I'm not concerned about Hansen's hypothesis or public opinion or polls. I'm interested only in the preponderance of evidence and the consensus of scientific opinion, which is that we're warming and that the warming is man-made. As for name-calling, what's the point? Until a majority of scientists change their minds, the issue -- AFAIC -- is settled. Res ipsa loquitur.
According to the head of the EPA, we have to clamp down on co2 so that negroes won't be adversely impacted by climate change. "Of course, when the head of Barack Obama's Environmental Protection Agency — avowed eco-radical Gina McCarthy — played the race card in an effort to pressure lawmakers into adopting harsher anti-free market regulations, her pronouncements were broadly disseminated and treated as gospel. "Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice," McCarthy said recently. "If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change."" http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
But we can't escape the reality that there has been no net detectable increase since about 1997 (or so), and that considerably weakens the probability of Hansen having been correct. ..... blah blah lot's of speech to text bullshit. An objective rational scientist would NEVER bring this up. . There has been no pause in the warming of the earth at all. That you conveniently forget about about the ocean's influence is very telling. A real scientist would also never say that we don't know where the sudden increase in CO2 is coming from. To say such is a thing is incredibly stupid and absurdly wrong. It's like saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. You, piezoe, are a fucking liar and a fraud like nearly every "scientist" you have trotted out. Who are you working for? Cato? Piezoe, you want a conversation without name calling and insults? Ha! You are not worthy of any respect at all based on the obvious and absurd lies you sling. You are worthy of mocking and derision. It is quite obvious that you are not interested in the facts and science at all, only denialist propaganda.
1. where the heck did you get that idea? see your quote below. 2. Res Ipsa Loquitor? How does that apply. Using the best statistical methods we have no proof we are warming outside natural variability and we have no science showing man made co2 is causing warming... finally... which polls of scientists are you going to cite showing that man made co2 is causing the warming? (please carefully review your polls before you cite them... because most of them say man made activity... which is significantly different.)
you wrote almost all strawman. Every scientist understands the lack of warming in land temps blows out the models which predicted an increase in co2 would cause warming over land. The models were not based on ocean temps. No person with an ounce of integrity denies this. Without the models working there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming. That is why its important for you to keep lying. Everyone knows the co2 comes from man and natural sources. Everyone knows co2 trails warming in the historical databases. So the unanswered question by you is... what science do you have that man made co2 causing warming.. in light of all the recent studies showing its the sun and currents doing a lot of it?
American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
Because you implied that the increase is not unprecedented. Don't play games. See your statement below. It applies because res ipsa loquitur. Proof, no. Science, yes. You choose to ignore it.