Accuracy in Media

An outstanding film will be playing Monday night in theaters across the country, but in most places for one night only. It’s called “Climate Hustle,” and it’s about just that: how the federal government, a corrupt media and government-funded scientists, with the added help of Hollywood, have made global warming into a new religion, called “climate change,” which attempts to convince us that man’s use of carbon-based products is leading us to the brink of extinction. Or as they call it, “settled science.” President Obama said last year at a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country.”

Those familiar with our work at Accuracy in Media know that we have long been skeptics of the prevailing view that man is largely responsible for causing the earth’s temperature to rise, and that we can work with other nations, including China and India, and the United Nations, to slow down the supposed warming of the planet.

On April 14th I attended the premiere of the new movie, “Climate Hustle,” on Capitol Hill. It is playing on Monday, May 2, at many theaters across the country. We have posted Paul Driessen’s outstanding review of the film as a guest column on our site. The film uses humor, mockery, and most impressively, interviews with numerous climate scientists who used to believe in anthropogenic (i.e., caused by humans) global warming, but have now become openly skeptical. While the left and the media try to convince us that the only scientists who dissent on this issue are those receiving money from the energy industry, the fact is that it is much more lucrative to take government grants to create computer models that make the case for the global warming alarmists.

I urge you to click on this link to find out where you can see the movie in your area. I am friends with the host and narrator of this great new documentary, Marc Morano, and have worked with him on other shows in the past. He runs the website, Climate Depot, which is an excellent, ongoing source of information on this incredibly important subject.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Hopsgegangen

    This is nothing but a propaganda piece and last desperate gasp of the deniers, sort of like when the tobacco industry ran ads with a doctor advocating smoking.

  • Doug Schnick

    too bad more people from Indiana can’t see this on the cusp
    of such an important election

  • Anastasia Lurie1

    Good writing ! I learned a lot from the points – Does anyone know if I can grab a blank a form document to complete ?

  • jimrussell

    The Rights new climate “expert” John Colman? John Colman, host of Champaign’s WCIA’s “Sock Hop” has less scientific
    credibility than the 1st grade reader’s dog Tag. Ah the stunning
    ignorance of the wacky right. Any tiny outlier faux fact is
    breathlessly and endlessly reported by their propaganda media, the echos
    of which bounce off the walls of their insulated bubble and repeated by their trolls of ignorance as fact only to succeed in confirming their comic ignorance. Here’s your sign.

  • odin2

    You are projecting.

  • odin2

    There is no study or studies that show, by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly CO2 emissions), have ever been the primary cause of global warming.

    Both of the U.S. satellite data sets for the lower troposphere (RSS & UAH v6) show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.

    The hypothesis about humans are the primary cause of global warming (AGW) is not supported by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is based on computers which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18 year and eight month pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.

    The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.

    We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). CO2 emissions were only 3-4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012 to 0.0016 % of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.

    CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL AND HAS BEEN OCCURRING SINCE THE FORMATION OF THE PLANET. The 18 year and 8 month pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.

    AGW is about power, politics and greed. Every time the facts change due to nature’s failure to cooperate with the AGW hypothesis , the Believers move the goal posts . They have at least 66 excuses for the 18+ year pause in global warming and the failure of the computer climate models to predict it. The Believers blame any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming based on modeled projections and with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda and profit from the AGW industry (which we must perpetuate at all costs).

    Trillions of dollars are being wasted to promote AGW research and to control CO2 emissions despite the fact that there is NO empirical evidence showing that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The primary cause of both global cooling and global warming is natural variation. There are many real environmental and social problems worldwide. This money could be put to much better use addressing real world problems.

  • KC

    HOW DID MY SUV COUSE THE LAST 5 ICE AGES ,,, AND WITH EVERY ICEAGE CAME GLOBAL WARMING ! HAA WHAT ? ,,,,,YOU ARE A SHEEP ! HERE’S YOUR FCKIN SIGN !

  • jimrussell

    Projecting facts.

  • jimrussell

    All you have to do is cite and source your fantasy.

  • jimrussell

    It’s Indiana, they elected Pence, so don’t hold too much hope for anything approaching smart coming out of fly over Indiana.

  • There are no enabling quantitative equations for the spectral “trapping” of energy in excess of equilibrium nor experimental demonstration of the phenomenon either . It’s total nonscience .

  • Jpio

    Oye! Oye! Attention all you good peasants. My ignorant, clueless, brainwashed little flock, I have more disinformation, er…I mean information, for you. There’s a nice little film coming near you. You should all be able to understand it as there won’t be any science in it. As you know you can’t trust the science.

    Well, there will be a couple of our own scientists speaking but don’t fret because you can be assured that they haven’t been anywhere near any filthy climate science paper for a long time, and as a result they haven’t been infected and indoctrinated. All they’ll be doing is expressing opinions…and opinions beat scientific papers anytime.

    I’d like to remind everyone that it was our republican senators who informed the warmists that CO2 is plant food. Start reducing CO2 from our atmosphere and logically plants will starve and die, which, from a health and medical point of view, won’t be good for us humans as we’ll be restricted to a meat and fish only diet with the inevitable result of every one suffering from mass constipation. It demonstrates how dangerous cutting CO2 from our atmosphere is.

    And so, my bovidaean friends, go forth to your nearest theater and multiply. No, no…I didn’t mean it THAT way. I mean bring lots of your friends along.

  • Michael DeVore

    It’s easy to show that with Evaporation Data in the Global Historical Climatology Network provided by NOAA. Your fantasy of increased rain with out increase evaporation is just that a fantasy. Sure there is an Anomaly in the data that one could claim is Global Warming if, and only if, one is willing to claim that Global warming Started near or around October 2010 which is far to late for the 1970, or 1930 data Global Warming Activists desire. If you use all the Evaporation Data from 1950 to 2000 it’s painfully flat with only expected random oscillation never exceeding plus or minus 10 millimeters. Around 2005 the negative values vanish, and in 2010 the data speaks for itself. The irony of the whole thing is NASA figured out what it was back in 2008 with a whole report on why it was about to go crazy. Though, to be honest, they simply stated that the Earth was about to be subjected to an unusually strong event. That report has nothing to do with Man Made gasses, or any other phenomena on the Earth. Alas if I link to the NASA report, or show you a graph of the data you’ll never even see this post. Such a shame really.

  • Hopsgegangen

    Perfect movie for the left side of the Bell Curve.

  • Hopsgegangen

    Odin2, why are you still touting the 18 year pause in the satellite data when the reading in February set a record…?

    Lying or just ignorant?

  • Hopsgegangen

    Sure, global warming after global cooling … over periods of tens of thousands of years, not a few centuries.

    You can’t dig up carbon buried over hundreds of millions of years and burn it over a period of decades without consequences.

    Suck it up. Be an adult and take responsibility.

  • DavidAppell

    Of course there are such quantative equations — they’re called the Schwarzschild equations, or two-stream equations.

    The spectra of molecules like CO2 and H2O are so complicated that these equations can only be solved numerically. Like most equations in physics.

    Even in Bob Armstrong’s laughable attempt to do science, he has resort to numerical evaluation of his (incorrect) equation:

    http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

  • KC

    NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE I HAVE BEEN ALIVE ,,,, AND I AM 50 ,,,WE HAVE HAD BIG WINTERS AND NO SNOW WHEN I WAS A KID ,,,,, YOU ARE BEING PLAYED THE FOOL AND YOU WANT TO TAKE ME FOR THE RIDE ,,, BE AN ADULT ,, AND WAKE UP !

  • Lisa_Belise

    Hopsgegangen-
    “Over periods of tens of thousands of years, not a few centuries”.

    Nope. Not what THE SCIENCE actually says-

    National Academy of Science Report-2002-Abrupt Climate Change-Inevitable Surprises

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

    “Description”
    “The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events
    is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.”

    “researchers have discovered repeated instances of large and abrupt climate changes over the
    last 100,000 years during the slide into and climb out of the most recent ice age—local warmings as great as 28°F(16°C) occurred repeatedly, sometimes in the mere span of a decade”

    “The 110,000-year-long ice-core records from central Greenland, and many other climate records, indicate that the Younger Dryas was one in a long string of abrupt climate changes”

    Were all of those scientists and scientific agencies involved in the report spewing propaganda?
    Is all of the geological evidence some “last gasp” of deniers? Or are YOU going to DENY the “scientific evidence” they actually collected and studied like so many others?

  • Lisa_Belise

    The Schwarzchild Equation does not demonstrate that CO2 can “trap” energy within a given system. “It is a basis for understanding radiative transfer:the passage of radiation from the surface to space.” Something that is “trapped”, cannot be transferred.

    http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm

    “The equation suffers from having the density as a constant, which for the ever dwindling atmosphere is not so. Another problem with the equation is that the temperature of the atmosphere varies very much with altitude and for a thick slab of atmosphere the initial absorption of radiation occurs at a higher temperature than that of the part where the emission
    takes place. The integreation was made with these problems in mind, but suffers from being mathematically impure! ”

    “The Earth’s atmosphere is not optically thick over the whole frequency range of terrestrial radiation. A fraction of the CO2 spectrum confers optical thickness to the atmosphere, some other portions being somewhat less than that needed for optical thickness. An
    increase in the concentration of CO2 increases the optical thickness of a specific part of the terrestrial spectrum and should lead to some further warming.

    The observations since 1900 show that, although the CO2 concentration has increased continually there have been periods of cooling and warming. The warming from the increasing CO2 concentration must therefore be small enough for it to be enhanced or cancelled out by the other factors that affect the atmosphere’s temperature. It is not the major reason for the temperature variations.”

  • Lisa_Belise

    Have you seen the film? Can you prove the “propaganda” of which you speak? Can you prove desperation and “last gasping”? I find it so amusing that people who call other people deniers, always make statements as if they are “factual” statements, never offer up any “science” or logic to back up those statements. Just opinion and logical fallacies. What you or I “think” or “believe” in this debate is irrelevant. Only FACTS and actual scientific, empirical, verifiable evidence matters. Personal bias has no place in “real science” discussions.

  • Lisa_Belise

    Because if there was an 18 year pause in the satellite data, there was an 18 year pause. It doesn’t go away when/if temperature increases or decreases begin after it. A pause is a pause. Not a stop. Not an end. Simply a halting at a consistent level before moving again. So who is ignorant or lying here?

  • Duke Silver

    1862 was warmer than 1861. 1759 warmer than 1758. Is that your proof of CAGW? Or, is it proof that we move rather continuously away from the last great ice age?

  • Mike435

    AIM likes the movie because they happen to agree with it, not because they were persuaded by it. Morano is a political activist first and foremost. He has no training is science. He is paid by CFACT to propagate its views. 170 governments, the Pope and the leaders of most other religions, and dozens of professional scientific societies, agree CO2 emissions risk dangerous changes to the climate and oceans. (No, they have not said we are heading toward the “brink of extinction”.) Even the big oil companies have admitted the scientists are right. So, what is the more plausible scenario, that all these are involved in the largest conspiracy of all time, or that a few die-hard political activists have let ideology trump reason in their assessment of the science?

  • maltow

    Well said.

  • odin2

    Thanks .

  • Steveglen

    Not to mention that the global mean has been 72 degrees for over 20 years. It’s like Groucho’s line, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Ya ever wonder how only you right-wing dead-enders are literally the ONLY people who continue to deny the reality of global climate change? Like so many other right-wing conspiracies, you morons are out on a proverbial island. The rest of the world has finally decided on the proper course of action…and that involves ignoring the right wing base. After Trump finishes destroying your party, this will become easier and easier to do.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Dude, don’t come to AIM looking for logic or deep thought. That’s not what they do here.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    When your first sentence is a bald-faced lie, it makes it really easy to ignore you.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    LOL Be an adult? Take responsibility? Boy are YOU in the wrong place if you’re looking for responsible adults.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Your use of all caps doesn’t change the fact that you are spectacularly full of crap. LOTS has changed since you have been alive. If you weren’t a mouth-breathing moron, you’d know that.

  • odin2

    Prove me wrong.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    No. You’re a liar. I prefer to ignore you, like the vast majority of the population. We’ll get this taken care of. Without you.

  • odin2

    ROFLOL. When the left has no facts or science, they attack the messenger.

  • IronChefSandwiches

    We have literally ALL of the facts. You have conspiracy nonsense. Enjoy your delusions. I hope you live long enough to see just how criminally stupid you are. Goodbye.

  • odin2

    🙂 Goodbye. Have a nice day.

  • DavidAppell

    You are very good at cutting-and-pasting.

    What can you explain in your own words?

  • KC

    FUDS

  • DavidAppell

    Observational demonstrations of the phenomenon:

    “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

    “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

    Press release for the latter: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

  • Jed

    If you have “ALL of the facts” why do you need to resort such childish tactics?

  • DavidAppell

    Armstrong wrote: “…nor experimental demonstration of the phenomenon either . It’s total nonscience .”

    Armstrong should at least be smart enough to understand that there can be no experimental demonstrations of AGW — not even in principle — because we don’t have an initial copy of the Earth that we could compare it to.

    This is the case in a lot of other sciences — such as geology and medical science. Also economics, archaeology, and more.

  • Cletus B Neckbeard

    If we have all the facts, we know exactly what we need to do, right? If we know exactly what to do, why are the only “solutions” I ever hear Luddism redux? Why is it always vaguely, in essence, we all just need to simply do with less?

  • CB

    “Projecting facts.”

    lol!

    They seem to be facts to me. The person who created the movie is well-known for having connexions to the fossil fuel industry…

    “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

  • CB

    “the global mean has been 72 degrees for over 20 years.”

    How do you know that, Steve?

    Where are you getting your information?

    Is it from anonymous liars like Odin who are well-known for their dishonesty about climate change?

    “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

  • CB

    “It’s easy to show that with Evaporation Data in the Global Historical Climatology Network provided by NOAA.”

    Does NOAA know that?

    Ever notice how Climate Deniers cite sources that say the opposite of what they claim they say?

    I have…

    “2015 is Earth’s warmest year by widest margin on record”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

  • CB

    “why are the only “solutions” I ever hear Luddism redux?”

    …because you never look further than dishonest propaganda outlets like the ironically-named “Accuracy in Media”?

    “crop waste could become carbon-negative energy”

    midwestenergynews.com/2015/01/27/how-crop-waste-could-become-carbon-negative-energy

  • BBQman

    We call it plant food.

  • Thetruth

    Only with ADJUSTED ground stations

  • Lisa_Belise

    I’m sorry, which words do you need explained to you?

    The Schwarzchild Equation does not address, nor establish, that CO2 molecules “TRAP” heat or energy being transferred through the atmosphere. They simply slow down the radiative transfer from the surface to space.

    That C02 absorbs and releases long wave radiation is a fact. And so detecting it should be no surprise. But that detection in no way proves that CO2 can “trap” (definition-to catch and retain, provide entrance to, but not exit from, to hold or confine) heat or energy!! The ocean and land surfaces warm by absorbing short wave, solar radiation, and cool by releasing long wave radiation into the air. That long wave radiation is then absorbed by water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere and re-radiated up, down, sideways 360 degrees randomly. Long wave radiation is not absorbed by land or oceans, and thus it has no power to re-heat them. And even if it DID, it could not heat them even remotely as much as the short wave radiation did.

    All CO2 in the atmosphere does, is keep the energy/heat released by the cooling oceans and land bouncing around in the atmosphere for a while instead of escaping directly back to space.

    So your links prove nothing. But link #3 said the following-

    “Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.”

    Please NOTE- the CO2 EMITTED….not “trapped”. And the only way that CO2 can emit an increasing amount of infrared energy, is if there is increasing infrared energy available to be absorbed and emitted. Right?

    So where did that increasing infrared energy that HAD to be emitted from some source that absorbed it as short wave solar radiation first-come from?

    And since that increased CO2/emittance only caused 10% of the warming trend (at a whopping 0.02 w/m2 per year) why aren’t you 9 times more concerned about the clouds and water vapor that caused the OTHER 90% of the trend there?

  • Lisa_Belise

    Facts are facts no matter where or who they come from. The criteria that makes something a fact, is not determined by money or influence or bias. Empirical, verifiable measurements and observational evidence are facts whether the tools taking those measurements belong to a 4 year old, or a mafia godfather.

  • Lisa_Belise

    IronChefSandwiches-

    Please define the word “fact” for me as YOU define it. And the term “Empirical evidence” as well? Because I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean. 🙂

  • Lisa_Belise

    Obviously he/she can’t.

  • Lisa_Belise

    Yep, NOAA knows that. Or they are completely inept.

    Warmest year on RECORD-which is how long compared to Earth’s entire history? And by how much? Tenths, hundredths of a degree….which we have no instrumentation that measures that accurately? And shouldn’t a world coming out of a glacial period be getting warmer? Kind of like it always has before???

  • IronChefSandwiches

    Data = Observations and Measurements dating back now thousands of years (ice core samples). Global temperatures. Ice cover. Sea levels. Coastline lengths. Calculations.

    Empirical evidence = See above.

    97% of ALL climate scientists agree. Of the remaining 3%, all but a few work for the fossil fuel industry.

    LITERALLY, the ONLY people who continue to deny the obvious are the fossil fuel industry, (mostly) Republican politicians, and the rubes that listen to Fox “News” for their information. OH, and only in the US. The rest of the world is WAY out ahead of this on this issue…because of you people and your idiocy.

    Any other questions?

  • Dano2

    Weak flail from ignorance.

    If we use different records, it is the warmest year likely in the last ~115k year, far far far before modern civilization began.

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    FACT- NOTHING in that data suggests, much less PROVES, that CO2 has ever, in all of Earth’s history, driven global temperature changes. NONE of it. NONE of it demonstrates that what is happening today is abnormal, unprecedented, or alarming. NONE of it. And THAT is a fact.

    You want to debate the data from the ice cores, the sediment cores, the geological evidence, the trees, the soil, the fossils with me here…BRING IT ON. I can link you to more than 500 peer reviewed papers that have been published in MAJOR journals in just the past 2 1/2 years, by reknown scientists from respected universities and from all over the world that say YOU-non scientist internet yakker-are wrong. Let me know when you want to start examining the EVIDENCE for yourself instead of just repeating blah blah fed to you from somewhere else.

    “97% of ALL climate scientists agree”. ON WHAT? When were 100% of ALL climate scientists ASKED??Surely you have empirical, factual DATA to back up this statement right? What were they asked to agree on? SHOW ME EVIDENCE where THEY were asked, and agreed to anything.

    FACT-YOU CAN’T because it never happened.

    LITERALLY means “exactly, precisely, actually, really, truly; without question, unquestionably, indisputably”. You haven’t been exact, precise, or produced LITERALLY any proof for anything you have said here. ZIP. So you have no place pretending to LITERALLY KNOW anything about anyone, or the science, or the data involved. Hypocrite.

    What “obvious” thing EXACTLY are you claiming people deny? All you offer is ad hominem, straw men, poisoned well tactics, and cognitive biases. Logical fallacy upon logical fallacy. I’d refrain from calling other people idiots while behaving that way.

  • Lisa_Belise

    Your non use of all caps doesn’t make you any different than KC is. All you have is opinion, just like he/she does. No facts. Nothing to back up your arguments except more statements you cannot back up.

  • Lisa_Belise

    Really? Because we have records going back 115k years that are accurate to within the tenths, hundredths of degree we don’t have the tools to produce NOW?

    Since the last glacial period only ended roughly 12,000 years ago, of COURSE the planet has been warming since. And it would be a crappin lot warmer NOW, if we hadn’t had the Little Ice Age to re-cool/slow down that trend too!

    You’re not ignorant Dano, you just have to lie and obfuscate to participate.

  • Dano2

    Bro, do you even science?

    And try to rhetoric as well – arguments from incredulity are weak at best.

    And this? Fracking wonderful ignorance: of COURSE the planet has been warming since. And it would be a crappin lot warmer NOW,

    The planet was cooling for about 5K years before man warmed it.

    I LOLzed! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c9b724d4e8905797d42405f53d8819aa204282b21fc3839ba2928343b881d7f.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b5859d1a78a13f59e47be347284bb0e636e10b9cccee2e84f6d6765afbe911a6.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1695667086760df3c263faa7c971cdf43fd520b33d055cff3e98ba96ae7c421.gif

    Best,

    D

  • KC

    YEAH ,,,, LOTS HAS CHANGED ! ALL YOU DUMBA$$E$ CAN ORGANIZE WITH OPOS AND HIS FELLOW SCUMBAGS TO BANKRUPT OUR COUNTRY ! THE SCUMBAGS LEADING THE USEFUL IDIOT’S ,, YOU ARE BEING PLAYED THE FOOL SO THEY CAN GET RICH AT ANY COST TO WE THE PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY .

  • Lisa_Belise

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh boy “Bro” did I SCIENCE you or what? Thank you for presenting the FACTS here for all of us to examine!!

    I said “Since the last glacial period only ended roughly 12,000 years ago, of COURSE the planet has been warming since. And it would be a crappin lot warmer NOW, if we hadn’t had the Little Ice Age to re-cool/slow down that trend too!”

    And then YOU said- “The planet was cooling for about 5K years before man warmed it.”
    And as a “rebuttal” (to yourself) you posted charts that SHOW even before the end of the last ice age- which was roughly 12,000 years ago- the planet had started WARMING again! Thank you for proving that as Ice Ages wane, the temperature of the planet begins to rise! Hugs!

    YOUR charts also show that “NOW”, today, the “Current Average Global Surface Temperature” is almost exactly what it was from 10,000 years ago to approximately 7,000 years ago! (looks like about 0.10 C higher-with CO2 concentrations 120 ppm higher!!! And those very similar temperatures were reached with CO2 levels 120 ppm LOWER! Thank you!

    You just provided EVIDENCE (right…cuz those charts are all absolute facts/measurements right?) that the SCIENCE regarding CO2’s logarithmic effect on temperatures, is correct. After a while, it takes more and more CO2 to cause the same effect that smaller amounts used to cause. And at a certain point, the effect becomes irrelevant.

    I’d like to point out for all that can SEE, that in the last image of 4 charts, on the top chart, that at approximate 11,650 years ago temperatures kept rising, but the CO2 levels started FALLING. And, as temperatures start to drop at about 5,000 BCE, the CO2 levels start rising. The CO2 levels CONTINUE to rise WHILE temps continue to FALL for thousands of years. How is that even possible if CO2 drives temperatures UP??? Thank you Dano2 for the “science” to back up what I’m saying.

    In the last image of the 4 charts, the bottom chart shows an increase in temperatures of 0.7C between -0.5C in 1910 to +0.2C in 1945 with hardly ANY change in CO2 at 300ppm!!! And yet since 1945 and with another 100 ppm in CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures have only increased by 0.3C in the past 70 years!

    Seems like that logarithmic, climate sensitivity SCIENCE that has been studied a lot recently is correct, and that even a doubling of CO2 from post industrial levels of 280ppm to 560ppm, will only produce a 1.5C increase in temps. And that would mean it would take somewhere around another 240ishppm on top of the 560 (or close to 800 ppm) to reach the end of the “safe limit” of 2C warming since 1880.

  • Mike435
  • CB

    “Facts are facts no matter where or who they come from.”

    I agree!

    The fact that fossil fuel exhaust warms the planet has been known for over a century.

    Lisa, when you run your car, does the exhaust warm the planet?

    “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

    climate.nasa.gov/evidence

  • CB

    “Only with ADJUSTED ground stations”

    If that were true, would it be a bad thing?

    Is it likely an employee of a company is telling the truth about its product, Truthiness?

    Who made “Climate Hustle”?

    “I am friends with the host and narrator of this great new documentary, Marc Morano”

    -Roger Aronoff

    “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

  • IronChefSandwiches

    I don’t argue with deniers. The evidence is all around you. Use google. Use the internet. Use your freaking common sense.

    But you won’t. You’ll continue to listen to the fossil fuel industry and their lackeys in government and the right wing media. You’ll continue to cherry-pick data to make your “argument”.

    In the meantime, the grown-ups are trying to fix things. You’re welcome. And goodbye.

  • Lisa_Belise

    ROFL!!! When I run my car, does the exhaust warm the planet? NO. Because the exhaust from my car dissipates into the air. The exhaust from my car doesn’t have the ability to “warm” anything on it’s own. The SUN…and ONLY THE SUN warms the planet. Only SHORT WAVE RADIATION….none of which comes from my car, or your car, or ANYONE’s cars, warms the planet. PERIOD.

    The Earth and oceans absorb short wave radiation and warm up. Then they COOL by releasing LONG WAVE radiation into the air, which is absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 molecules. If the Earth and oceans did NOT emit long wave radiation as they cooled, there would be no infrared radiation for CO2 to absorb and move around. CO2 does not create heat. It can only interact with heat./energy that was created by something else first.

    In the footnote that goes with your NASA comment it says-

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    I find it odd that NASA doesn’t mention that in 1906 Svante Arrhenius REVISED his previous calculations, LOWERED his estimates of how much CO2 would or could warm the planet, and published a paper in German. Does NASA even know that paper exists? And if they did, why didn’t they use his old paper instead of his updated one? Google www and then friendsofscience.org slash assets slash documents slash Arrhenius space 1906 comma, final. pdf.

    Here’s a fun widget for you CB- http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/how-much-are-you-spending-on-gas-an-interactive-tool

    How much CO2 do YOU put into the air every year CB? I don’t drive a whole lot, so my “car” footprint is pretty small, but the “average person” produces WAY, WAY more CO2 than driving simply by eating, keeping their food cold, using hot water, having electricity, coffee, and tv and computer! When you’re ready to live without all of those things, and you’ve convinced everyone else to stop using those things, you let me know, and we’ll find out how my car has to do with global warming ok?

  • Dano2

    The planet was cooling until we warmed it, as I showed.

    Your Gish gallop won’t hide that.

    Best,

    D

  • CB

    “When I run my car, does the exhaust warm the planet? NO.”

    Is it your suggestion that your car’s exhaust doesn’t absorb infrared radiation?

    If emitting infrared radiation is the only way the Earth has of cooling down, how could a gas which absorbs it not warm the planet?

    “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation”

    missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

  • Lisa_Belise

    Nope. YOU, didn’t SHOW, DEMONSTRATE, OR PROVE anything.

    What the charts SHOW, is that the planet was COOLING, and then it warmed. What the charts show is that the planet warmed to approximately the same temperature we are at today, when CO2 was close to 300 ppm. What the charts show, is that today is not significantly warmer, if even at all warmer, than it was 7,000 years ago, even though CO2 is 100ppm HIGHER .

    The charts show correlations. They don’t show causation. They just don’t. They don’t show data profiles of ALL of the known factors and processes involved in our climate, including their accuracy ranges, or how much or how little those things affect climate.

    And none of them show actual, hard data temperature measurements. They all use changes in anomalies compared to a specific baseline, or segment of time. You either do not fully understand the limitations of what those charts CAN show, or you don’t care.

  • Dano2

    Your claim: of COURSE the planet has been warming since. And it would be a crappin lot warmer NOW,

    You were refuted. You can’t hide your error with another error (What the charts show, is that today is not significantly warmer, if even at all warmer, than it was 7,000 years ago, ) Two wrongs make a derp, not a right.

    Run along, your ululating and garment-rending and flouncing and prancing won’t change the facts.

    HTH

    Best,

    D

    (img source)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1695667086760df3c263faa7c971cdf43fd520b33d055cff3e98ba96ae7c421.gif

  • Dano2

    I’m popping popcorn for when David returns. Gonna be some laffs at your expense!

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    We’ve recently seen a number of gullibles confidently tell us that there isn’t more WV in the system. Which disinformation site is embarrassing them, I wonder?

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    Portions of my car’s exhaust are water vapor and CO2. Both of those things absorb infrared radiation. BUT SOME of those particles will enter the biosphere where my car is-be absorbed by plants, water, and/or eventually the oceans. If the molecules of CO2 and water vapor from my car are NOT in the atmosphere, and are involved in other chemical reactions, then NO…they will not be “warming the planet”.

    Now, let’s say that ALL of the CO2 from my car enters the atmosphere and for some odd, unscientific reason, stayed there without cycling back through the carbon cycle like every other CO2 molecule does, naturally. OK?

    And let’s go over some basic, well understood by Jr High School students, basic heat/energy transfer facts.

    1-Light consisting of high energy photons (such as “blue” light) has a short wavelength. Light
    consisting of low energy photons (such as “red” light) has a long wavelength.

    The energy from the Sun to Earth comes in high energy photons. The energy from Earth to the atmosphere is low energy photons.

    2. The 2nd law only permits HEAT to flow one-way from a higher temperature/frequency/energy body to a lower temperature/frequency/energy body.

    Now, #1 establishes that Earth is warmed by HIGH temperature, HIGH frequency, HIGH energy level photons. Right? And CO2 warms by LOW temperature, LOW frequency, LOW energy photons. Right?

    So….how exactly does 0.04% of the atmosphere, that is made up of lower temperature, lower frequency, lower energy/ attracting molecules have the ability to warm a body that attracts higher temperature/higher frequency/and higher energy molecules than IT has to offer???

    If CO2 and water vapor could effectively TRAP (and contain, hold in) “heat”, rather than just slowing down it’s direct route out to space, then the Earth would NEVER cool. The Sun would rise, heat the planet, it would attempt to radiate the excess heat away, the atmosphere would TRAP/HOLD IT in even after the Sun went down. The next day, the Suns energy would start heating the planet at exactly the same temperature it heated to the previous day, and build in even MORE heat on top of that. In a couple of days, the planet would dry up, burn up, and became uninhabitable!!!

  • Lisa_Belise

    Can’t rebut it yourself? I thought you were a climate science God Dano2! I’m disappointed.

  • Dano2
  • Lisa_Belise

    Yes, infrared (long wave low energy radiation) is absorbed by CO2, which then re-radiates it in all directions. Nothing I said contradicts that. So what’s your point?

    MINE is that only something that is colder, of lower frequency, and of lower energy THAN the CO2 molecule that just released/reradiated an energy photon can absorb,and thus WARM UP from, that photon of energy. Earth’s land and oceans do not absorb and warm from energy that is that low-that type of radiation, thus they cool at night when their energy/heat source-the Sun- is no longer present.

  • Dano2

    The atmosphere holds in some of the heat, as the diagram showed you. That is why the earth is not a frozen ice ball. GHGs and WV do this. We’ve known this for well over a century.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Who was in on the grift to part uneducated cons from their money? I’m sorry I missed out on this opportunity.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    72 degrees is a HOOT!

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    Here are some other things we’ve known for over a century.

    Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The most abundant and powerful one.

    In 1906 Arrhenius revised his previous calculations and lowered his estimates of climate sensitivity to roughly 1.5 C per doubling of CO2. Apparently, the majority of US and World scientists were not aware of that fact, because they never mention it, “main stream science” is just now backing DOWN their own calculations to that point, for whatever reason. (google Arrhenius 1906 “The Presumed Cause of Climate Fluctuations” to read the translation of the paper yourself).

    The effect of increased CO2 on atmospheric temperatures is logarithmic. Means it takes more and more of it to raise temperatures over time.

    The atmosphere (including clouds) absorbs outgoing radiation, and re-emits it, moves it around, and eventually it escapes to space-if there’s anything left of it. It does not hold onto it indefinitely. If the sun were to suddenly “go out”, within a week, the average global surface temp would drop below 0 F. All of the “heat” that was in the atmosphere when the sun went out, would be used up and gone quickly. No matter how much CO2 was in it.

    The Earth is not a frozen ball because the SUN shines on half of it all the time. Our atmosphere keeps the heat of each day from escaping quickly, and it also protects the Earth from over heating as well by radiating a great deal of the Sun’s energy away from it before it even reaches the surface. The moon-with no atmosphere to speak of, gets very hot during the day and very cold at night. The Earth would do the same thing without it’s atmosphere.

    But the atmosphere’s ability to “hold some of that heat” close to the surface is limited and of short duration. It does not have the power to keep the planet at a constant temperature, or to “keep it warm” for long. That’s why it was 50 F degrees when I woke up today, it reached 70 F degrees for a high today, and it’s already cooled off to 60 F. If the Sun didn’t shine again here tomorrow, it would get colder and colder every day until the Earth froze over, irregardless of whether or not there was 400 ppm of CO2 in the air, or 4,000ppm.

  • Dano2

    Thanks! The GHGs in the atmosphere retain some of the earth’s heat, ensuring that we are not an ice ball.

    Adding GHGs increases the amount of retained heat, reducing GHGs decreases the amount of retained heat.

    That is: GHGs regulate temperature on earth. CO2 is the “control knob”, so to speak. As we add GHGs, we raise the temp of the earth.

    Good job, you got it! Go you! Yay you! You knowin stuff!

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    No, silly billy. The planet radiates what the planet radiates no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere to absorb it. Increasing the amount of GHG’s will only result in slowing down heat lost to space a little more, AND only up to a certain point, because there’s only so much radiation available to be retained by them! This is the fundamental reason that the 30 percent increase in carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution has not increased the background greenhouse effect by 30 percent!

    The GHG’s in the atmosphere, even if they were 1000 times higher than they are today, would STILL NOT “ensure that we would not be an ice ball” if there was no Sun. Period. Even if there was 400,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere right now, the surface temp would STILL drop to O within days. The atmosphere of Earth has ZERO ability to warm Earth on its own, and can only retain a portion of the energy generated by the Sun for a limited amount of time.

  • Dano2

    Thanks, I distilled your Gish gallop. Adding GHGs heats the planet.

    It’s physics. You have no NewPhysics to refute it.

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    If you put a blanket over a dead body, does that blanket ‘heat’ that body?

  • Dano2

    Any remaining heat in the body is helped to be retained by the blankie.

    Similarly, heat in the earth system is retained by GHGs. That’s how it works.

    best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    I asked you a simple yes or no question. You didn’t/couldn’t answer it without rephrasing.

    If you put a blanket over a dead body, does the blanket “HEAT” that body?
    The obvious answer is no.

    Let me be even MORE specific-If that dead body is stone cold, in a morgue, and you put a blanket over it, does that blanket “heat” that body? “Warm” that body at all? Raise the temperature of that body even slightly? Nope.

    You said earlier “Adding GHGs heats the planet.” You did not say “Adding GHG’s helps to retain the planet’s heat” . I WOULD AGREE that GHG’s “help retain” SOME of the planet’s heat, but a very small percentage of it, and not for very long. But I refuse to agree to something as stupid as saying that GHG’s “heat” the planet.

    Do you NOT see the difference between something that “heats” and “warms” and something that “slows down heat loss”?

    If you ask someone to heat up a frozen burrito for you, do you expect them to put it on a plate on the counter and drape a napkin over it, or do you expect them to APPLY A HEAT SOURCE? Even though the burrito would eventually thaw and come to room temperature, the napkin is not what causes the thaw, or the temperature increase. No one would ever state that the napkin “heated” or “warmed” the burrito. In fact, it might actually do the opposite…insulate the burrito and make it stay colder longer.

    Earth’s surface temperature, without an atmosphere is what Dano2? 0 F or -18 C. And that is WITH the Sun shining on half of it all the time! If you had no heat source (the sun) and you put a blanket (atmosphere) around that planet, even one made completely out of GHG’s, no rational person, let alone an expert scientist, would even attempt to state that the blanket was “warming” that planet.

    Oh, and I’m sorry that you have trouble following anything longer than a couple of paragraphs, but that doesn’t make them gish gallops. Nice try

  • Dano2

    More of your widdle semantic word games and Gish galloping to hide the fact that adding GHGs warms the planet and you can’t refute it.

    Best,

    D

  • Lisa_Belise

    You refused to answer my questions. Noted. BEST!

  • Dano2

    Adding GHGs warms the planet. You can’t hide it.

    Best,

    D

  • CB

    “If the molecules of CO2 and water vapor from my car are NOT in the atmosphere, and are involved in other chemical reactions, then NO…they will not be “warming the planet”.”

    I agree!

    Are all the molecules of CO₂ and water vapour from your car being absorbed by plants, water and the oceans, Lisa?

    “Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them”

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study

  • CB

    “Adding GHGs warms the planet.”

    …as long as the sun continues to shine!

    If Lisa has any evidence the sun is just about to be snuffed out she’s welcome to share it!

    I won’t hold my breath…

    “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

    climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

  • Lisa_Belise

    Can you read?

    “BUT SOME of those particles will enter the biosphere where my car is-be absorbed by plants, water, and/or eventually the oceans.”

    Which equates with-

    “Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them”.

    Now, answer the question-

    “So….how exactly does 0.04% of the atmosphere, that is made up of lower temperature, lower frequency, lower energy/ attracting molecules have the ability to warm a body that attracts higher temperature/higher
    frequency/and higher energy molecules than IT has to offer???”

  • Dano2

    Didn’t you get this answered for you in 10th grade physics? CB did, which is why she sees through your weak semantic games.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    So who is ignorant or lying here?

    Speaking of ignorant, one of the main climate disinformers is still trying to dupe the denialists by asserting we are still in a period of no warming (a very, very narrow window…18 years 8 months. Not 19 years, not 17 years, 18 years 8 months only. Come to think of it, with the recent skyrocketing atmospheric temperatures, we don’t hear this con from Monckton any more….)

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    That poor hapless commenter lacks talent and capacity to play little rhetorical and semantic games to spread FUD in this discussion.

    Best,

    D

  • Mike435

    Of course CO2 is not the major cause of “temperature variations”. The ups and downs are caused mostly by ocean cycles and aerosol emissions (natural and human). CO2, and amplifying feedbacks, are responsible for most and perhaps all of the underlying warming trend since 1950.

  • Lisa_Belise

    “Skyrocketing atmospheric temperatures”??? ROFL!!! Good thing you don’t work on rockets either.

  • Dano2

    Keep flailing to amuse me.

    Best,

    D

  • DavidAppell

    The Schwarzschild equations are used to calculate how much radiation is distributed in the atmosphere, and how that depends on the GHG levels in the atmosphere.

    Science 101.

  • Michael DeVore

    Measurements of actual Water Vapor in the Air is complicated because the more water that comes up the more that can come down. When the rate goes up also impacts how much goes up since there is more water in the southern hemisphere than the northern. It is possible to keep water vapor in the air constant by increasing Rain to balance it out. The catch is there isn’t any reliable long term measurements of water vapor in the air that are comparable to prove it one way or the other.

    However, This data is from NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology Dataset. Since it soundly refutes Global Warming arguments it’s not hard to see why its purposefully ignored.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8a8180554a47d5958a693932b4d1a75cb410543227bb72e1631992798b9ad247.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d717de37babdc33225f7495ea08ae6848a29c5af2bc6afdb78e111b22999ed95.png

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/abc6a27168c7d9e07227124bfe817429c26da8a160cfa5ab0736396c07df52a2.png

  • fundle

    stfu u stupid NSA whore

  • odin2

    Thanks for conceding with an ad hominem.