Be wary of those that say the science is settled

Be wary of those that say the science is settled

Previous examples:

There can be nothing smaller than an atom.

Bloodletting is beneficial to balance the body's "humours".

Inorganic mercury is relatively harmless.

The sun revolves around the earth.

Al Gore was right in predicting irreversible harm to the planet by January 2016.

holidayday | 07/01/2016

Well, it's fairly clearly established that polluting the earth is bad for the inhabitants of the earth.
I say we should pollute less.
Some say it's too hard.
I say it's achievable with a common goal of good health in mind (for humans and other terrestrial inhabitants.)

But hey, if you don't think pollution is all that bad, take the example of people dying when inside a closed garage with the car running. You'll find out right quick how healthy that is.

RedShift | 07/01/2016




RedShift | 07/01/2016

BTW ampeep, you were the one who said "continuing debate on global warming is pointless" :-)

MitchP85D | 07/01/2016

So, you are calling CO2 a pollutant? How can you say that if life on earth cannot exist without it?!!!

ampeep | 07/01/2016

I'm not for polluting the earth; just saying we could be barking up the wrong tree. (Bloodletting was used for 2,000 years.)

RedShift, it's pointless but it can't be stopped. :)

SamO | 07/01/2016

Water is good for you. Needed for life.

Now stick your head under water for 15 minutes and tell me how good it is for human life.

Life couldn't exist without it . . .

"It can't be stopped . . . "

I stopped it. Got rid of my ICE car. Got some solar panels.



ampeep | 07/01/2016

SamO, was answering RedShift that the discussion can 'the stopped.

Discussion is ok as long as we can remain civil to each other.

We all contribute to pollution unless we go back to being hunter-gatherers.

RedShift | 07/01/2016

Hunter gatherers? Reductio as absurdum.

Driving a Tesla is attempting to address that problem. It's futuristic, and exactly 180 degrees opposite of what you are stipulating.

It's hard for me not to call you names (like SamO just did!) when you engage in absurdities! I am controlling myself though. :-)

RedShift | 07/01/2016

ad absurdum, not 'as absurdum'

chohans | 07/01/2016

The science IS settled. I remember when the tobacco companies were saying Nicotine is good for you. All the CEO's swore that Nicotine was NOT addicting. They swore that smoking 80 a day made you look younger. They too said that the science was not settled.

There was NO Science behind bloodletting. It was pure imagination gone wild. There is stacks of real science behind global warming.

Watch "Merchants Of Doubt". These are despicable people knowingly discrediting science for "their team" as if it was some kind of game. On Netflicks.

ampeep | 07/01/2016

I've had solar panels for years, but am not so naieve as to ignore the resources that went into their production.

SamO | 07/01/2016


I recognize that my sadness that stupidity is allowed to flourish overruns my better judgement.


Calling you an idiot was unfair. To idiots.


It's the same people. Literally.

"A new documentary shows how a "professional class of deceivers" has been paid by the fossil fuel industry to cast doubt on the science of climate change, in an effort akin to that from the tobacco industry, which for decades used deceitful tactics to deny the scientific evidence that cigarettes are harmful to human health. The film, Merchants of Doubt, explores how many of the same people that once lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry are now employed in the climate denial game.

An infamous 1969 memo from a tobacco executive read: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Using similar tactics, a very small set of people have had immense influence in sowing doubt on the scientific consensus of manmade climate change in recent years.

Merchants of Doubt features five prominent climate science deniers who have been particularly influential in deceiving the public and blocking climate action. Their financial connections to the fossil fuel industry are not hard to uncover. Yet major U.S. television networks* -- CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, ABC, CBS, and PBS -- have given most of these deniers prominent exposure over the past several years. "

holidayday | 07/01/2016

Mitch: "you are calling CO2 a pollutant?"
If there's too much, consequences to the earth are huge. Temperatures rise too fast for life to adjust. Climates usually change slowly enough that species adapt over time. If the climate changes too quickly, life cannot adapt and species die. Needlessly.

If there is a way to avoid unnecessary extinctions, then I say let's aim for that.
Or, you can wait until flooding actually takes over coastal cities such as New York, Miami, and New Orleans; but forward thinkers try to take action before serious consequences hit.

RedShift | 07/01/2016


Solar production involves creation of pollutants, I agree with you there. So do fossil fuels.

Solar will offset some of that. Fossil fuels won't.

And don't say you aren't being 'naive'. You just aren't liking a both sides. Even in that case, how exactly does your post support 'hunter gatherer' comment? Good god, is this about painting 'the other side' completely black? Why???

Dude, this is not a war between liberals and conservatives. Pollution has no ideology.

ampeep | 07/01/2016

Was simply making a point; SamO seemed to be implying that he stopped polluting by getting a Tesla & solar panels.

RedShift | 07/01/2016

Looking, not liking at both sides

RedShift | 07/01/2016


Even if you were addressing SamO, 'hunter gatherer' is extreme. It shows you believe that switching away from fossils might mean we have to give up being a modern society.

That is exactly the opposite when we drive electric.

I'm done. Getting back to regularly scheduled programming.

Brian H | 07/01/2016

What's too much? There was no temp response at levels of 4,000+.

jordanrichard | 07/01/2016

ampeep, I think what SamO was saying about driving a MS is that he did his part to cut down on pollution.

ampeep | 07/01/2016

That sounds reasonable; wouldn't have any problems if that's what he meant.

bb0tin | 08/01/2016

@Brian H
You said "What's too much? There was no temp response at levels of 4,000+."
Rubbish. You would know it is rubbish if you bothered to research your ridiculous deluded denier statments.

cweber | 08/01/2016

When I get frustrated arguing with AGW deniers - I take solace in what Max Planck once wrote:

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

RedShift | 08/01/2016


I agree. I am not attempting to debate the deniers anymore. There is no debate, as much as they like to scream in your face that there is.

vperl | 08/01/2016

And the weather hoaxers want to punish those that disagree. Actual fines and imprisonment, just for speaking, no free speech for those that disagree with the weather hoaxers.

Yep.... Hoaxers are a vacuous lot

SamO | 08/01/2016

Straw Man Alert

Maxxer | 08/01/2016

Here are facts, no politics.
There is natural cycles or heating-icing ages
we are actually between 2 cycles
with CO2 and it's proven greenhouse effect we are artificially heading toward a heating cycle
when your freezer goes above 0 celcius, ice melts
when glacier melt, they're ice volume fills the ocean
when you add volume to an existing one, they both add towards a greater volume
Earth oceans are a finite element system
If you had volume to a finite element system container, the liquid volume rises
when your house is at sea level and water level rises, you get flood in your basement and garage
when you have an ICE car in your garage flood with water, you are partly responsible for it, because it emits CO2 when you turn the key on.
Now you have to ask yourself, are you on the side of people who are ready to do sacrifices and live closer to your work or use bicycle/public transport to limit your global impact or your don't do sacrifices and drive anyways because your mind does not have the capacity of abstraction and comprehend the impact or your acts?

vperl | 08/01/2016

Fact is fact, weather hoaxers are anti free speech. Believe the hoaxers or get punished.

RedShift | 08/01/2016


"And the weather hoaxers want to punish those that disagree."

Naah, punishing you would be like kicking a sick puppy. Living inside your head is already punishment enough for you!

ampeep | 08/01/2016

Vperl is right- there are several members of Congress that are so threatened that they want to prosecute any dissenters. That's how they would like to stop debate.

Watt fun | 08/01/2016

I used to burn 1,000+ US gallons/4,000+ litres of heating oil in my boiler, to heat the house and hot water. Boiler furnace worn out, so I replaced it with 1) solar air heating panel 2) solar hot water panel system 3) air source heat pump. The extra capital cost of the solar air and water was paid for in 3 years by not buying heating oil.

I used to use 6,500+ kWh a year. Switched to LED lighting, changed from electric range (worn out--25 years old) to propane range. Extra cost of LED bulbs paid off in lower electricity cost @ 15+ cents kWh; no bulbs have burned out so my lighting costs dropped 85%. My electricity usage was down to 3,000-3,500 kWh a year until I got my heat pump, and now I'm back to 6,500 kWh a year.

Used to have all gasoline tools. Snowblower, mowers, chainsaw. Now all electric. Capital cost meaningless as all were worn out, but lower purchase price and low operating cost ads up to significant savings in money, as well as a couple of hundred gallons of premium gas.

Our local (small) power plant used to run on bunker oil, and import 75% balance of electricity needed. Utility replaced with 12 megawatts of wind turbines which give dependably 25% to 100%+ of electricity needed locally, and imports far less than it used to.

No degradation in my lifestyle and comfort--improvement, actually. I use at least 10,000-12,000 litres/2,500-3,000 US gallons less in petroleum products each year, at a house heating saving of at least $3,500, and vanished gasoline use in former guzzlers of at least 6,000 litres or about $6,000

$10,000 savings a year and much less carbon dioxide and NOx, and that is just one household.

So, ampeep (I get your silly nom de plume) your argument is absurd. My own changes cost me in effect nothing and save me $$$$$ a year, and prevent a lot of pollution. Good intentions are their own reward, and the money I save is just a huge additional bonus.

Same with the small municipal utility...they are saving $2,000,000 a year, and that is a lot of bunker C not burned.

So, what is global warming /climate change is all a hoax, and we end up with less pollution, clean air, less asthma and break the chains of dependence on dirty fuel from insane despots? I'll be saying 'darn! maybe ampeep was right' very quietly as I slowly get wealthier and healthier.

cweber | 09/01/2016

Vperl and Ampee - LOL...if we couldn't punish the cigarette execs, I don't think the Exxon disinformation machine needs to worry.

At one point during the hearing, Mr. Wyden presented a stack of data from medical groups and a 1989 Surgeon General's report on the perils of smoking, asking each executive in turn if he believed that cigarettes were addictive. Each answered no.

When Mr. Johnston said that all products, from cola to Twinkies, had risks associated with them, Mr. Waxman replied, "Yes, but the difference between cigarettes and Twinkies is death."

"How many smokers die each year from cancer?" Mr. Waxman asked Mr. Johnston

"I do not know how many," he replied, adding that estimates of death are "generated by computers and are only statistical."

Mr. Waxman asked, "Does smoking cause heart disease?"

"It may," Mr. Johnston said.

"Does it cause lung cancer?"

"It may."


"It may."

The list continued through several other ailments. Mr. Waxman asked Andrew H. Tisch, the chairman and chief executive of the Lorillard Tobacco Company whether he knew that cigarettes caused cancer. "I do not believe that," Mr. Tisch answered.

"Do you understand how isolated you are from the scientific community in your belief?" Mr. Waxman asked.

"I do, sir," Mr. Tisch said.

Gene Frenkle | 09/01/2016

cweber, the companies and execs that should be punished are GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Detroit is the party that was building ever larger SUVs that were grossly inefficient so much so that even the Wall Street Journal was warning them in the early 2000s that an oil price increase could bankrupt them...prescient indeed! Unfortunately Obama bailed them out and showed his true colors with regard to climate change. Keep in mind he drove an SUV and car with a V8 and when his book finally started selling in 2004 he bought a huge mansion in Chicago that guzzles energy.

vperl | 09/01/2016

I know the weather Hoaxers wish to acknowledge that your rulers of Weather Hoaxers group never threatened non believers withe harsch punishment just for disagreeing.

But, you ignore that and then sell the cigarette strawman.

No one threatened the cigarette people with punishment , just for free speech. A difference you ignore, and continue to hoax.

Hoaxers forth.

MitchP85D | 09/01/2016

Hey EV,

Check the Cryosphere Today site yet? It shows that global sea ice has not shown any melting since 1979. So, what are you hoaxers complaining about?

bb0tin | 09/01/2016

You have been told many times but here it is yet again.
The arctic sea ice melt reduces the albedo and causes more heating and therefore land ice melt, which we do care about. It also changes the ocean currents which are also a worry. The sea ice also protects the land from erosion and provides habitat and hunting for man and animals. We care about all of these.
The antarctic sea ice melt is allowing ice shelves and glaciers to melt. We do care about this.
The land ice melt is adding to sea level rise, and potentially tens of metres of sea level rise. We do care about this.
You remain and ignorant, lying, stupid person.

MitchP85D | 09/01/2016

Hey bb brain,

What albedo is there in winter?!!! Just as soon as the Arctic ice melts in the summer, it freezes up again during the dark of winter. The summer season does not last nearly long enough for the Arctic ice to completely melt!. I know it pains you to look at data. But the Cryosphere Today web page has some awfully good information there. They show both local and global scale ice data. If humans are melting the sea ice, there is no evidence for that on a global scale. Just check it out. I dare all of you AGW advocates! You can see it for yourselves if you don't believe me.

bb brain and his ilk still lurk in the realm of the imaginary! And they are trying their best to force everybody on earth to share in their apocalyptic vision!

bb0tin | 09/01/2016

You said "What albedo is there in winter?"
You are displaying your ignorance and stupidity again.

Ignorance because “Albedo is the fraction of solar energy (shortwave radiation) reflected from the Earth back into space. It is a measure of the reflectivity of the earth's surface. Ice, especially with snow on top of it, has a high albedo: most sunlight hitting the surface bounces back towards space.” i.e. there is albedo all year, it is a number from 0 to 100.

Stupidity because in winter there is more ice and snow and therefore a higher albedo.

As for the rest of your post, you are either extremely dishonourable, or have an exceptionally poor memory, or both. I have debunked all of your statements many times on this forum. I have linked to the science and the data many times. But you continuously repost the same rubbish as if it is the first time you have posted it. I have specifically addressed the Cryosphere Today data, as you well know. But just for you, yet again, here is the artic sea ice volume graph

vperl | 10/01/2016

Hoaxers, hoax..

Mush on hoaxers

SamO | 10/01/2016

You mad, bro?

Beat it.

cweber | 10/01/2016

Hoaxers hoax - yes indeed...

We're running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere... can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.

Elon Musk

vperl | 10/01/2016

Elon, no offense promised me my X a year ago...

Even, Elon can have bad information. Ask Gore.

vperl | 10/01/2016

As for the "beat it" comment, beat you do, three or more times a day, little boy.

Hoax on, Hoaxers.

Brian H | 10/01/2016

Human CO2 output is noise in the natural fluctuations. When cooling starts again soon, the seas will drop the CO2 levels like a rock. Unfortunately.

bb0tin | 10/01/2016

@Brian H
Once again you post your ignorant incorrect opinions without any science to back it up. You may as well claim the moon is made of cheese, as it has about as much credibility.

SamO | 10/01/2016

You mad, bro? lol

bb0tin | 10/01/2016

@Brian H
You said "When cooling starts again soon, the seas will drop the CO2 levels like a rock."
But you think the seas emit CO2, rather than absorb CO2, so how can this be true?

Brian H | 10/01/2016

They do both, depending on temperature.

bb0tin | 10/01/2016

@Brian H
I see you didn't even bother reading the link.
Or, if you did, you failed to understand it.
The reduction in absorption from rising temperature is far exceeded by the increase in absorption from the increase in atmospheric CO2.

MitchP85D | 10/01/2016

Hey bb brain, geeyawd you're dumb!

When one of the earth's poles is pointing away from the sun (winter solstice), there is no sunlight shining on it. Therefore, there is no solar radiation to reflect back out into space! This is what I meant by no albedo. In a sense, when we experience night, there is no albedo going on the side of the earth pointing away from the sun. Now, there is IR radiative flux going on the night side of the earth, but no solar reflectivity.

You haven't debunked a damn thing! You are fixated on a region of the earth where you can point to a melting trend. But you CANNOT claim the sea ice is melting on a global scale! That is what the cryosphere data shows, and you AGW advocates refuse to acknowledge it!

bb0tin | 11/01/2016

I am afraid it is you who is dumb. Putting it simply, you are confusing albedo, which is the ratio of reflection, with the amount of reflection. They are not the same thing.

As for your global sea ice meme, I have attempted to educate you many times in the past. You are either very forgetful, very disingenuous or just plain stupid. I have given you data that the arctic sea ice and land ice is melting. I have given you data that the antarctic land ice is melting. The increase in antarctic sea ice is far less than the decrease in antarctic land ice. It is the land ice we care about since it is the one which increases sea levels.

Yet you persist in your ignorant and dishonest posts.