Global Warming - aka Don't Bother Having Kids

The blog run by a former TV weatherman with no scientific credentials, who is also on the payroll of the Heartland Institute?

How can you be a non-conformist in an academic field when you don't have the prerequisites to "conform" in the first place?

 

Climate Change can be warming or cooling, wetter or dryer on a global or regional scale, none of those terms describe the cause...AGW obviously describes climate change due to warming attributed to man...unlike VGC, global cooling caused by volcanic eruption, such as the Pinatubo eruption of 1991....

 

Wow, what an answer. Any 1st grader knows that its so trivial.

But you didn't answer the real question - why do the supporters of man caused global warming, its disasterous consequences (in their opinion), and their debilitating solution, keep changing the label? AGW, then just GW, then climate change, now climate disruption - it has zip to do with science, its just a search for a politically viable label.

 

Yet many quote from a cartoonist blog, Skeptical Science, as if it came from the mouth of God.

 

I know you're trying to paint a false equivalency, but pitting every mainstream scientific organization against the ramblings of a TV weatherman is no contest, and a perfect allegory for the idiocy of today's conservative movement.

 

1st grader?...you still don't get it so what does that tell us...

 

...hence the signature on the bottom of my post...

 

Yet some of you take for granted that the lead author of the IPCC is not to be questioned when he is, in fact, not a climate scientist. What you are trying to say is that only certain people are qualified to speak about the science, which would of course not include you.

 

No one on this forum carries any authority on the subject, obviously. All we're doing is debating, using various authorities to support our argument. The problem is, i'm referring to scientists, and you're referring to a TV weatherman and professional contrarians.

There is no lead author of the IPCC as far as I know. There are lead authors, plural, however.

 

The weatherman was inspired by God. What is science when confronted by the Amighty through his special channel, Fox News?

Hark! I hear tomorrow's forecast. Couple of dozen tornadoes in Arkansas. As planned. For their sins.

 

John Oliver has an HBO show, LAST WEEK TONIGHT, reviewed, here:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/12/wat...rilliant_take_down_of_climate_change_deniers/

Regarding:

http://www.hbo.com/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver

See also:

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/

 

These guys will get a knock, from week to week:

http://www.hbo.com/vice#/

 

If only Bill Nye knew what science was, John Oliver could’ve been funny

 

The IPCC reports were reviewed by the NAS, and the latter confirms AGW.

 

During Bush but more recently.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13430

 

I think it's a parallel approach, i.e., verify but assume major problems. Hence, the three reports mentioned in the "Also of Interest" section of the page that you shared.