Gator

I don't question any other science. Although, science is always questioning itself. Btw, it wouldn't matter if Watts was a milkman or plasterer, you just need to challenge his arguments. Naturally, you can't. The Left never can. Btw 2, comment on the University of Alabama in Huntsville's study that says there's been no warming for 23 years.

Name them.

You're a fool. It's the nicest thing I can say about you. One doesn't have the most widely read climate blog in the world if they're a nuffie like you. It just doesn't happen. You don't get asked to speak at climate conferences if you're a nuffie like you. But you're from the Left, so you can't debate, only besmirch. What are your views re the accuracy of the surface weather stations in his speech ? Were you concerned by how compromised many of them are ? And answer my previous question, "name some of these scientific organisations you speak of" ?

Name some of these scientific organisations you speak of ?

This is one of the major issues with Leftists, they can't or won't debate the facts. He's shown you why surface temperature weather stations are flawed, but you're either to dumb or disingenuous to appreciate the facts. Instead you try to smear a guy who has the most read climate blog on the planet. Leftists immediately assume the worst in every person that doesn't readily support their usually insane agendas.

Particularly, Jara, I'd like you to watch the following. It's an important video. Respond to its content when you can.

It's a stupid question. Comment on the other content of my posts. The ones that deal with science.

This is probably the greatest straw man argument I've seen on here. There are thousands of eminent scientists around the world that are sceptical on climate alarmism. Scientists are attached to universities, environmental groups, research groups, or government funded organisations. There's not going to be organisations that exist purely to refute climate alarmism. To think there would be is puerile. It's important to note that most scientists around the world (nearly all) don't think we're doomed. Read the following re the 97% myth and respond when able. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/97-consensus-exposed-gregory-wrightstone/ There's also the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The following is their most recent findings after a study was commissioned by the USA's Department of Energy. HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017. It's explained for the lay person here by Anthony Watts in his blog. Watts has probably the most widely read climate blog in the world. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/study-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-too-high/ The UAH paper can be read here https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf

Jara, I’m a sceptic because… 1. I’ve come to the view that we’re not warming the planet “dangerously”. The planet hasn’t warmed since 1998. 2. The climate models have been wrong. Climate scientists admit this. 3. Have you read the climategate emails ? There's a lack of trust with government funded climate scientists. 4. Ridiculous scares that have been made since the 1980s never eventuated. 5. We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerably higher in the 1930s than in recent years. This is when CO2 was at 280 ppmv and pre industrialisation. 6. Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm in the Middle Ages as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still. There is nothing unprecedented about current climate. 7. Ice cores show that the recent Little Ice Age (finished in the 19th century) was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since ? 8. Extreme weather, which is meant to be more frequent with more intensity is the opposite. The USA haven’t had a land based hurricane in 11 years, which is the longest on record. 9. The United Nations Christiana Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism. Do I need to share her quotes again ? 10. The locations and professionalism of surface temperature weather stations are compromised, and I will shortly post a video that discusses this issue. 11. There's irrefutable proof that NASA and NOAA alter past data, because it doesn't their narrative and flawed models. I'm glad you asked the question, jara, because you now have 11 points to refer to whenever you're wondering why I take the position I do. Although, they're not new and I've mentioned them all in isolation throughout this thread.

The gym is fine. Name your destination.

Get some exercise ? How about I meet you at a gym of your choice ?

I never visit Breitbart, but come across an article occasionally linked to them. After all, they'll report what Left-wing alarmists won't. Not that it would matter if I did, because any articles of theirs I've shared are from scientists, who they happen to be quoting. You're right about more stuff coming. I have at least 50 articles or videos I could share within the next 5 minutes. Be patient though... Btw, if Breitbart quote a legitimate scientist, or study, why is that scientist or study not relevant because of who's reported it ? As for a predilection for climate ? I love learning and find the science and debates fascinating. While I don't post on science blogs the amount one learns from the comments section is extraordinary. There are a lot of people out there who have incredible insight into temperature and the atmosphere on BOTH sides of the argument.

We died in 2,000.

Remember when climate alarmists got stuck in ice at the Antarctic ? Four years ago today.

The following graph shows 600 million years of CO2. It also shows the mass extinction level of 150 ppvm. As you can see, we're at historically low levels. CO2 was 20 times the current ppmv over 500 million years ago.

Gregory Wrightstone The temperature rise we are witnessing today is neither unprecedented nor unusual. An inspection of the chart below compares CO2 and temperatures from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (link is on chart) of the last 12,000 years from the beginning of the current inter-glacial period to 1855 when the data starts. Several important take-aways from the chart: Preceding warm periods commonly reached significantly higher temperatures than we see now The one constant regarding temperature is that it is always changing We are about 11,600 years into the current inter-glacial warming period which typically last 10,000 to 15,000 years There is NO discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature during this time

You've not provided any logic in this thread and admit you're a climate dummy who "trusts the science". No problem. But I will supply evidence of why CO2 is not warming the planet "dangerously" or at all. And I've done so in over 100 posts in this thread. There are tens of thousands of scientists who refute the climate scare and plenty of organisations too. Naturally, they're labelled deniers, misinformers, etc. But you can do your own research on that.

Jara "Trust the science". “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” This quote from 2000 was made by Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.

I remember why I put you on ignore.

I know you think you're on a winner, but It's a stupid question. If you're so interested do your own research. The science isn't settled, so your "trust the science" comment is a nonsense. If you don't do anything else google "science is never settled". Einstein said, "100 scientists can't prove me right, but one can prove me wrong". I don't blame you by the way, it's shoved down everyone's throat that man is dangerously warming the planet. Unfortunately, the models have been wrong, NASA alters data, and I could waste my time saying a host of other things that will fall on deaf ears. Also, Australia contributes 0.000018% of the climates CO2, which is nothing. But that doesn't trouble you either. You're happy to waste billions.

In 1989 the UN said we had until the year 2000 to save the planet. In 2008, NASA said we had until 2012 to save the planet. This clown show never ends 1. San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989 - 3F General News GRIM FORECAST A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human...

Who'd have thought it was solar activity ?