[stevenj]

I am sorry i should have been more clear. i meant to say the so called corrected data has been cherry picked and should not be used as a standard.

That is in-correct and actually it is the likes of Ted Cruz that is cherry picking ie using the raw data or in-correctly corrected for a specific 18 year time span because that suits his outlook. Real climate scientists on the other hand use accepted time spans like 10, 15 20 or 30 years plus reply on multiple data sources to give confidence to the warming trend observations. So they use weather balloons and ground stations for instance to give multiple inputs so they can cross check to get a "standard".

[ifixcnc]

Do they pay you to spread such non-sense?

[RCWorks.com]

It's been much hotter in the past, quit spreading fear for Al Gore.

[Paul-JB]

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics were going to freeze to death in the end. I'm going with that!

[stevenj]

Do they pay you to spread such non-sense?

ad hominem attack, shows a failure of logic and the ability to argue to the point so resort to attack the poster.

meanwhile 2015 was the hottest on record,

Graphs of the Day: The Pause no More | Climate Denial Crock of the Week

[RCWorks.com]

They kept telling us we were going to freeze back in the 70's with global cooling.

[stevenj]

They kept telling us we were going to freeze back in the 70's with global cooling.

No particular bearing on the current argument of climate change due to CO2. Plus it was an opinion of a few scientists as wildly mis-reported by the media and not mainstream / majority who expected warming. Plus the ones predicting the possibility of cooling actually looked at aerosol background concentration which was increasing, but we moved on that with limits through Clean Air Acts, which solved the problem. So regulation/laws actually fixed the problem/risk.

[RCWorks.com]

The clean air act was a joke in California. The new pollutants are harder to see but 17 times the cancer risk.

Yes, I used to test cars.

CO2 levels were higher in the past then they are now.

All you are doing is defending a tax to come that is indefensible with the truth.

Want to make a difference??? Clean up India and China, then get back to us.

[stevenj]

The clean air act was a joke in California. The new pollutants are harder to see but 17 times the cancer risk.

Yes, I used to test cars.

CO2 levels were higher in the past then they are now.

All you are doing is defending a tax to come that is indefensible with the truth.

Want to make a difference??? Clean up India and China, then get back to us.

So you used test cars, um so what?

CO2 sure was higher millions of years ago, we were not alive then.

The truth is science shows us we are making a problem for ourselves and our children and we need to fit that.

Everyone has to fix the issue, which was the idea of Paris.

[RCWorks.com]

CO2 was higher 700 years ago. Quit spreading needless fear.

Why is Mars heating up? To many Martians in SUVs?

[stevenj]

CO2 was higher 700 years ago.

Quit spreading needless fear.

Why is Mars heating up? To many Martians in SUVs?

700? Actually, no you are totally wrong, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/la...-levels-111074

"You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science."

"fear" Why are you afraid of truth? maybe then it gives you a moral dilemma which you would have to face?

a) Mars, it seems you need some education. Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.
b) Who cares we dont live there and we are not releasing CO2 there.

[RCWorks.com]

Sorry I just don't buy the BS... The only people that concur are on the payroll of big government.

[stevenj]

Sorry I just don't buy the BS... The only people that concur are on the payroll of big government.

Which is a political based belief and not a scientific one. On top of that you want to see the evidence of financial gain aka the likes of Willie Soon who produce denial papers for money.

[Larry83301]

Which is a political based belief and not a scientific one. On top of that you want to see the evidence of financial gain aka the likes of Willie Soon who produce denial papers for money.

Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million.

The FOIA response from the Smithsonian reveals that more than half (over $1.3 million) of Willie Soon’s total funding since 2001 has come from the oil and electric utility industry (coal). Since 2002, every new grant he has received has been from either oil & coal interests or Donors Trust.

Now just WHO is getting financial gain from "global warming" / "climate change" which ever you want to call it!

Larry

[RCWorks.com]

I sell you some carbon credits that I get from the same place as the others that will sell them to you....

[Paul-JB]

What happened to all the folks spouting about "peak oil"?! Last I heard the world's drowning in the stuff. .

[shaggy53]

What happened to all the folks spouting about "peak oil"?! Last I heard the world's drowning in the stuff. .

'Spouting' = Lying.

How can you tell when an environmental activist is lying?

[Larry83301]

'Spouting' = Lying.

How can you tell when an environmental activist is lying?

When they say "it's for the children" or "we're doing it for the children"

Larry

[shaggy53]

When they say "it's for the children" or "we're doing it for the children"

Larry

Or some might say, 'whenever they open their mouths'.


What they really mean is, '(we're going to change things so you have to do it -- or stop doing it) 'for the children/planet/future' (whether you agree with us or not)'.

[stevenj]

What happened to all the folks spouting about "peak oil"?! Last I heard the world's drowning in the stuff. .

Not anything directly to do with Climate change, but the mathematical proof is very simple, so simple even a 14 year old can do the math on it,

We are on a finite planet and we have expotential growth. So if the world economy is growing at 4% per annum the doubling time is 70/4 = 17.5 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5iFESMAU58