Climate change denier crosses from the dark side

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

Surface Detail wrote: Once again, you demonstrate your inability to distinguish between science and religion, or even to understand what constitutes science.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to distinguish between science and religion, or even to understand what constitutes science.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

Once again, you demonstrate your inability to distinguish between science and religion, or even to understand what constitutes science.

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem.

I have given the definition of science multiple times.

I have given the definition of religion multiple times.

The two are not the same by any measure.

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

No, that's the "scary thing" (© Tim).
The science is in 9200 scientific publications cited by the IPCC AR5.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

No, that's the "scary thing" (© Tim).
The science is in 9200 scientific publications cited by the IPCC AR5.

Publications are not science. Consensus is not science. Political organizations like the IPCC or any science academy is not science.

It is not possible to accurately determine the absolute sea level. All we can do is compare one sea level against another (relative sea levels). This does not give us absolute sea level.

Tidal stations can't do it.

Satellites can't do it.

But you BELIEVE the Great Flood of Noah must be possible, since you claim the sea level is rising as you say.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

No, that's the "scary thing" (© Tim).
The science is in 9200 scientific publications cited by the IPCC AR5.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

No, that's the "scary thing" (© Tim).
The science is in 9200 scientific publications cited by the IPCC AR5.

There is no strong proof that sea levels are rising. Most of the low latitude glaciers have now melted back to high enough altitudes that they have ceased withdrawal.

Several research papers described the South Sea Islands most at risk for rising tides and then tried to theorize why these islands are in fact growing higher out of the sea.

In the North Sea the tidal passages behind the islands have NOT opened up. The tide levels appear to be no higher than they were before WW I.

In the Mediterranean sea several towns that are built directly upon the water have seen no increase in the sea levels.

There have been no increases in the Red Sea.

The tidal marks set on the piers in San Francisco in the late 1800's show no changes in either average sea level or tidal marks.

Vietnam shows no coastal shrinking. India with a highly educated upper class have not described any signs of increases sea level.

The one area that appears to be showing changes is New England and the Atlantic coast in Canada.

If there are no visible changes anywhere else but there what makes you think its rising sea level and not falling land levels?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
SD,

While you are here, can you do the challenge;

Explain one prediction of the results of an increase intemperature as predicted by the IPCC that is scary.

Then explain, in your own words, the mechanism for this to actually happen.

Then link to some sort of supporting science or something that further expalins it.

The scary thing must be more expensive to negate than the cost of traffic lights for any local council inthe world that has traffic lights.

This would be the prima-facia case for action. Without it there is no need to do anything.

Tim, I've already repeatedly answered these and similar questions on this site and elsewhere. Why do you keep asking them?

I don't have time to do so again now, but, as you well know, the IPCC reports fully summarise the science underlying AGW and make predictions based on that science. They are easy to find.

As for costs, well, take a look at this, for example:

Rising Sea Levels Could Cost U.S. Homeowners Close to $1 Trillion

And this is just the cost of the sea level rise of a metre or so rise that is already going to happen this century. If we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, the rise will just continue after that until, eventually, all our coastal cities and plains are submerged. On the plus side, if my descendants are still living in Birmingham (UK), the beach will only be a few miles away in Tamworth.

So your "science" is an estimate by a real estate company of what financial losses would be if the sea levels rose four feet? [gratuitous abuse snipped]

No, that's the "scary thing" (© Tim).
The science is in 9200 scientific publications cited by the IPCC AR5.

There is no strong proof that sea levels are rising. Most of the low latitude glaciers have now melted back to high enough altitudes that they have ceased withdrawal.

Several research papers described the South Sea Islands most at risk for rising tides and then tried to theorize why these islands are in fact growing higher out of the sea.

In the North Sea the tidal passages behind the islands have NOT opened up. The tide levels appear to be no higher than they were before WW I.

In the Mediterranean sea several towns that are built directly upon the water have seen no increase in the sea levels.

There have been no increases in the Red Sea.

The tidal marks set on the piers in San Francisco in the late 1800's show no changes in either average sea level or tidal marks.

Vietnam shows no coastal shrinking. India with a highly educated upper class have not described any signs of increases sea level.

The one area that appears to be showing changes is New England and the Atlantic coast in Canada.

If there are no visible changes anywhere else but there what makes you think its rising sea level and not falling land levels?

Satellite altimetry.

CU Sea Level Research Group

The graph on that page shows the change in global mean sea level over the past few decades, as measured from a reference frame relative to the centre of the Earth.

Certainly there are variations in the rate of rise (both relative to nearby land and absolutely) and even falling in some places due to factors such as post-glacial rebound, subsidence, ocean current changes, etc. But, on average, the sea level is rising, currently by about 3.4 mm/year.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

..........https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/05/20/10-things-you-should-know-about-sea-level-rise-and-how-bad-it-could-be/?utm_term=.8f7a3ad062c3 (sub article)

OK, I read the article. It really stunk of standard scare tactics, but this line jumped at me.

In addition, the cost of conventional berms or levees to protect the shoreline also increases much faster than the height. For example, doubling the height of a levee makes the cost goes up by a factor of almost 4.

Now I've done a bit of construction, but admittedly never built a levy. Can someone explain how the cost goes up by 4 when the size only goes up by 2? I call BS.

GasGuzzler wrote:
And once you have the materials purchased they magically turn into a levy?

Cost per unit typically goes down as a project gets bigger. Mobility, getting manpower and equipment and materials to a job is a huge percentage of cost, not to mention the clerical side already in place.

I work for banks on distressed properties. I get $65 for a simple 5,000 sq ft grass cut. It takes 5 minutes. More than anything, they pay me to get myself and my equipment there . If there's 10,000 sq ft, it's $85, not $260.

I suppose if the gov is building the levy....... then I'd expect it to go up by at least 6. They'd probably require electric bulldozers or some BS.

Surface Detail wrote:
it will therefore take significantly more effort to build.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
it will therefore take significantly more effort to build.

I didn't say it wouldn't be more expensive. I said 4x is BS.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

The important point to note is that last statement: (speaking of Trump)"He has no ideology"

This is the entire drive behind AGW - faith and faith alone. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear to be reduced to be now reduced to two plus the maniac that posts to himself.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

The important point to note is that last statement: (speaking of Trump)"He has no ideology"

This is the entire drive behind AGW - faith and faith alone. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear to be reduced to be now reduced to two plus the maniac that posts to himself.

You clearly struggle to distinguish between science and religion. Science is supported by evidence (such as the roughly 9200 scientific papers cited by IPCC AR5). Religion, such as the belief that humans cannot influence the climate, is not.

Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel explains how it all works here:

There's No Science Behind Denying Climate Change

He concludes:

"Nearly a century ago, a volume of 100 papers from 100 different authors was published, challenging Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked him about it, Einstein responded with a question: "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough." Indeed, if there were a conspiracy, if climate science were a hoax, and if all this research were incorrect, all it would take was one scrupulous, competent scientist. But every scrupulous, competent scientist that investigates it has come to the same conclusion: it's real, it's warming, and it's our CO2 that's doing it. You are free to deny climate change if you want, but there's no scientific leg to stand on if you do."

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Jerry Taylor, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute who used to be a climate sceptic, is now trying to talk the Republicans out of their denialist corner and adopt right-wing measures to combat climate change.

How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science

"From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living."

"I have talked to many [Republican lawmakers] in confidence. There are between 40 and 50 in the House and maybe 10 to 12 in the Senate. They're all looking for a way out of the denialist penitentiary they've been put into by the Tea Party. But they're not sure what the Republican response ought to look like exactly and when the political window is going to open."

"Donald Trump clearly has lightly held views about climate, which means they can be easily moved. He has no ideology whatsoever, so the last person in the room who talks to him is the guy who wins the policy debate."

You must be very pleased. Be sure to give the missionaries of your Church proper credit.

The important point to note is that last statement: (speaking of Trump)"He has no ideology"

This is the entire drive behind AGW - faith and faith alone. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse appear to be reduced to be now reduced to two plus the maniac that posts to himself.

You clearly struggle to distinguish between science and religion. Science is supported by evidence (such as the roughly 9200 scientific papers cited by IPCC AR5).

Surface Detail wrote:
Nearly a century ago, a volume of 100 papers from 100 different authors was published, challenging Einstein's theory of relativity. When a reporter asked him about it, Einstein responded with a question: "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough."

Surface Detail wrote:
Indeed, if there were a conspiracy, if climate science were a hoax, and if all this research were incorrect, all it would take was one scrupulous, competent scientist. But every scrupulous, competent scientist that investigates it has come to the same conclusion: it's real, it's warming, and it's our CO2 that's doing it. You are free to deny climate change if you want, but there's no scientific leg to stand on if you do.

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

That's not what he said but you're more than willing to lie about anything in order to protect your great leader Obama.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

That's not what he said but you're more than willing to lie about anything in order to protect your great leader Obama.

You appear to be incapable of basic logical inference, so it's no wonder that science is completely beyond you. And what's with the Obama obsession?

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.

Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?

As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.