Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Maybe by people who prefer authority to facts.

BWAHAHHAAAA!! Self-evidently wrong.

Reference? Of course not.

 

Such claims are absurd.

The climate change deniers are those who deny that natural cycles, which caused every climate change up to now, could also have caused the recent ones.

 

Which somehow always require adjusting earlier readings downward, later readings upward.

It does when the adjustments all favor a theory that can't be supported any other way.

 

Yes, there are those who are content to disagree with every institute of higher learning in the free world , every country and ever major corporation....and our own military. But deniers are special. But, if they’re in the group that buys that the earth is 6 k years old, they’ve already suspended belief in facts.

 

Not as fervent as the denialists. To be a denialist one has to indulge in at least a modicum of conspiracy theory thinking

 

And don't forget the one about the earth being flat

I am currently debating a member on this board who is under the delusion that since CO2 is heavier than air the scientists have measured it wrongly

 

The conspiracy theory is with the true believers. To you everyone who is not in your cult is owned by "big oil".

 

That’s incorrect. There is very clearly a homogenization approach for reducing the urban heat island effect on temperature trends. The propagandists just don’t take note of it because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

Also, so what if the temperatures do get adjusted upward for measurements taken during the morning instead of the afternoon? It’s not NASA’s fault that the morning is colder than the afternoon. Or that weather stations in the 1950’s started deciding to change measurement times to the morning. You’re getting angry about the conclusion, not the methodology.

 

I've called you out on this multiple times. The only datasets that make adjustments are the conventional datasets that only consider surface stations. These adjustments are mandatory to correct for the urban heat island effect, time of day at which the measurements were taken, the addition and subtraction of stations over time, the movement of stations, etc. All of those are absolutely necessary otherwise you would publish the wrong result. It would be completely unethical to not make these adjustments and pretend like the data is still somehow correct. And not once in these discussions have you even so much as mentioned which adjustment you disagree with.

The irony is that these conventional datasets represent only a small fraction of all of the datasets available. Most of the datasets use a wildly different technique called reanalysis which does not require adjustments to the raw data at all. So your beef is both unfounded and insignificant when considering that most datasets don't make adjustments at all.

 

Evidence?

 

Such claims are absurd ?
Just name an accredited university that sits in your Camp
Just name a major corporation, or country other then Trump that agrees with deniers. Deniers have no credible evidence that can’t be refuted by every major institution including the US military and even, Republicans at one time. You disagree with yourselves when your brand changes it’s mind.

 

How fortunate for conspirators that anyone who identifies their conspiracies can be dismissed with the epithet, "conspiracy theory thinking." Something going on at Enron? "Conspiracy theory thinking!" The NSA spying on American citizens without warrants? "Conspiracy theory thinking!" Arthur Andersen rating trash securities AAA? "Conspiracy theory thinking!"

If conspiracy theory kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent them.

Oh. Right.

 

No, it is putatively to reduce the urban heat island effect, but actually just smears it around without eliminating it.

The methodology is tendentious.

 

Universities, companies and countries are controlled by politics, not science or fact.

 

Incorrectly.

Baldly false.

But they only PRETEND to correct for it. They actually just smear it around.

All of which somehow require earlier readings to be adjusted downward, later ones upward.

They ARE publishing wrong results.

Wrong.

All of them.

Garbage.

 

1) Then say the adjustments are done incorrectly. Don’t just say they’re “manipulated.” That’s conspiracy theory talk. You have no basis for assigning motives.

2) How?

http://www.realclimate.org/images/zeke_Figure4.png

 

Again, I'm calling you out on this.

NASA GISS is the dataset deniers love to make false accusations again. Here is the link to documentation which has the details on the algorithm and even the source code from both from NASA and from an independent group who rewrote it on their own. It has the peer reviewed publications which itemize all adjustments including the urban heat island.

Now, I have literally spoon fed you everything you need to justify your claim. Go for it.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html

 

Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny. Deny.

This is patently false. See post #242.

Unlike you I back up what I say with bona-fide research and documentation. Here is a good introduction to reanalysis. It does not adjust station data for the urban heat island, time-of-day, relocations, additions/subtractions, etc because it uses a drastically different technique that does not require adjustments to be made.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/1417/2017/acp-17-1417-2017.pdf

 

CO2 is no longer the BIG worry, now it is this:

​

 

Deniers I guess, are trying to brand fact based institutions as “left wing.” Well by definiton, it takes liberalism to be accepting of legitimate evidence regardless from where it comes. The right is steeped in platitudes, innuendo, the tooth fairy and conspiracy theories. Being afraid of change, any change, is unwelcome, except when it’s personal and they need medical attention, help from the police or fire department or protection of any kind. These are all socialism based institutions they renounce while su.

So, “we’re” denigrating all the universities, countries, companies and our military as not being fact based. Where do you get your facts from, Faux News ? The bastion of independent free thinking ? Hardly.

 

Deniers of climate change cannot be convinced otherwise and it does not matter. All of us face the same reality going forward and some will be prepared while others will not. If then deniers are correct I have NOTHING to worry about and if I am correct all I can do is prepare and hope I am gone before it gets bad. We are watching the Methane part begin and it is likely going to be tough to say the least so, I am kinda glad my dis-ease will shorten my life.

 

Speaking of "bastions" liberal universities are bastions of leftist dogma and global warming is high on their list of indoctrination.

 

At this stage, you're literally in the same category as a flat earther. They also rage that everything is a conspiracy against them.

That's one of the things that's great about liberalism. No conspiracy theories are required. If the science contradicts liberalism, we change liberalism.

 

If you deny that universities are bastions of the left you deny reality.

Liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to 1, study finds

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

 

Places of high learning inherently contain people who learn....So I suppose you are stating Libs are more informed than yourself. At least you can admit it.