Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[WMD]

Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/

Over 6,000 scientific references, thousands of reviewers, Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries

With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.

[old goat]

Over 6,000 scientific references, thousands of reviewers, Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries

I don't know what report you read. The IPCC report says that temperature variability is to be expected and nothing to worry about, that doing anything about carbon emissions is too expensive and unnecessary, and that bears do not shit in the woods and the pope is not catholic. I know this because RJ told me so.

[MultiVerse]

According to a July 2019 article in Nature all the folks here posting local proxy charts and then (falsely) claiming their cherry picked proxy means anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, are wrong.

There is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.

Utilizing reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, the team reports in Nature that, although the Little Ice Age was the coldest epoch of the past millennium, the timing of the lowest temperatures varied from place to place. Two-fifths of the planet were subjected to the coldest weather during the mid-nineteenth century, but the deepest chill occurred several centuries earlier in other regions. And even at the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of Earth’s surface reached peak temperatures at the same time.

Using the same metrics, global warming today is unparalleled: for 98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the Common Era occurred in the late twentieth century.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

[ron johnson]

According to a July 2019 article in Nature all the folks here posting local proxy charts and then (falsely) claiming their cherry picked proxy means anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, are wrong.

There is no evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era.

Utilizing reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, the team reports in Nature that, although the Little Ice Age was the coldest epoch of the past millennium, the timing of the lowest temperatures varied from place to place. Two-fifths of the planet were subjected to the coldest weather during the mid-nineteenth century, but the deepest chill occurred several centuries earlier in other regions. And even at the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of Earth’s surface reached peak temperatures at the same time.

Using the same metrics, global warming today is unparalleled: for 98% of the planet’s surface, the warmest period of the Common Era occurred in the late twentieth century.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

Rebuttal: http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/era...ery-continent/

[ron johnson]

Arguing the science of the climate crisis with Ron only furthers his agenda of spreading doubt. He is lying.

99% of climate scientists agree dangerous climate change is occurring and it is Caused by humans.

These scientists have told us we must keep global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, and to do this we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030 and to net zero by 2050.

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/

SlyFoxxx's link shows how you are being lied to about the 99% consensus.

I have shown you how you are being lied to about every headline connecting fires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves to global warming.

I have shown how you are being lied to about polar bears.

But I'm the liar.

[uglymoney]

SlyFoxxx's link shows how you are being lied to about the 99% consensus.

I have shown you how you are being lied to about every headline connecting fires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves to global warming.

I have shown how you are being lied to about polar bears.

But I'm the liar.

Yes sir, you are liar. Repeating lies does not make the lies true as you know but apparently you'll do anything for a ruble.

The reason you have been hired and the reason you and your coworkers are here is to repeat lies and create the illusion of truth. Unfortunately that is an effective technique, but it makes you a scumbag bootlicker...as you also know.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ron johnson]

Yes sir, you are liar. Repeating lies does not make the lies true as you know but apparently you'll do anything for a rubble.

The reason you have been hired and the reason you and your coworkers are here is to repeat lies and create the illusion of truth. Unfortunately that is an effective technique, but it makes you a scumbag bootlicker...as you also know.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You got an example of a lie from me?

[WMD]

I follow real award winning climate scientists who worked on IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports. They say Ron Johnson and his comrades are full of shit.

Many of these scientists have faced death threats and character assassination. They personally have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by telling the truth about the climate crisis. They say there is no question about anthropogenic climate change, and that we must stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

[SumJongGuy]

You got an example of a lie from me?

Let's start with your name..

[liv2ski]

We all know Ron is full of shit and that we will not stop burning fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change until it is to late. There are to many deep pocket (fossil fuels industries) spending billions to convince some people all is well. That will make any meaningful change in time impossible. The world will be a very different place in 2100 and man like cockroaches will still be here. I could make it to about 2050. It should be an interesting 30 years coming up.

[WMD]

We all know Ron is full of shit and that we will not stop burning fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change until it is to late. There are to many deep pocket (fossil fuels industries) spending billions to convince some people all is well. That will make any meaningful change in time impossible. The world will be a very different place in 2100 and man like cockroaches will still be here. I could make it to about 2050. It should be an interesting 30 years coming up.

We don't know that we won't act until it is too late. We still have time. We can't give up. We can and we will do this. Because failure is not an option.

[liv2ski]

I like the enthusiasm of youth, you keep banging that drum WMD. There are to many fucks out there like Ron who are sabotaging the message. Do we get to sting all those fuckers up once it is to late?

[ron johnson]

All of you think the IPCC is some holy scientific institution. It is a corrupt political organization. The IPCC is an arm of the UN, a known corrupt political body. The IPCC's mandate is not to study climate change on the whole, it is to specifically report and find human impact on climate.

The IPCC is designed to put politicians, not scientists in control of the project. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, choose which scientists get to contribute, and review and revise the reports from the scientists. The final editing of the IPCC reports are done by politicians, the scientists have no say.



I'd think most of you heard the about the hacking of email exchanges among leading contributors of the IPCC reports. Some quotes:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.” - Phil Jones

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.” - Phil Jones

“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” - Phil Jones

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]. Keith will do likewise. ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!” - Phil Jones

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.” - Jonathan Overpeck

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.” - Michael Mann

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.” - Peter Thorne

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” - Peter Thorne

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ... there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.” - Tom Wigley



In 2010 the InterAcademy Council did a report on the flaws in the IPCC's peer-review process and other procedural problems that undermine the IPCC's credibility. In 2012 the IPCC officially recognized the truth of the critique and promised to "reform" itself. Some quotes from the report:

The lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views," fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors,” and fail to “consider review comments carefully and document their responses."

“The IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents." Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications.”

The auditors wrote, “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.” The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political.”

“The lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and lead authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work."

[ron johnson]

Like these guys? ^^^^^

I follow real award winning climate scientists who worked on IPCC and National Climate Assessment reports. They say Ron Johnson and his comrades are full of shit.

Many of these scientists have faced death threats and character assassination. They personally have nothing to gain, and lots to lose, by telling the truth about the climate crisis. They say there is no question about anthropogenic climate change, and that we must stop burning fossil fuels ASAP.

Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.

[old goat]

Like these guys? ^^^^^



Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.

Pot meet kettle.

[WMD]

I like the enthusiasm of youth, you keep banging that drum WMD. There are to many fucks out there like Ron who are sabotaging the message. Do we get to sting all those fuckers up once it is to late?

We prosecute the fuckers as murderers.

100 companies reaponaible for over 70% of greenhouse gases. They must pay to help fix this.

"Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says"

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change

[dan_pdx]

Like these guys? ^^^^^



Nothing to gain except advancing their careers, getting funding, pushing their ideologies, etc. What do they have to lose exactly? It's those that question the consensus that have lots to lose.

More to the point, it's the petro companies that you work for that have lots to lose, and are therefore paying amoral twats like yourself to try to spread doubt about settled science.

Maybe you should head back to whatever flat earther forum you usually hang out at.

[WMD]

Climate deniers playbook:

1. Deny climate is changing. Post phony stats showing we are actually cooling. Attack climate scientists as only in it for the money.
2. Next, say the climate may be changing but the climate has always changed. Nothing to worry about.
3. When that stops working say the climate may be changing but humans didn't cause it so aren't able to do
Anything about it.
4. Next try the climate may be changing but warming will be good for humans so it's a good thing.
5. Then try Ok, the climate may be changing but doing anything about it will destroy the economy.

If you are Ron you try all of these at once, not realizing they contradict each other and make no sense if not attempted in order.

[MontuckyFried]

Good thing the Obamas are continuing to do their part to reduce their carbon footprint:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/life...ion/vi-AAGbL9i
https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/22/barac...rthas-vinyard/
Oh wait... Living on a beach front mansion on a sprawling estate would be the OPPOSITE of doing that. Doh!!!

Hilarious coming from the guy who once said this:

[SkiCougar]

Climate deniers playbook:

1. Deny climate is changing. Post phony stats showing we are actually cooling. Attack climate scientists as only in it for the money.
2. Next, say the climate may be changing but the climate has always changed. Nothing to worry about.
3. When that stops working say the climate may be changing but humans didn't cause it so aren't able to do
Anything about it.
4. Next try the climate may be changing but warming will be good for humans so it's a good thing.
5. Then try Ok, the climate may be changing but doing anything about it will destroy the economy.

If you are Ron you try all of these at once, not realizing they contradict each other and make no sense if not attempted in order.

what about:

6. CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
7. human activity contributes 0.01% of the 0.04%

I like those two, those are my favorites.

[Bunion 2020]

Good thing the Obamas are continuing to do their part to reduce their carbon footprint:

Oh FFS, this is again suppose to be a discussion about climate change and not about Al Gore or Barak Obama and their lifestyle choices.

Put a fucking sock in it and FFS please stop quoting Ron as well.

[The AD]

what about:

6. CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
7. human activity contributes 0.01% of the 0.04%

6 is apropos of nothing. I doubt the veracity of 7, but it really doesn't matter. Even the EPA states this on one of their websites:

Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

[neufox47]

Attachment 291862

Greenland has been warmer than today for 80%+ of the period of human civilization.

Temps have been rising for 150 years. Why would we not expect to see the most melt in this decade?

That is based on an ice core from a single area and is not accurate. Sure Greenland was warmer in the past but not as warm as that graph says. More bullshit.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/up...P210klarge.png

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

[WMD]

what about:

6. CO2 is 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.
7. human activity contributes 0.01% of the 0.04%

I like those two, those are my favorites.

I'm sorry but you failed this very easy multiple choice test.

Your responses go under number 4.

Good try though!

[ron johnson]

That is based on an ice core from a single area and is not accurate. Sure Greenland was warmer in the past but not as warm as that graph says. More bullshit.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/up...P210klarge.png

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

Do you have an actual paper confirming that the Easterbrook scale is wrong? You would think there would be more than just a skepticalscience post about it. In any case, we have other Greenland ice cores which may not show as much warmth as GIST2, but do show warmth:




Temperature reconstruction from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7



Already posted this: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ancien...y-thought.html