tell me why anyone should accept it?

          • Dano2

            That’s another weak flail. The evidence is a century and a half old, and the Detection and Attribution problem was answered decades ago. Don’t you have an education or access to a library?

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            What evidence? You can’t prove it and you know it. So, flail yourself….LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            There are, literally, hundreds of papers on the subject. A Nobel was awarded for work in 1896. The Detection and Attribution problem was finalized several decades ago when technology allowed us to analyzed carbon isotopes in the atmosphere to verify fossil burning raised the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Educate yourself.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Hundreds of papers mean what? It’s proven? Not hardly. There are hundreds, no, make that thousands of scientists that dispute AGW. Now, go educate yourself.

          • Dano2

            Won’t educate itself. Got it.

            You can’t show scientific evidence that dispute(s) AGW You can’t do it. You have none.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You don’t seem to understand (figures). I don’t have to prove ANYTHING. The burden of proof rests with AGW proponents. Thus far, you have FAILED to prove it. Case closed.

          • Dano2

            The burden has been proven many times over. Ignorance of 150 years of scientific findings is not a compelling argument.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Saying so doesn’t make it so….Try again there little broomstick cowboy………LMAO!!!!

          • Dano2

            History of stuff you are ignorant of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

            Detection and attribution: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

            HTH.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Posting the same crap over and over proves nothing. As I said, YOU can’t prove it……….LMAO!!!!

          • Dano2

            Too ignorant or dishonest to admit it.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Again, you project. You can’t prove AGW. Simple as that.

          • Dano2

            Science doesn’t prove. And I gave you the evidence, you are unable or unwilling to accept it.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Evidence? Not proof? You are a science illiterate trying to project that you know something. You’ve been fun. An AGW fraud.

          • Dano2

            a science illiterate

            Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            weak argument. Get back to us when you prove it…..LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            Science doesn’t prove, little LoInfo LOLO.

            When do you enroll in your very first science class? When you get to 10th grade all of this will be very familiar to you.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You can’t prove AGW ……….LMAO!!!

          • Dano2

            Thanks, LOLO!!!!!1111one

            Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class. By 10th grade you’ll realize you’ve embarrassed yourself here.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You can’t prove AGW…………………….LMAO!!!

          • Dano2

            LOLO not bright enough to grasp that science doesn’t prove. Not bright enough to want to learn either.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Chump is full of himself…YOU….thinking you are on some sort of intellectual high ground. I am well aware of what science can and can’t do. You have yet to show that it does anything on AGW. Not enough evidence there, LOLO………………LMAO!!
            You have been played, fool……Not even bright enough to see it……

          • Dano2

            Now you’re just lying: You have yet to show that it does anything on AGW

            You are lying that I didn’t show you anything. Weak. Come play poker with us so we can take your money – you s–k at bluffing.

            best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have yet show anything, fool. One thing is for sure, you have no clue how the climate works……..LMAO
            What you’ve offered means NOTHING………LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            You have yet show anything, fool.

            Yet you whined when I gave you the information twice.

            You s–k at bluffing. Come play poker with us.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You must have a gambling problem…..LMAO. You haven’t shown anything other than what you AGW kooks keep showing over and over again. As if it really means something. CO2 is a trace gas that interacts with dozens other factors in making climate dynamics. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is sure how it all works. That would include you, dum-dum. The climate is a chaotic, non-linear system that can’t even be modeled correctly. The smart scientists, who aren’t on some government grant, know as much. All you have is a physical property of CO2 and temperature charts. That’s it. Scientists can’t agree what forcing or feedback effect CO2 ultimately has. Yet kooks, like you, think you have it all figured out. That is why you are a joke. A legend in your own mind too, I’ll bet.

          • Dano2

            All you have is a physical property of CO2 and temperature charts.

            Not smart enough to know there are direct measurements of CO2 forcing at the planet’s surface. Got it.

            What else can you entertain us with as you flail about like a fool, using your standard con bombast and bluff?

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Like I said, you must be a legend in your own mind……LMAO. The climate is more complex than your pea brain can grasp.

          • Dano2

            Thanks, LOLO, everyone can see you are making it up and flopping about like a LoInfo fish looking for water.

            You are horrible at bluffing, LOLO. When you graduate high school and get to junior college, take a rhetoric class.

            Best,

            d

          • Isandhlwana79

            I didn’t think you’d have much to come back with…..Who’s bluffing? I’m not the one pretending to have a complete understanding of climate dynamics. You think you do. What a laugh…..Hubris, much?

          • Dano2

            LoInfo flops to entertain us some more.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Dum-dum can’t think of anything witty to say……LMAO!!! You really are shallow……..hahahahaha

          • Dano2

            LOLO regresses some more for our entertainment. Soon LOLO will cry for its binkie.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            hehehehehe……feeling frustrated there, Dano? I understand. You, being the legend you are, can’t convince anyone of your AGW scam. I love it.

          • Dano2

            LOLO uneducable. Too thick.

            To hide it’s inadequacies, LOLO clowns for our entertainment.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Dano, too stupid to understand climate dynamics is too complex for his pea-brain……….LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            isand…..lol….you have been completely owned by Dano. One absolutely cannot “prove” a scientific theory or hypothesis. However, either can be disproven. No one,despite ongoing attempts, has provided any evidence whatsoever which refutes AGW. You obviously don’t understand the definition of theory or hypothesis.. Now go tend to your wounds.

          • Isandhlwana79

            I am well aware of it, fool. I was playing the clown. Now go away, turkey.
            BTW, the “hypothesis” is weak with little evidence to support it. Many Scientists agree with that assessment So are you another one who thinks they have a complete understanding of climate dynamics? Fess up, clown.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            You’re well aware that you’ve been completely owned? Good for you!

          • Isandhlwana79

            Only according to dummies like you………..LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            There’s that maniacal “LMAO!!” again. isand, you have the science acumen of a dung beetle and obviously enjoy the same diet.

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have no clue what my “science acumen” is. But then again that is just what you AGW kooks do, make assumptions with so little knowledge. One thing I DO know is that YOU have ZERO understanding of climate dynamics……..LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Sure I do, isand. You clued me in with your science devoid commentary. It’s quite evident that you have no science acumen.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Rick, I’m not the one who has to prove anything. The AGW kooks, which you are one, have to show that AGW is real, can you? You can’t, simple as that. BTW, where is YOUR science commentary? How are you even qualified to make a judgement? Here’s my science acumen: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Roy Spencer? Wow, that’s really impressive.

          • planet8788

            The evidence, moron, is right there in the satellite data.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Yes, it is….try to keep up with what the data actually tells us instead of clinging to your denial and willful ignorance.

            http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tmlw0602.pdf

            “For observations since the late 1950s, the start of the study period for this Report, the most recent
            versions of all available data sets show that both the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the
            stratosphere has cooled. These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative
            forcing agents and with the results from model simulations”

          • Dano2
          • Rick Bohnsack

            Dano, a question: I can’t seem to get graphs like this to display properly in this format. How do you paste these?

          • Dano2

            Rick, when I hit I can see a little ‘image’ icon in the lower left of the resulting dialog box. I simply click the icon and navigate to the folder with the file I want. Whereever the cursor is, the image appears. The cartoon here was the result of cut-pasting a URL I’m on a laptop & not Android – Disqus much different on mobile platform.

            Best,

            D

            http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/wp-content/blogs.dir/462/files/2012/04/i-132b9d417f6da4a4855d5454ecce8c67-an-inconvenient-truth.jpg

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Thx. I had been trying to copy and paste directly from sites like NSIDC

          • Dano2

            I’ve been using the new ice charts- I can get them to show…

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/01/Figure21.png

            Best,

            D

          • Rick Bohnsack

            I think the issue for me is that I’m experiencing huge lag time here. I typed that sentence and it took about 3 min to populate.

          • Dano2

            My guess is either your ISP, or your your IP address is flagged here.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            GOOD! So should yours, ignorant troll. Why don’t you two clowns get a room……LMAO!!!

          • Isandhlwana79

            Nutsack can’t figure out how to post a graph but thinks he knows all about climate science………LMAO….How rich!!!

          • Dr.Rabid.Suzuki

            In looking over your snark responses Dano2, I can find no better illustration of one who sees in others what they fear the most in themselves.

            And a reminder, Man Made Global Warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.

          • Dano2

            Man Made Global Warming is a hypothesis, not a theory.

            Tens of thousands of papers overall studying it in two score scientific disciplines, absolutely nothing disproving it, and still a hypothesis?

            Well, tarnation Martha! How often does Webster’s change they definishins anyhoo?

            Best,

            D

          • Herb

            Dano2 said, “Ignorant proven aside.”

            Cheap attempts at linguistic snobbery will go nowhere. This IS English, you will remember — born of low German. The “-en” endings are common and valid. There is no agreement on whether to use “-en” or “-ed” with the word “prove,” with Commonwealth countries tending toward “proved” and America tending toward “proven.” The exception here the The States is pretentious poseurs like you attempting to look superior.

            Now THAT’S a fail.

          • Dano2

            Can’t show scientific ev’dance disputin AGW, we know.

            Best,

            D

          • Herb

            Back in 1896 the Nobel Prize had value and credibility. In recent years no less than YASSER FRICKING ARAFAT and Algore and President Empty Suit have all received the Nobel Peace Prize !?!?!?

            The Peace Prize has for some years been a Leftis/anti-semitic popularity award. The prize for economics isn’t far behind.

          • Frederick Colbourne

            To illustrate the physical relationship set out in the AGW theory, it is the logarithm of CO2 that should be shown on a graph that is intended to show correlation or the lack of correlation.

            Unless the comment is intended to suggest that the warming of seawater causes CO2 to be released from seawater.

            But as econometricians have shown, non-stationary processes generate spurious correlations from random walks. So this simplistic approach is actually the mirror image by a skeptic of the faulty statistical methods used by warmists.

          • Dano2

            Wegman! Hoot!

            Dr Wegman pointed this out in his study of the Hockeystick paper by Michael Mann.

            I’ll take these points on offer now:

            o Fake expert usage to bolster argument, 50+ points if report was plagiarized [15 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • Milty

            Off your meds again I see.

          • Dano2

            Weak attempt.

            Best,

            D

      • Sam Pyeatte

        It’s called observational evidence, nothing more.

        • Dano2

          Especially since you may be in one of a few spots of isostatic rebound whereas the rest is enjoying sea level rise.

          Best,

          D

    • Duke Silver

      If you’ll pay attention you’ll see the greatest “sea level change” in urban areas along the coast. Well explained by land subsidence due to aquifer depletion in the bigger cities – lesser amounts in more rural settings. In fact, in more rural settings the increase exactly matches that over the ages. Unfortunately, no grant money has been available for land subsidence studies cause it’s all gone to CAGW/CC/CD/new term of the day.

    • FortSteve

      If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts. It sounds simplistic, but I don’t believe for a minute that polar ice caps are melting, much less that they will cause coastal flooding should they melt.

      • Marilynkhernandez


        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3ztm……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • Susandescobar


        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        be.
        ➤➤..
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • Stephaniernewman2


        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3bbi……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

      • Teresa Matos


        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3fbf……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

      • Emilie Humphries


        ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        dd
        ➤➤..
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • xscd ✱

        Steve says: “If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts.”

        But if you fill a glass with water, and then put ice on a shelf above the water level of the glass and channel the ice melt into the glass, it will certainly overflow.

        • FortSteve

          The glaciers weren’t added to the ocean, they were formed from it.

          • xscd ✱

            Steve says: “The glaciers weren’t added to the ocean, they were formed from it.”

            Glaciers in the mountains of Alaska, Greenland, the Alps and elsewhere would beg to differ. Precipitation, rainfall and snowfall–

          • Frederick Colbourne

            Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water in the sea not additions to the water already there.

            For this reason, if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass, sea level will continue to rise at more or less that same long-term rate as it has done for at least that last few centuries.

            This does not apply in places where the land is moving vertically downwards, such as the northeastern seaboard of the USA, which is still subsiding as the Earth’s mantle continues to adjust to the removal of the weight of the continental glacier at the end of the last glaciation.

            The forebulge is slowly subsiding as mantle rock gradually returns to its equilibrium state. This causes relative rise in sea level that is actually a fall in the level of the land.

          • xscd ✱

            Frederick says: “Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water”

            As ocean surface water heats from global atmospheric and surface warming, it expands; as additional water from land surfaces enters the ocean as a result of melt, the mass of ocean water increases. Both add to sea level rise, although I would be curious as to where your information comes from that “most” of the observed sea level rise is from thermal expansion of already-present water in the ocean.

            Frederick says: “if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass …”

            Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing ice. Antarctica’s sea ice is fluctuating for various reasons but it’s land ice continues to decrease at an accelerating rate, the Arctic Ocean’s sea ice is not only losing extent (number of square miles covered on average) but losing thickness, and Greenland land ice packs are melting at an increasing rate.

            Frederick says: “northeastern seaboard of the USA … still subsiding”

            This simply adds to apparent sea-level rise; it is just one factor of several, the others of which are related to (possibly or probably human exacerbated) warming of global average temperatures.

            There is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet, both from the scientific community as a whole, and from lone “scientific” contrarians as well as politically- or industrially-related websites and organizations. The information from political and fossil-fuel oriented sources, while it may contain some useful or correct information, often ignores other aspects of global warming and anthropogenic causes, or downplays them, or attempts to skew information (that which it does not simply create from imagination, not evidence) for non-scientific, industry or political motivations. In addition, the non-scientific approach attracts conspiracy-theory fans and dedicated contrarians, most of whom have little understanding of the science, evidence and theory involved.

            However, arguing with a dedicated climate contrarian is like arguing about the (unproven and unknown) tenets of the religion of a dedicated devotee of any particular religion, where their beliefs are more important to them than any evidence otherwise, whereas science must always bow to the evidence despite individual variation of belief.

          • Frederick Colbourne

            “Their mass is not increasing. Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing mass.”

            Parts of both Greenland and the Antarctic are losing ice and other parts are gaining ice. Recent studies based on satellite data estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.

            Net ice gain for Antarctica is well-supported. For Greenland there is uncertainty about the meaning of recent increase in ice mass, probably because the net mass change is close to zero. The net balance for Greenland may flip from gain to loss over periods as short as a few decades, mostly from natural causes linked to oceanic oscillations.

            As for land subsidence that Dano2 calls “anecdotal tripe”, subsidence in delta sections of large rivers and areas with urban conurbations has been well documented.

          • xscd ✱

            Fred says: “Recent studies … estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.”

            That is very interesting. I would like to learn more about that, if you don’t mind sharing a website URL or two.

            Fred says: “land subsidence”

            I don’t dispute that land does subside (sink) for various reasons including tectonic plate movement. But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.

          • Frederick Colbourne

            “But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.”

            I don’t know of anybody who says that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise. My point was that local land subsidence is sometimes taken as evidence of sea level rise as a basis for policy.

            As for ice-mass gain in Antarctica, an impressive paper went public last year. Zwally, the lead author is at the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

            Zwally, H.J., Li, J., Robbins, J.W., Saba, J.L., Yi, D. and Brenner, A.C., 2015. Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology, 61(230), pp.1019-1036.

            The reports for Greenland are conflicting because some rely on local phenomena rather on mass balance for the whole land mass. Further, ice mass balance is affected by both oceanic and atmospheric factors that are quasi-cyclical. As a result, trends are contaminated by short-term fluctuations.

          • xscd ✱

            The recent published study by Zwally et al. about the Antarctic land ice sheet covers the time period between 1992 and 2008. Ice loss has (at least apparently) accelerated since then, although its too early to make definitive conclusions or judgements. The satellite techniques to judge thickness of ice vary in both technology implemented and in reliability (there is room for error in all of them).

            A complicating factor is that global warming causes the air to hold more moisture (evaporation from surrounding ocean) that has been falling as snow across Antarctica during that time, increasing land ice thickness slightly, while ice loss along the coasts and peninsulas of Antarctica has increased, and is (apparently) accelerating at a faster rate than the snowfall across the land mass of Antarctica is increasing. In other words, Antarctical is both losing and gaining ice, but although global warming has caused a greater precipitation of atmospheric moisture, it is also causing a greater loss of ancient or old ice.

            The Southern Hemisphere does not have as many warm, tropical currents as does the Northern Hemisphere, which is why Greenland and the arctic regions are experiencing more marked and obvious ice melt. From visibile-light satellite imaging, ice 2 inches thick looks about the same as ice hundreds of feet thick, which makes that data of limited use. Greenland’s interior glaciers, and indeed its entire surface ice pack, is melting at a greater rate every year.

            Climate science is complicated and involves a lot of technology and scientific study, both of which can be subject to error. But as a whole, the studies and the technology and the data and the evidence all indicate global warming at an accelerating rate, with probable human exascerbation of the process.

            In the distant past when global warming was caused by relatively large amounts of carbon dioxide in the air from natural causes, much of the life on Earth at that time became extinct. In the further past, when the planet was virtually an ice ball, carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by volcanoes saved the primitive life on Earth by warming the planet to a degree comfortable to the life at that time. But too much warming from carbon dioxide will not be kind to the human species (and many other species of animal), so in my view we should do all we can to avoid making global warming worse. That includes curtailing the use of fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the already existent effects of global warming on the Northern Hemisphere permafrost (carbon and methane sinks) and the oceans. We have a lot of study and work to do if we want to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).

            Some people believe that global warming doesn’t matter because “in God’s plan” these are “the end times” anyway, and all of this is meant to be. I think those people are seriously deluded by their doubtful religious beliefs, but we must all contend with their wayward ideas even as science attempts to understand the dynamic forces at work on our planet and its many interworking systems.

          • Frederick Colbourne

            Thanks for your response. I agree with you there is religious delusion by theists and also believe that the Gaia myth is also a form of religious delusion.

            As for wanting “”…to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).”, this is what Richard Tol is on about.

            Climate alarmism promotes extremist policies that undermine the survival of people now living, who are just as much part of the human species as the affluent promoters of low-carbon lifestyles who get front page coverage in the media for supporting asceticism, always for other people and never for themselves.

            Thanks for a very civilized discussion, nowadays rare when it comes to climate.

          • xscd ✱

            Thanks to you also for an interesting discussion of a complex subject.

            I also agree that the Gaia mythology is a religious delusion like so many others, and that the left, especially the far left, in its blind rush toward “the future,” often ignores or steps all over important aspects of the present. I’m one of those people in the large center swath of society ideologically, who sees strengths and weaknesses in both the far right and far left, in both liberals and conservatives.

            Anyway, fare well. Thanks.

  • Mike435

    Well, if you do not like what the scientists are telling you, the best thing to do is go to a politically motivated think tank that will tell you what you wanted to hear. They can always dig up some outlier like Tol. But most economists who study climate change have concluded that we should price ghg emissions.

    http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf

    • planet8788

      And if you actually had any readings skills, you would not that he does support a moderate carbon tax. Probably to aid on the conservation side.

      • Mike435

        Glad to hear you are on board.

        • planet8788

          I prefer consumption taxes over income taxes. There should always be incentives to conserve resources.

    • Isandhlwana79

      Economists weighing in on what should be done about climate change. yeah, right. A shame you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.

      • Dano2

        you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.

        Some are just too thick and stubborn to grasp it, is all.

        Best,

        D

        • Isandhlwana79

          Sure, like the PHD quoted in the above article. He and many more. You are too thick to understand that you don’t understand climate dynamics like you think you do.

          • Dano2

            Tol doesn’t question the fact of AGW. Flail harder.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            He says man has influence. So what? Does he say it’s a problem? NO HE DOESN’T. So you flail harder, he-who-understands-so-little-about the climate……………LMAO!!!

            PS He is one of THOUSANDS that dispute the hypothesis.

          • Dano2

            Thanks LOLO, your assertion was you AGW proponents can’t prove that man is causing it.

            then you tried to imply that Tol agreed with your false statement ike the PHD quoted in the above article.

            Now you are backpedaling.

            You aren’t very good at this are you? It’s all in print, anyone can see what you are doing.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Your condescension isn’t working, yo. There are thousands of PHD’s that dispute the premise. You ought to get out more, you might realize that……LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            Thanks, LOLO, you can neither hide your weak flail nor show thousands of PHD’s that dispute the premise. Relevant PhDs, that is.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Aaahhhh. now it’s “relevant”. Look it up yourself. I know one thing for sure. YOU don’t understand climate dynamics as you think you do plus NO ONE can say for sure man is causing anything. Got something else there, Sherlock?….LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            Relevance. You aren’t going to call an electrician to fix your plumbing.

            You have zero scientific evidence to support your beliefs. Nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Zip. Zilch. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Project much? Where is YOUR proof of AGW? Got any????……LMAO!!!!

          • Dano2

            History of stuff you are ignorant of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

            Detection and attribution: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You think that proves it? Well tell me why so many PHD’s dispute it? Go over to WUWT and argue with them, if you think you can. You won’t though. Why? You’re a climate light-weight.
            Oh! BTW, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
            L M A O !!!!

          • Dano2

            Science doesn’t prove anything.

            And you ignorantly parroting OISM lets us know your level.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You can’t prove AGW, so you fall back on “science doesn’t prove anything”. Really? You are a joke. Obviously, you are nowhere near as smart as you have yourself fooled into believing.

          • Dano2

            Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove. Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            “Comical ignorance”. Yep, sums you up……LMAO!!

          • Dano2

            Thanks, LOLO, when do you enroll in your very first science class? When you get to 10th grade all of this will be very familiar to you.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You can’t prove AGW…….

          • Dano2

            Comical ignorance. Science doesn’t prove.

            Let us know when you enroll in your very first science class. By 10th grade you’ll have realized how foolish you look here.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You still can’t prove AGW…….LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            isand, you have been checkmated so many times that you’re clearly punch drunk…LO F’n L!….thanks for the laughs! Hey, while you’re licking your wounds, take a break and look up the definitions of theory and hypothesis.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Tell us how AGW is REAL, if you can. This ought to be good. Another AGW light-weight chimes in……..LMAO!!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            Do some homework. Learn what constitutes a theory and hypothesis,,,and learn what it takes to disprove either.

            Until then, you simply aren’t qualified to discuss AGW rationally

          • Isandhlwana79

            Neither are you. You have shown NOTHING to support the “hypothesis”. How come? Simply because someone throws out a “hypothesis” does not make it TRUE until shown to be false. Are you really that stupid??? You must be!

          • Rick Bohnsack

            AGW is a hypothesis and GHG a theory because of the substantial evidence which supports them. Again, learn what constitutes a theory and hypothesis and what it takes to disprove either.

            Until then, you just another science devoid climate clown.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Go look in the mirror, chump. You have no clue. Talk about IDIOTS. You take the prize. I see you fail to address the lack of temperature rise while CO2 continues to rise. THAT shows the hypothesis to be FALSE.

          • Rick Bohnsack

            How about you lookup the definition of theory and hypothesis, then post them here along with the source?

            My bet is you are too much of a coward to confront reality

            You are willfully ignorant beyond belief, isand.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Sure you are……….LMAO!!! Chump.

          • Dano2
          • Isandhlwana79

            Truth hurts, doesn’t it…..LMAO!!!

          • Dano2

            LOLO clowns for our amusement in an Internet Performance Art skit seen many times before.

            Too much repetition and this projection is revisionist. Re-write this skit to make more believable, C-.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            Dum-dum has nothing witty to say. His evidence for AGW a sham……..LMAO!!!

          • planet8788

            It takes the same to disprove either moron.

    • paasingby

      you bet they have, billions to be made out of it,

      al gore tried but that market dried up, he got out early and made a good chunk of money.

      • MyOpinionPost

        The first liar always makes the money.

  • Diogenes60025

    Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is emerging from an ice age. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies would pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Our present climate is pleasant and productive. I like it, and hope it warms further. But that warming is not caused by fossil fuels use. Spending $44 trillion (as estimated by the IEA) to limit fossil fuels is madness. That is a waste of nearly 30% of the cumulative savings of mankind, and $7,000 for every human being.

    Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural
    CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.

    Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the
    paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, and http://quadrant.org.au/opinion

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

    • Dano2

      It is supposed to be warming, because earth is emerging from an ice age.

      The planet was cooling before we warmed it.

      /basics

      Best,

      D

      • Diogenes60025

        No.

        • Dano2

          Comically wrong.

          Best,

          D

      • Diogenes60025

        What about the Roman and Medieval warm periods?

        • Dano2

          What about them?

          Best,

          D

          • Diogenes60025

            The climate warmed without the evils of fossil-fuel generated CO2 to “force” warming.

          • Dano2

            So? The planet warms now, due to man’s burning fossil fuel, land-use changes, etc.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            So?

            Really?

            So the millions of years of climate cycles which predate the use of fossil fuels are irrelevant to climate today? Those climate-influencing forces no longer exist?

          • Dano2

            Those forces are swamped by man’s emissions at this time. Science.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Sure, A trace gas in the atmosphere has more influence on climate than the sun. Science.

            Best,

            R

          • Dano2

            Where would life on earth be if the ozone layer were gone (less of a trace gas than CO2 – ppb)?

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Well, good thing we have so much smog to replenish the ozone, no?

          • Dano2

            Not the same thing. But i’m glad you’re backpedaling now, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            I’m enjoying laughing at you and your inability to address climate change prior to the industrial age. You got nothing. What exactly caused climate change then? Hmmm?

          • Dano2

            Weak flail. Man warms the earth now. Science. Orbital variations cooled and warmed the planet in the past.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Wow. Orbital variations. PFFFFTTTT!

          • Dano2

            Educate yourself.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Good thing those orbital variations stopped when people started using fossil fuels.

          • Dano2

            Thanks for the backpedal. Man’s emission warm the planet today.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Sure. Better get your asbestos underwear. You’ve only got a few days. Goru, the god of climate scientologists, has spoken.

          • Dano2

            Thanks for the deflection away from your errors.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            wait, just to be clear. There are no more orbital variations? So the earth’s rotation around the sun is completely static?

          • Dano2

            The period is over thousands of years. We’d have to wait several thousand more years for the next ice age to occur.

            This is all basic stuff you will learn in 9th-11th grade.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Maybe you’ll convince people there is a climate crisis in the next ten thousand years or so. Good luck.

          • Isandhlwana79

            He has no clue how the climate works. It is evident when he refuses to answer your questions and comes up with “orbital variations” as the only cause of climate change in the past. It shows his depth (lack thereof) on the subject. All he has is condescension. I’d like to see his routine over on WUWT. He’d get roasted and exposed as the fraud he is.

          • rebjava

            He’s not even good at what he’s good for … trolling.

          • Dano2

            For some, refusing to be convinced is a choice. Usually to preserve self-identity or a belief system or tribal identity.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            For some? Don’t you mean … for you?

          • Dano2

            Clearly you are the one working hard to avoid being educated and convinced by scientific evidence. A 10-year-old can see it, it is so transparent.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            You’re a sensitive flower for being such a sore loser. Still laughing at you.

          • Dano2

            Whatever gives you the good feels.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You have exposed yourself as knowing NOTHING about climate change. You can’t answer his questions. Just snide remarks. That is all you have. A joke you are……LMAO!!!

          • Dano2

            Not smart enough to follow, clearly.

            Best,

            D

          • Isandhlwana79

            You? hahahahahahaha……you know NOTHING about it. What is there to follow?

          • Rick Bohnsack

            reb. you’re too science devoid to realize you’ve just been owned by Dano….LO f’n L

          • rebjava

            There is ozone in smog professor.

          • Dano2

            But it doesn’t migrate to the stratosphere, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            We’ll use aerosol to transport it to the stratosphere. You know. Like your hairspray.

          • Dano2

            Thanks for the backpedal.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Thanks for the laugh. You know, I think if you and a few friends got together, you could produce so much CO2 that you could remove the insulation from your walls. You know, the earth is JUST LIKE a snow globe.

          • Dano2

            You can’t hide the fact you don’t know the first thing about these issues.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Oh yeah? Not very insightful are you professor orbital variation.

          • Dano2

            So you can’t handle orbital variations. I can’t help you there.

            Best,

            D

    • Dano2

      There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate.

      There are, literally, scores of papers finding that you are incorrect.

      Best,

      D

      • Diogenes60025

        Please cite some empirical evidence.

        • Dano2

          Start here for the history of how long we’ve known the basics of what you are unaware of: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

          Then go here: https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

          You’re welcome.

          Best,

          D

          • Diogenes60025

            Both of those links point to works packed with irrelevant dicta and qualitative representations, but no empirical evidence.

            Do you even know what empirical evidence is, “Daano2”? (What happened to plain old “Dano” and “Dano1”?)

            …a poor
            player

            That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

            And then is heard no more. It is a tale

            Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury

            Signifying nothing.

          • Isandhlwana79

            He’s a fool.

          • Diogenes60025

            So it seems. Maybe the NewSpeak troll assigned to bird-dog Dr. Tol?

          • Dano2

            Your egregious errors ensure you have no credibility to make such statements.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Clearly you either didn’t click the links (standard con behavior), or were unable to comprehend what was at them.

            o The first link is all the education you missed or aren’t old enough yet to have had. It contained empirical evidence.

            o The second link has ~60 relevant empirical papers for you. Do you know how to read a paper and find references? Let us know if you haven’t gotten to that in school yet and we can help you learn how to do it..

            Those two links are all you need to educate yourself enough to correct your egregious errors on this thread.

            Best,

            D

          • Diogenes60025

            They are all either irrelevant, not empirical, or wrong. Most “climatologists” study irrelevant matters in great detail, while ignoring the big picture, which is that nature is doing a great job of recycling and sequestering CO2, regardless of the source.

          • Dano2

            You made that up.

            You cannot show a single paper is irrelevant, not empirical, or wrong. You lack capacity to do so.

            Best,

            D

    • Dano2

      CO2 is in equilibrium.

      CO2 is not in equilibrium. The ppmv increases ~2/annum in the atmosphere, the other ~60% of human emissions goes into the biosphere.

      Best,

      d

    • Dano2

      Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere.

      You just refuted your CO2 is in equilibrium. But never mind that, this 3% is why the planet is warming from man’s emissions, thanks for explaining that to everyone.

      Best,

      D

      • Diogenes60025

        It all becomes limestone.

        • Dano2

          Not right away it doesn’t. ~40% stays in the atmosphere, some goes to plants, some acidifies the ocean. Human-scale processes,

          Best,

          D

    • xscd ✱

      Diogenes says: “See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture …”

      (Climate-change denier/contrarian) Patrick Moore is seen as a crank by the global scientific community, and is disavowed even by GreenPeace, the organization he was formerly associated with. He is also one of the “‘scientists’ for hire” by fossil-fuel industry “research” organizations and by conservative think tanks like The Heartland Institute (which produces anti-global-warming propaganda for the oil and coal industries).

      Patrick Moore is not the best source to cite for anti-global-warming and anti-anthropogenic warming opinions.

      • Diogenes60025

        Patrick Moore did a nice job of estimating a mass balance for carbon dioxide. I don’t know of anyone else who has done that. Why don’t you just try to criticize his work, and not assassinate his character?

        • xscd ✱

          Dio says: “Patrick Moore did a nice job of estimating a mass balance for carbon dioxide.”

          No he didn’t. Selective criteria often overlooks or intentionally ignores other important factors. If you refer to environmental “carbon sinks” (such as permafrost and the oceans) and CO2 usage, many other scientists have done research, accumulated and interpreted data and evidence in that field.

          Patrick Moore is often cited by fossil-fuel-friendly anti-global-warming organizations because very few people in the global scientific community are willing to assert what Moore claims because they would undermine their credibility and reputation within the community, would quickly and easily be discredited and lose the support and consideration of their peers.

          • Diogenes60025

            You’re just name-calling. Please present some empirical evidence, or at least some anecdotes.

          • xscd ✱

            Dio says: “Please present some empirical evidence …”

            Please feel free to use the Internet. It’s a great resource. The scientists can present their information (at all levels from layman to very technical) in a much better way than I could speak for them, and simple repetition of the arguments, for the sake of discussion in the comments section of a website, is redundant and unnecessary.

          • Diogenes60025

            Thank you for the empirical evidence that you act like a smarmy yahoo.

          • xscd ✱

            Dio says: “Thank you for the empirical evidence that you act like a smarmy yahoo.”

            If you’d like to pay me to be your personal research assistant, I’d be happy to do so. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you are not disabled and that you can do it yourself.

  • MyOpinionPost

    How does this stand up with the predictions of noted Climatologist, one of the 97% of the scientists agreeing with AGW, and part time fossil and torch song singer for the LGBT set, Bette Midler.

  • Marilynkhernandez


    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3ztm…….
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • rebjava

    I’m standing by for the earth scorch Al Gore predicted would happen in 10 years. That was Jan 26, 2006. Climate alarmists prepare! Your god is an angry god indeed.

    • Dano2

      He never perdiktid no earth scorch. You were duped.

      Best,

      D

      • rebjava

        I know. I would deny it too. Embarrassing, isn’t it?

        • Dano2

          You can’t show where he done perdikted scorchin.

          Best,

          D

          • rebjava

            I’m not doing your research for you, Sundance.

            Best,

            R

          • Dano2

            Exactly – you can’t show he said that.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Nope. It’s not out there. Don’t even look.

          • Dano2

            Thanks – you can’t show he said that. We can tell.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            Al Gore on global warming at Sundance in Jan, 2006:

            //
            And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return , Gore said.

            He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”

            //

          • Dano2

            No scorching, thanks!

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            One of many, many climate doom predictions that turned out to be a nothing-burger just like you.

          • Dano2

            Thanks for backing down from your erroneous assertion about earth scorch !

            Crawlbacks from things Algore (isfat!) purportedly said or did or bought are my fave.

            Best,

            D

          • rebjava

            I’ve had immense fun mopping the floor with you, professor orbital variation. You’ve lost the argument soundly. People are going to read the comments below and see that you are no deeper than a talking point. Your religion is losing and you’re the one who has been duped.

            Good day,

            R

          • xscd ✱

            rebjava says: “One of the many, many climate doom predictions that turned out to be a nothing-burger”

            It’s too soon to conclude that, although hopefully we’ll make enough changes to avoid some of the worst of the climate predictions; it may be too late to avert or avoid some of the other negative aspects of global warming, however.

  • Susandescobar

    v

    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Herebe.
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • Stephaniernewman2


    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3bbi…….
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  • Teresa Matos


    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3fbf………
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  • Emilie Humphries


    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    dd
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • xscd ✱

    Richard Tol? Here is what Richard Tol said just last year– “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

  • Crabby

    “It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness”. Being a Bible-Believing Christian, Al Gore is exactly right!! There is a book in the Bible called Job. In it, Job has fears for the future (he is human after all). At the end, He is restored twice as much because of his Faith in the Lord. The reason he lost everything in the first place is because of his fear of losing everything.

    Al Gore is right when he says he worries for the future of his Grandchildren. He is not a Christian and so his fears will come upon him. Also because of his lack of Faith (and so many billions of others), the Lord will punish the whosoever for being the children of Disobedience. So the easiest way NOT to Bankrupt the World is to do nothing that the Fearmongers say and just Obey the Lord in all things. If anyone is interested in doing what the Lord says, search Revival Fellowship.

    Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/07/un-ipcc-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-bolts-warmist-narrative-calls-gores-claims-complete-madness/#ixzz3xPgq3L00

    • xscd ✱

      Religion is problematic, because it depends primarily on faith, not evidence, and faith can ignore or dismiss fact. There are many gods, and most of them are frowned upon or considered quaint and archaic even by Christians, who merely exempt their own God from such critical or humorous scrutiny, whereas many other people, myself included, are inclined to consider the Christian God, and the Christian religion, like all other current religions and all historical but virtually extinct religions, as fanciful creations of man’s imagination, before his rational mind began to provide better answers regarding the vast, mysterious and sometimes scary environment in which early man found himself.

      As such, religion is not the answer to climate change, nor is it an explanation.