re: ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim

This guy get paid by Peabody Energy. A coal company that funds groups contesting climate change. He also believes smoking is weakly linked to causing lung cancer. He gets a boner from being a contrarian.

quote:

---

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age

---

/\ everlovin' this /\

My question from the begging of this fiasco has been = "How do you recover from an ice age without warming the planet?" - NOBODY has ever answered that.

Are there any "scientists" who proclaim that the ice age is actually over?? It normally takes tens of thousands of years to fully recover from an ice age - it's been less than 15K years since Manhattan Island was under a mile of ice.

quote:

---

Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming

---

And water vapor is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Adding CO2 is like pissing in the lake.

I consider increased CO2 to be a symptom of global warming rather than a fundamental cause of global warming.

So - does anyone actually think the last ice age is completely done with? OR would we be liable to go back into an ice age were it not for man's meddling with the climate by means of CO2 release. Got to be one or the other.

Climate never stays the same - it either gets warmer or cooler at any particular time since the creation of the planet. IF the current increase in global temperature were actually caused by mankind, that means that without that interference the natural cycle would have been towards another ice age. If that is the case then the CO2 releasers are saving mankind from extinction = current man is not adapted to survive an ice age as were the neanderthals.

On the other hand, if the global warming is natural, then man's contribution is absolutely puny compared to the influence of that huge ball of fire in the sky.

quote:

---

Wait wait you think the data is being manipulated to make it look like the earth is warming? You honestly don't think it is?

---

I think if you look at the way they 'measure' Earth's temperature any rational person would say they don't really have a clue how hot the earth actually is or how it's changing. The surface temperature data that everyone used comes from one source that goes through some serious, and often arbitrary, adjusting. Every single time the observed temperature now is colder than they predict or the trend they are showing in the models slows they go back and magically find the past data was colder or something like that. Half the data points they use in their calculations are extrapolated from their model and inserted as real measurements. As to whether the earth is warming, probably, like I said in my post it's abnormal for the earth to be this cold historically anyway. My position is I really don't trust these guys anymore, the whole thing has gotten too big to fail. Careers, reputations, billions in grant money, and lots of opportunity to bilk money or if people (Al Gore has made out pretty well out of this) is at stake. If we had a dozen different groups making true worldwide physical measurements with calibrated sensors at various sea depths and altitudes, and they all agreed and tracked with the climate models that would be a different story. But we don't, we have essentially a single surface data set that goes through such massive data manipulation (routinely adjustment of temperatures in the past data set dozens of times the amplitude of the warming signal supposedly being measured, done over and over) and a single atmospheric data set (that's only been active since the early 80s and which shows much less warming than the surface data set or model). Its too fishy to blow trillions of dollars on when we are coming out of a cold period relative to Earth's history. Plus it detracts from what I think are actual environmental concerns, deforestation, pollution of water supply, etc...

And yet we have ice ages on record with much higher concentrations of CO2 how do you explain that?

I think most everyone would agree that less CO2 and/or clean energy would do nothing but better the atmosphere, the question is at what cost. Solar and wind are far off from being cheaper than petroleum products, but when it eventually happens there will be a huge shift in energy production. There is no point in taxing petroleum or incentivizing solar/wind to bring their costs closer to equilibrium, it will happen naturally as technology improves for clean energy.

What I don't understand is the lack of push for nuclear power. How we can have nuclear powered vehicles of war (subs, carriers etc) that in the event of war would be targeted for destruction, yet we can't have new nuclear power on land?

And yet we have ice ages on record with much higher concentrations of CO2 how do you explain that?

The 97 percent includes warming deniers as warming alarmists. Like Idso. He was shocked to find his name on the list. Idso wrote that CO 2 was increasing but that it's great for the environment. And nothing should be done to stop it.
The Warming nuts decided that since Idso admitted CO 2 was increasing he is a warming alarmist.

quote:

---

It pretty much tells you that 98% of scientists understand that when we add CO2 it warms the planet. For the life of me I don't understand where the miscommunication is if we are, indeed, adding CO2. It's been the hottest years on record recently and we're pouring more into the atmosphere. Why is it so hard to put the giant round peg in the giant round hole and have a grown up conversation

---

Since when did having a grown up conversation turn in to forcing the country to adhere to one sided international agreements that greatly favor other countries whithout going through the normal course of treaty ratification?

Because that does not sound like a grown up conversation to me. Nor does any of the discourse that has happened since withdrawal from said agreement.

quote:

---

And yet we have ice ages on record with much higher concentrations of CO2 how do you explain that?

---

Can I have a link to this data?