Let's nuke climate change!

There is a reason nobody wants to debate skeptics like Roy Spencer. They are afraid.

YouTube

@metal-brain said
Calculated risk? In other words an estimate. Estimates do not prove safety.
CO2 is beneficial to the planet. The burning of fossil fuels is good for plants and the people that eat them. Your political leanings have convinced you a good thing is bad because of propaganda. Man is not even the main cause of global warming. Sea level rise proves that.
Why do you believe ala ...[text shortened]... pretend.

The science proves global warming is not a threat to coral reefs. Stop ignoring science!

LOL alarmism. You've posted articles on this thread about a million people dying in Fukushima, about the nonexistent "dangers" of Fukushima radiation reaching the California coast, speculation about the radioactive water being released into the bloody Pacific Ocean (as if that could possibly pose a danger to human health), not to mention that unpublished article that overturned hundreds of years of established physics. All of these were unequivocal nonsense, fear mongering speculation.

To turn this now and say that the alarmists are the physicists and chemists with carefully-designed experiments demonstrating that increased CO2 concentration causes climate change? This is the science forum, take the speculation and politics elsewhere.

@wildgrass said
LOL alarmism. You've posted articles on this thread about a million people dying in Fukushima, about the nonexistent "dangers" of Fukushima radiation reaching the California coast, speculation about the radioactive water being released into the bloody Pacific Ocean (as if that could possibly pose a danger to human health), not to mention that unpublished article that overtu ...[text shortened]... ation causes climate change? This is the science forum, take the speculation and politics elsewhere.

The irony of it all. You propose that estimates are truly representative of your assertions, yet you claim other estimates are wrong merely because they do not represent your assertions?
You have to do better than that.

Once again, the atmosphere is not the same as a lab experiment. Increased warming results in more clouds that block sunlight. Water vapor is not just a warming agent, it is a buffering of warming as well. That is why the earth has such an incredibly stable climate. That is true science. You are in denial of the science.

@metal-brain said
The irony of it all. You propose that estimates are truly representative of your assertions, yet you claim other estimates are wrong merely because they do not represent your assertions?
You have to do better than that.

Once again, the atmosphere is not the same as a lab experiment. Increased warming results in more clouds that block sunlight. Water vapor is not just ...[text shortened]... earth has such an incredibly stable climate. That is true science. You are in denial of the science.

1) This is a gross misinterpretation of the position that's been held throughout this thread.

2) These "other estimates" you discuss are not proportionate to the consensus. When you have hundreds of careful scientists in multiple disciplines all reaching the same conclusion, but then you have a few fringe groups countering that, they should not be given equal weight unless the data is overwhelmingly in their favor. It is not.

You've also minsinterpreted what my position is here. Here is a Scientific American article that sums it up...

Boisvert notes that “when we think harder about the specific problems global warming poses—problems of water management, agricultural productivity, cooling and construction—the threat becomes less daunting. Our logistic and technical capacities are burgeoning, and they give us ample means of addressing these problems.”

Greens fear that optimism will foster complacency and hence undermine activism. But I find the essays of Pinker and Boisvert inspiring, not enervating. I plan to assign the essays to my students, who have become quite gloomy lately. These days, despair is a bigger problem than optimism.

The problem with the problem is the failure to acknowledge the problem. It's eminently solvable.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-we-chill-out-about-global-warming/

@wildgrass said
1) This is a gross misinterpretation of the position that's been held throughout this thread.

2) These "other estimates" you discuss are not proportionate to the consensus. When you have hundreds of careful scientists in multiple disciplines all reaching the same conclusion, but then you have a few fringe groups countering that, they should not be given equal weight unl ...[text shortened]... vable.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-we-chill-out-about-global-warming/

What consensus? You have been falsely claiming a consensus that does not exist. Until you can be honest about it you need to stop fooling yourself. Rumor is not fact.

Declaring a problem where there is none is foolish. You have not even established there is a problem. How can you solve a problem when there is no proof the problem exists? Rumor doesn't prove anything and lies indicate a nefarious plot to mislead for wealth expropriation.

Why do you blindly believe the liars?

@metal-brain said
What consensus? You have been falsely claiming a consensus that does not exist. Until you can be honest about it you need to stop fooling yourself. Rumor is not fact.

Declaring a problem where there is none is foolish. You have not even established there is a problem. How can you solve a problem when there is no proof the problem exists? Rumor doesn't prove anything an ...[text shortened]... cate a nefarious plot to mislead for wealth expropriation.

Why do you blindly believe the liars?

Right. You're hyperbloviating again. Get every scientist who currently exists in a room to come to a consensus and you'd be on about the one guy who disagreed died last Tuesday. Let's instead debate the possible existence of a consensus we landed on the moon. Lots of skeptics out there, so maybe there isn't a consensus.

Your position on the consensus is asinine and puerile. Why argue about the lack of something that cannot exist. Read the article. Its about your friend Dr. Pinker.

@wildgrass said
Right. You're hyperbloviating again. Get every scientist who currently exists in a room to come to a consensus and you'd be on about the one guy who disagreed died last Tuesday. Let's instead debate the possible existence of a consensus we landed on the moon. Lots of skeptics out there, so maybe there isn't a consensus.

Your position on the consensus is asinine and pueri ...[text shortened]... e about the lack of something that cannot exist. Read the article. Its about your friend Dr. Pinker.

There is no consensus. Get it through your thick skull! A majority of a minority is still a minority. You need a majority to have an actual consensus. You don't!

Poll every climate scientist and the majority will say GW is mostly natural. The whole GW movement was started by a liar. Gore still will not debate anyone. He will only appear alone so he doesn't get called on his BS. The PBS Newshour NEVER has debates about the issue. Skeptics are not allowed. They do not want people to hear a debate because alarmists would look stupid when called on all their lies.

My position on consensus is logical and fair. Conduct a real poll that actually polls a majority of climate scientists. Allow debates on the news so it is not apparent propaganda is being used to stifle dissent and allow lies to influence public opinion.

Do you have a problem with people becoming aware that CO2 lags behind temps in the ice core samples? Why are you condoning the perpetuation of a big lie? You are either in favor of the truth being revealed or you are against it. Which is it?

@metal-brain said
There is no consensus. Get it through your thick skull! A majority of a minority is still a minority. You need a majority to have an actual consensus. You don't!

Poll every climate scientist and the majority will say GW is mostly natural. The whole GW movement was started by a liar. Gore still will not debate anyone. He will only appear alone so he doesn't get called o ...[text shortened]... f a big lie? You are either in favor of the truth being revealed or you are against it. Which is it?

Is CO2 lagging behind temp increases now? I think you're mistaken. CO2 went up. Then temp went up. We weren't burning trillions of tons of carbon in the past, so there's no real point of comparison.

What did you think of the article?

@wildgrass said
Is CO2 lagging behind temp increases now? I think you're mistaken. CO2 went up. Then temp went up. We weren't burning trillions of tons of carbon in the past, so there's no real point of comparison.

What did you think of the article?

Water shortages and food shortages because of GW is a lie. Until you can present an article that does not contain false assertions like that why should anybody believe those ridiculous alarmist claims? Liars have no credibility! Why are you so fargin dogmatic? You just discredited yourself by promoting an article that lies!

We have the same amount of CO2 now as during the Pliocene Epoch. Have all the glaciers melted? That is because alarmists have their cause and effect backwards!

Do you support bringing awareness to the fact Al Gore had his cause and effect backwards? Most people believe that myth Gore promoted and is still promoting. He is deliberately lying about it. Will you condemn him for his propaganda? Will you condemn PBS' Nova for repeating the same falsehood? Will you condemn the liars who claimed hurricanes get worse in a warmer climate when there is no evidence for that at all? Will you condemn those that blamed GW on forest fires when that was a myth as well? Will you condemn those that blame GW for most of the damage to coral reefs?

Why do you condone these lies? That is systematic lying, not just honest mistakes. Are you really so gullible to accept the opinions of habitual liars that are pushing for a tax? Liars that want your money, that doesn't sound like a mystery motive. The motive for lying is money.

GW is low on the list of priorities for most Americans. That is why they are using propaganda. They suppress debates. If you condone the suppressing of debates you are a Nazi. You do not want the truth to be heard. You might as well burn books and tell skeptics to leave the country if they don't like it. Democrats have bought into the tactics of Fascists. How do you justify that?

@metal-brain said
No big deal. Anything that causes plants to grow faster is going to have that relatively insignificant effect.
Irrigation causes the same thing. Are you going to demonize water now?

No big deal?? So the nutritional value of rice goes to hell because of increase in CO2?

Seems like that is just the tip of the iceberg. I bet many more plants will show nutritional losses like that.
In Alaska, where I used to live they have a very long daylight time in the summer and I saw the effect of some plants like strawberries responding only to many more hours per day of sunlight and the berries were larger for sure but they were mealy and not even very red.
I imagine something like that would be happening to plants experiencing forced growth due to too much CO2.
We won't know now since Trump has killed the USDA also and no more science about crops will be forthcoming from these labs.

@sonhouse said
No big deal?? So the nutritional value of rice goes to hell because of increase in CO2?

Seems like that is just the tip of the iceberg. I bet many more plants will show nutritional losses like that.
In Alaska, where I used to live they have a very long daylight time in the summer and I saw the effect of some plants like strawberries responding only to many more hours p ...[text shortened]... Trump has killed the USDA also and no more science about crops will be forthcoming from these labs.

As if that amount is significant. You are resorting to confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

@metal-brain said
As if that amount is significant. You are resorting to confirmation bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Amount of what?

@sonhouse said
Amount of what?

Nutrients.

@metal-brain said
Water shortages and food shortages because of GW is a lie. Until you can present an article that does not contain false assertions like that why should anybody believe those ridiculous alarmist claims? Liars have no credibility! Why are you so fargin dogmatic? You just discredited yourself by promoting an article that lies!

We have the same amount of CO2 now as during ...[text shortened]... if they don't like it. Democrats have bought into the tactics of Fascists. How do you justify that?

Stop calling everything you disagree with a lie. Provide a reference if you think the information is incorrect. From this it seems you've already decided what the false assertions are before digesting any of the evidence.

The article is very positive. It's not at all the "alarmism" you keep talking about but fail to accurately document. Food shortages are one of the most obvious realities of a warming planet. It's bizarre that you would call that a lie. Our population is growing and our land mass will soon be shrinking. Do you doubt both of those assertions?

@wildgrass said
Stop calling everything you disagree with a lie. Provide a reference if you think the information is incorrect. From this it seems you've already decided what the false assertions are before digesting any of the evidence.

The article is very positive. It's not at all the "alarmism" you keep talking about but fail to accurately document. Food shortages are one of the most ...[text shortened]... pulation is growing and our land mass will soon be shrinking. Do you doubt both of those assertions?

"Food shortages are one of the most obvious realities of a warming planet. It's bizarre that you would call that a lie."

I gave you the facts and you deny them. CO2 causes plants to grow faster and a warmer planet leads to more rainfall worldwide. What you call obvious is a lie. Your assertion is contrary to the science.

There is no point in debating a liar who clings to falsehoods. You have just proved alarmists are liars that cannot be trusted. Until you can acknowledge the real science I see no point in wasting time with you. You are in denial of reality. The fact is I disagree with every lie you condone. You refuse to condemn obvious lies because you condone lies. That is what alarmists do.

I will ask again. Do you support bringing awareness to the fact Al Gore had his cause and effect backwards? Most people believe that myth Gore promoted and is still promoting. He is deliberately lying about it. Will you condemn him for his propaganda? Will you condemn PBS' Nova for repeating the same falsehood? Will you condemn the liars who claimed hurricanes get worse in a warmer climate when there is no evidence for that at all? Will you condemn those that blamed GW on forest fires when that was a myth as well? Will you condemn those that blame GW for most of the damage to coral reefs?

Either you are willing to condemn the obvious lies or you condone them. Which is it? If any of the above are not lies then establish they are not lies, don't make false assertions simply because the facts bother you. I have provided you references before proving those assertions wrong as you well know. Stop pretending I did not. You know I did! LIAR!