Welcome, visitor!

Translations

Random Quote

The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
Aristotle

Linkedin Connection

Categories

Archives

Getting the Best of Yale University Facebook group Climate Connections Members in Discussions of Climate Facts

 

The following is an exchange I had with members of the Facebook group Yale University’s Climate Connections.

Needless to say no one there could answer my questions or adequately dispute what I stated regarding climate change being a lie and only a political tool to fit a New World Order agenda.

Proving once again, if climate change is so real, why can’t anyone offer up physical proof of it being so?

Facts win out over lies, manipulated computer models, flawed graphs, and simple predictions.

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Another lie, but who cares, now that Trump is in office, climate morons can lie as much as they want and nobody cares.

 

Hide 164 Replies
Top Comments is selected, so some replies may have been filtered out.
Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Actually, people still care about climate science. Trump’s efforts to stifle science won’t change the outcome.

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins I do too, real climate science from qualified climate scientists. Which is not what we are getting from all UN based climate change organizations.

 

John Dozbush

John Dozbush Silly sally, when the hoaxes say science is settled just shows the facts the hoaxes are trying to label and scientist and their data…so it’s a political statement not fact.

Now prove your hoax is man made by all data, your an expert, no links POST THEM.

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge There are terabytes of data going into this, John. It can’t be posted here.

 

Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey He’s exceptionally ignorant, even by denier pathetically low standards.

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey You fit into the category of dolt since you believe everything you are told, without doing any research of your own to see if what you believe really is true. You believe the government without question, like they have such an impeccable record of telling the truth.

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott What “UN based climate change organizations”? The IPCC is a body that compiles scientific evidence based on peer-reviewed research. The UN doesn’t produce a shred of research.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins IPCC is a UN based organization. BTW, everyone at the IPCC is unqualified in climate science to be making any assertions on climate. What a joke peer review is, it just means other clowns in the same genre read the article before it was published.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Tony, if peer review is so easy to pass, why haven’t deniers been able to get their own peer-reviewed science passed?
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Anyone can, look at what I said about PR. Its bullshit. In the case of climate change idiots it means liars have read the material fellow liars write.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn And it’s pretty weird that you believe everything you’re told by political pundits while ridiculing Daniel for believing what the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science has discovered.
Go ahead, post a witty comment about the stupidity of scientists using the internet, a computer, and electricity.
Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Tony said, “BTW, everyone at the IPCC is unqualified in climate science to be making any assertions on climate.”

Absurd to the point of insane. See More

Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn I have researched climate change extensively, after having great knowledge of the science of weather, climate, and geophysical science. Hence, why I know it is BS. Not a single individual can give me physical proof that CC is real, primarily because none exists.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott You can refer to my previous answer on peer review, which you obviously missed or choose to ignore.
Like · Reply · 23 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Tony, virtually everything that has passed peer review supports the established scientific understanding of climate change. That’s why the denial crowd uses blogs rather than original research.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Get this strait, peer review means nothing, absolutely nothing.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So, Tony, what aspect of the science do you accept? Surely you accept that CO2 traps infrared heat/light, yes?
It has been shown in peer-reviewed science over and over again for over 150 years. Plus, most CO2 detectors operate on that very principal.
So do you accept that much?
Like · Reply · 14 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn CO2 readings are inaccurate. All CO2 monitoring stations in the world are either on, or very near areas which naturally produce Carbon Dioxide, thus we get very high readings which are totally inconsistent with the CO2 level in the overall atmosphere.
Like · Reply · 14 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Since you changed the subject, I’ll assume you DO agree that CO2 traps infrared heat/light. Good. Now let’s get on to the next point. We’re dramatically increasing CO2 levels around the world.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn Contrary to the lie that you’ve heard, there are hundreds of places where CO2 readings are taken around the world. They’re not all “on, or very near” naturally produced carbon dioxide. For example:

No automatic alt text available.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So all four show a similar long-term rise. All four show seasonal effects. If there were naturally produced CO2 throwing these things off, they’d clearly have different shapes to the different charts. So if you’re a questioner, are you now willing to accept the correct answer, or at least question the lie that had tricked you earlier?
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn The subject was never changed, I said CO2 levels are not nearly as high as we are told, thus they wouldn’t be a factor. Realistically, the overall amount of Carbon Dioxide in the entire atmosphere is considered inert since it is around 1% of 1%. Proof also exists that CO2 levels always rise after a warming period, not before.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn When the subject was that CO2 traps infrared heat/light, you seem to have accepted that. Am I right?
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Even that is debatable.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn CO2 levels are precisely as high as we are told, per the above charts, which are measured on different continents by different independent groups.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Next, you suggest that because CO2 is only 400 ppm that it can’t trap a significant amount of heat. Do you know how climate science started?
“It all started in the 1820s, when a French mathematician named Joseph Fourier realized that, for the earth See More

One of the biggest myths about climate science…
BLOG.UCSUSA.ORG
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn That’s back when CO2 levels were around 280 ppm. We’ve increased that 45%. Why wouldn’t it trap more heat now?
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn No they are not, monitoring stations are all near natural CO2 producing sites, thus very inaccurate. All are taken near volcanoes, fault lines, seamounts, and busy highways. If CO2 really were the threat we are told it is, we would not still have CO2 producing devices on every automobile in the form of catalytic converters.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn How does CO2 trap heat? It has a color, or wavelength, where it absorbs and re-emits light. If it were orange, you’d see it like smog. Just because we don’t see the color it absorbs and re-emits, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. And this shows clearly how significant 280 and 390 ppm are, with respect to ink absorbing light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

I use ink to demonstrate how CO2 can have a big impact on warming…
YOUTUBE.COM
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn They still are.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So you can see that 400 ppm is darker than 280 ppm. Darker means, it absorbs more light. That’s what the atmosphere is like – darker in the infrared, absorbing more light.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn Have you ever played with an infrared camera? Hot areas are brighter, while insulated areas are darker.

Image may contain: one or more people
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn We do not have 400 PPM.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So with that in mind, consider just these three points:
1) Everything that warms up emits more infrared heat/light. Think of infrared goggles or an infrared motion detector. But you can fool an infrared sensor by wearing a heavier coat, right?
2) EarSee More

STATIC.SKEPTICALSCIENCE.COM

 

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn More graphs mean nothing, like Michael Mann’s Hockey stick Graph.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn So, with the above, you should agree that CO2 traps infrared heat/light, and it’s happening now. But you had that one last question about why CO2 appears to lag temperature increase. First, let me state clearly that it doesn’t necessarily lag. For tSee More

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn 2nd of 3 examples: Since the Industrial Revolution.

No automatic alt text available.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn 3rd of 3 examples: The Carboniferous Period. Here’s 500 million years of data. Notice that the temperatures generally track with CO2.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10212102606063588&set=p.10212102606063588&type=3&theater

Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn Also notice in particular the Carboniferous Period, 350 to 290 million years ago, when temperatures dipped to below where they are today. There’s a really cool explanation for that.

Plants first formed wood about 350 million years ago, but it took aSee More

The absence of the tiniest creature can shape…
PHENOMENA.NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So it’s a very important time period from a fossil fuel standpoint. It’s also a very important time period from a paleoclimatologist’s standpoint. Why? Because the fact that the trees were taking huge amounts of CO2 out of the air and burying it meant that CO2 levels dropped substantially, and temperatures also plunged.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn What does that all prove? That CO2 traps heat, and it has a huge impact globally. It also proves that scientists have uncovered more than most people realize!
Now, what should we expect to happen when we take that carbon that was locked away 300 million years ago and return it to the atmosphere? Yep, CO2 levels go up, so Earth traps more heat, and temperatures rise.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott

Tony R. Elliott https://www.usnews.com/…/scientist-carbon-dioxide…

Noted geologist says Earth needs more, not less, carbon dioxide to feed plant life.
USNEWS.COM

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn You are missing the point entirely.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn

Scott Gruhn Your specific question regarding CO2 lagging warming trends is only applicable in this chart, and it’s only a little applicable.

No automatic alt text available.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Charts, graphs, computer models, mean nothing. It has been proven most all are fabricated, like Mann’s.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Clearly, the graphs march together, but you’re right that the first chart in the above image to twitch is the temperature chart. Why? Because the earth goes through orbital cycles that cause a small amount of warming or cooling. When the earth warmsSee More
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn So even in your example where CO2 follows the first twitch of warming, CO2 is still causing most of the warming. That’s why the graphs above march together.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn CO2 is pale to water vapor in trapping heat.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn It might, if enough of it existed, but there isn’t enough to cause a greenhouse effect, my point. Also, the CO2 being a greenhouse gas is debatable.
Like · Reply · 13 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey You’re a fucking idiot.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey Apparently, you are.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey I had to screencap that bit O Stupid you just posted about CO2 being a GHG being debatable. It immediately and irrevocably stamps you as a dumbass.

Image may contain: 1 person, meme and text
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Tony, you’re just making stuff up. I’ve brought credible, scientific sources, and you just say, “Nuh-uh.”
Like · Reply · 12 hrs · Edited

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge And they get so pissed at the term “denier.” What could be more apt?
Like · Reply · 1 · 12 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge What do you think CO2 levels actually ARE, Tony? What would the average hand-held CO2 detector register in Des Moines or Albuquerque?
Like · Reply · 1 · 12 hrs · Edited

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn I posted scientific measurements of CO2 from Florida, South Pole, Barrow (Alaska), and Algeria, all far from faults and volcanoes, and all in the neighborhood of 400 ppm. Somehow, that doesn’t compete in his mind with “Nuh-uh.”
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn They aren’t credible, dude, the IPCC, WMO, and all UN climate organizations are run and have employed individuals who have no degrees in weather or climate. What most are is environmentalists masquerading as climate scientists. How does a degree in economics qualify one to run a climate organization.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn I posted the Feldman study measuring the atmospheric forcing changing in real time, outside, as the CO2 level changes seasonally. Somehow, that doesn’t compete with “Nuh-uh.”
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn One last chance, Tony, for you to show you’re not a mindless sheep swallowing whatever the industry lobbyists ask you to. Conduct an experiment like this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

Experiment showing the absoption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide.…
YOUTUBE.COM
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Carbon dioxide traps heat. It’s just a fact.
Like · Reply · 1 · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Data from the very organizations who promote this political and financial scam. Just why would Al Gore buy a multi million dollar beach house in S. California if he really was worried about sea level rise. He’s obviously not concerned with using renewable energy since he has no solar installed there. He is however making billions from this scam.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Al Gore is a diversion tactic. Carbon dioxide traps heat, Tony. Run the experiments yourself.
Like · Reply · 1 · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn If this really were so, we would not have millions of automobiles with a CO2 producing device on them. Manufactures would not be allowed to use them.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Most of what I posted above was not from the IPCC or organizations promoting anything political or financial. It’s scientific research performed by scientists and peer-reviewed for accuracy. That’s more than a few rungs higher than “Nuh-uh.”
Bottom lSee More
Like · Reply · 1 · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn Here you go again with the worthless peer review nonsense.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey I’m afraid my IQ is at a level which doesn’t allow me to believe in fantasy.
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey I can grasp science, its pseudo science I have a problem with.
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Doubtless you have difficulty with anything not writ large in wax crayons by Ted Guisel.

Image may contain: 1 person, hat and text
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn “Worthless peer review nonsense.”
Well, that’s the foundation of modern science of all stripes. I don’t understand when someone turns their back on science, when it’s clear how much science has benefited humanity.
But enjoy disparaging science on an internet brought to you by science, using a computer made possible by science, and via electricity harnessed by science. Cheers,
Like · Reply · 1 · 11 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn In the case of climate change, we have people unqualified in the science of weather and climate reviewing articles written by people unqualified in weather and climate science, whats the point?
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn BTW it isn’t science, it is pseudo science.
Like · Reply · 11 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott “In the case of climate change, we have people unqualified in the science of weather and climate reviewing articles written by people unqualified in weather and climate science,” What utter nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Like · Reply · 1 · 10 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins It is nonsense, now you are saying it yourself.
Like · Reply · 10 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott “it isn’t science, it is pseudo science.” I’ll just bet you read that in a blog or media report funded by the fossil fuel industry. All of the atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, hydrologists, geologists, atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, paleoclimatologists, chemists, soil scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc. who study climate are not fake scientists.
Like · Reply · 1 · 10 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins No one has any business having to do with predicting climate who is not qualified. None of the scientists you mentioned are qualified but, atmospheric physicists and meteorologists, the rest have no qualifications in the science of the atmosphere. Thus, they are fake climate scientists.
Like · Reply · 10 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Referring to engines, which produce CO2… “Manufactures [sic[ would not be allowed to use them.”

Holy crap. Climate change doesn’t exist because we’d have banned automobiles long ago if it were true. See More

Like · Reply · 10 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge With Tony’s methods for determining what’s true, anyone could believe anything. There’s simply no coherent rule except reject what you don’t like and accept what your gut wants to be true.
Like · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Rather than wonder if maybe he should look into who the climatologists are and consider their credentials, he dismisses them out of hand.

I have absolutely no doubts he doesn’t have the slightest idea who they are, the universities they’re affiliated with, and their record of publishing and advancing science. See More

Like · Reply · 2 · 10 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn And Tony’s back to “Nuh-uh.” He can’t provide any reason why his “Nuh-uh” is more valid than tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, but he wants us to believe he knows better than the peers reviewing the science.
I can write a chat-bot that says “Nuh-uh” to whatever you say; it doesn’t make it right.
Like · Reply · 9 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Bo wonder you guys believe in outright lies, you can’t seem to grasp the meaning of simple paragraphs. I should say all one sentence at a time spread out a couple of hours apart, but then I guess the problem of retention would be too much.
Like · Reply · 9 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge Huh? What are you babbling about?
Like · Reply · 1 · 8 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge I could just as easily defend psychic phenomenon using your practices, Tony.

All I have to do is dismiss the skeptics who demonstrate that these psychics are frauds. Claim they’re debunking psychism for money. Reject all reputable sources of informatSee More

Like · Reply · 8 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Psychic phenomenon has as much evidence of its existence, or more for that matter as the climate change boondoggle.
Like · Reply · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge You missed the point: applying irrational skepticism would allow anyone and everyone to believe anything or everything.

Determining what’s true doesn’t come about from doubting things you dislike and blindly accepting things you prefer.

Like · Reply · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge You’ve had your nose rubbed in evidence and you refuse to accept it. This is due to an emotional commitment that’s completely irrational and self serving.
Like · Reply · 7 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott What nonsense. You dismiss peer-reviewed evidence, and support of every legitimate science body on Earth, and hold onto a U.S. News story about a guy who has no peer-reviewed publications to his name and has worked for the Louisiana Land and Exploration Company and the American Petroleum Institute! You, sir, have no critical thinking skills.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge If you want to reject the vats of concentrated evidence you’ve been dunked and marinated in, you’re certainly allowed to. Just don’t think it’s obvious why you’re doing precisely this.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge And don’t be surprised if you’re seen as a buffoon.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge As a committed scientific skeptic, it’s particularly galling when they claim they’re being “skeptics,” when they’re only denying evidence that doesn’t suit them, Sandy.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Are you really that much of a moron?
Like · Reply · 7 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge Running out of steam, Tony? Grab a washrag and wipe that evidence you’ve been dunked in and get back to us.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Just go over what was said here, it isn’t me who has run out of anything, but it is you, and others who have displayed your lack of knowledge about this topic and look silly.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Okay! I just went over it. You’ve been dunked in a vat of thick evidence and look tarred and feathered and you’re still unfazed.

There’s no amount of evidence that would sway you. See More

Like · Reply · 5 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge In your own fantasies, you haven had anything, and haven’t addressed some key points I brought up. You have ignored them, however.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Don’t bother to have the idiocy to ask me what the ignored topics are, you damn well know what they are.
Like · Reply · 5 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott “…all UN climate organizations are run and have employed individuals who have no degrees in weather or climate.” Guess what, genius? Those people don’t analyze the data or write the analyses. Scientists do that. The Secretariat is made up of communications professionals and other staff. Scientists are not organizers.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott “No one has any business having to do with predicting climate who is not qualified. None of the scientists you mentioned are qualified but, atmospheric physicists and meteorologists, the rest have no qualifications in the science of thSee More
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins If the work is to be credible, it has to be done by people who are qualified in weather, and climate, end of story. You keep grasping at straws.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins And these so called scientists are no experts in weather and climate.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey “it has to be done by people who are qualified in weather”

Like meteorologists?See More

Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey NASA’s and the IPCC’s conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and has been endorsed by this great cloud of witnesses:

the National Academy of Sciences,See More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey “Not a single major scientific organization or national academy of science on earth denies that the climate is changing, that humans are responsible, and that some form of action should be taken to address the risks to people and the planet.”

http://scienceblogs.com/…/statements-on-climate-change…/

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Those who fail to understand the lessons of history, like you, are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Like you.

For example, some may superficially think that climate science is a relatively youthful field (like you), but in actuality, the field dates baSee More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Remarkably, CO2’s role in global warming has been on the oil industry’s radar since the 1960’s (indeed, since the 1950’s):

“The oil industry’s leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide fSee More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Further, Exxon’s own research confirmed fossil fuels’ role in global warming, decades ago:

“a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees FahSee More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too

“Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell”See More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey Basically, you deniers lack a physical, causal mechanism that both explains the ongoing climate change we can empirically see AND also explains why the radiative physics of greenhouse gases suddenly stopped working. Probably because you’re utterly ignSee More

FARM6.STATIC.FLICKR.COM

 

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge More evidence. He’s drowning in it.

What “key points” have been neglected, Tony?

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott

Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey More say no, useless waste of time and energy. https://www.forbes.com/…/shock-poll-meteorologists…/…

With substantially fewer than half of…
FORBES.COM

 

Daniel Bailey

Daniel Bailey When it comes to discussing the consensus of science on climate change, many lose sight of the fact that it is a consensus of EVIDENCE. As a result, some falsely draw the conclusion that what is being discussed is a consensus of OPINION. Nothing could See More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott

Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey https://patriotpost.us/opinion/17032

Does the bullet point list for solutions to global…
PATRIOTPOST.US

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge A link from James Taylor of Heartland, the same people who gave us tobacco denial. Figures.

As expected, they misrepresented the AMS poll.

Image may contain: text
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Daniel Bailey Quantify it when no tangible evidence exists to support the lie.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott

Tony R. Elliott https://www.forbes.com/…/shock-poll-meteorologists…/…

With substantially fewer than half of meteorologists very worried about global warming or expecting substantial harm during the next 100 years, one has to wonder why environmental activist groups are sowing the seeds of global warming panic.
FORBES.COM

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Is there an echo in here?

He gives us a link from James Taylor of Heartland, the same people who gave us tobacco denial. Figures.

Image may contain: text
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge It’s no surprise that Taylor would misrepresent the poll and Tony wouldn’t investigate it further to find out why.
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Again, Tony: There isn’t a single survey of climate scientists or of the literature undermining the 90+% figure published in a legitimate natural science journal.

There are eleven that support that figure.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Well the government did need a scapegoat for all the cancer cases it knew would come after all the above ground testing of nukes in the western US, which distributed the radiation eastward because of the prevailing winds.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Even the authors who assembled the AMS survey said Taylor misrepresented them, Tony.

The takeaway? Don’t believe people from lobbies that deny the risks of tobacco.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge I don’t expect there to be coming from a government with an agenda on this.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Then he point us to “A Compilation of News Articles on the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s.”

Science isn’t conducted in newspapers, magazines, tv shows, and super market tabloids.See More

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge Get real, there is so much more than just what I presented.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Evidence: Here’s a comparison of the peer-reviewed science from the 1970s showing that papers supporting future cooling were outnumbered 6:1 by papers anticipating warming.

No automatic alt text available.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge Scientists ignored and didn’t cite papers anticipating cooling. Warming dominated.

Image may contain: text
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge It was so called scientists that were spouting off about global cooling though.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge That’s called evidence. That means you’ll ignore it and maybe slap down something off topic.
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge The graphs are from this paper, an examination of the science of the 1970s on climate change.

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge
Steve Ridge It’s called “The Myth of 1970s Global Cooling.”
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge This is false: “It was so called scientists that were spouting off about global cooling though.”

One or two. They were ignored and outnumbered.

Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge I said many times, peer review is a scam, anyone can have a peer reviewed article from the same people in their genre. Just because climate clowns read a climate clown’s article means absolutely nothing.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge The takeaway? Don’t look to journalists for science. The best place to find out the state of science is statements from national science academies like the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.

Both anticipated warming in the decades ahead.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Steve Ridge

Steve Ridge I’m done here after that post about nuclear testing being responsible for tobacco deaths.

What a whack job.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta
Jay Kanta Oh, this ignorant troll is back again?
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta
Jay Kanta He’s a fraud that thinks he understand science, but can’t bring any research to ever back him up.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Steve Ridge I’m done here after all the repeats. And just what is so impossible about radiation exposure causing cancer. So Nuclear bomb radiation is good for us?
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta

Jay Kanta “peer review is a scam”

Because you can’t pass it? Because you don’t understand it? Because you say so?See More

Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta
Jay Kanta Isn’t it funny that the only sources he ever has are right-wing bloggers?
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta I know what it is, and you would know I did too if you cared to look at some answers to your questions. An idiot’s approval of an idiot’s deeds in simple terms means they are idiots all the same.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta

Jay Kanta Go ahead, TRE, tell everyone that you lack any and all education in science and statistics.

You’re just a lonely troll that makes claims that you can’t back up.

Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs · Edited

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta Isn;t it interesting all your sources are from the very liars we are talking about.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta Nope, I am someone who knows when the country is getting scammed.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott You don’t even realize that you’re the dope being scammed by the fossil fuel industry! You don’t have even a vague idea what it takes to study climate. You don’t understand what’s involved in the study of climate. It’s just pathetic.
Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta

Jay Kanta You’ve never once done any real research.

You’re not a scientist, you have NO education in science.See More

Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta

Jay Kanta Go ahead, fraud boy, tell them how much education you have.

It’s easy. Just type “zero”.

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins I base all on evidence, physical and otherwise. There is no evidence in existence which legitimizes climate change. The only thing that has happened, and can be verified, is all the lies coming from the CC community.
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

 

Jay Kanta
Jay Kanta Don’t forget that this clown thinks chemtrails are real, too.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta Apparently, neither have you.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta More than you on this subject, want to go one on one with weather?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott “If the work is to be credible, it has to be done by people who are qualified in weather, and climate,” – So, who studies sea level changes–oceanographers, not atmospheric scientists or meteorologists! So, who studies ice sheet and glaciers—applied geophysicists, not atmospheric scientists or meteorogists! I could go on for hours.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Jay Kanta Chem/contrails have been used in weather modification, and still are.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins You are a total waste of time.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Sandy Hawkins
Sandy Hawkins Tony R. Elliott You’re talking about cloud seeding, which is very small scale.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Sandy Hawkins I’m talking about high flying aircraft that naturally create contrails. It is being used in the guise of creating a thin layer of vapor and, yes some chemicals and metals supposedly for reflecting some of the sun’s rays back out into spacSee More
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

Scott Gruhn
Scott Gruhn Tony, your argument against peer review is that anyone can pass peer review. So prove it. Show us examples of peer review that show carbon dioxide doesn’t trap heat, or that land ice mass is stable worldwide, or that permafrost isn’t warming on a netSee More
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

 

Tony R. Elliott
Tony R. Elliott Scott Gruhn You must be pretty dense, I have answered that many times during this discussion. I choose to think you are smart and are playing me to see if I say something different about PR. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that for me when I’m talking truth in the face of lies and illusions.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Tony
Tony Elliott is an investigative journalist, researcher, author, and established writer with articles in over 20 publications of differing topics Political Commentary Columnist for the Cimarron News Press in Cimarron, New Mexico from 2001 to 2003 generating the controversy he was hired for. Tony also was a regular writer for several small coastal newspapers in Southern Oregon during the early 1990's. BOOKS: Aura Visions: The Origin Prophecy, Enviroclowns: The Climate Change Circus, Strange Sounds: A Research Report

Leave a Reply