More bad news for the "green" Loonies.

[Guest 2smart4u]

In this months issue of Newsmax magazine, former space shuttle engineer, NASA consultant, and climatologist John L. Casey is warning that a shift in global climate is underway, and that Al Gore and other environmentalists have it all wrong. The earth he says is cooling, not warming.

The Loonies got it wrong again. I'm not surprised, they voted for zero too.

[Guest Guest]

In this months issue of Newsmax magazine, former space shuttle engineer, NASA consultant, and climatologist John L. Casey is warning that a shift in global climate is underway, and that Al Gore and other environmentalists have it all wrong. The earth he says is cooling, not warming.

The Loonies got it wrong again. I'm not surprised, they voted for zero too.

You just never get beat up enough on this, do you, D**bA**. Don't have time to beat the hell out of you on this tonight but I'm sure it won't be hard.

[Guest Guest]

Most scientists have concluded that "solar hibernation" has little effect on global temperatures. Greenhouse gases are having and will continue to have a greater effect on climate. The IPCC concludes that a solar hibernation will have "minimal consequences" on global warming. (KOTW Note: the following is link to a fairly large PDF file) (See the IPCC report here, scroll down to section 8.4.1.) And in fact, Earth has continued to warm despite the relative lack of solar irradiance for several years; so far, at least, the facts do not support Casey's claims.

The difference between you and me is that I base my conclusions on the facts. You, on the other hand, decide what you wish to believe and try to find facts to back you up. But they don't.

Edited October 8, 2014 by KOTW
Added note regarding PDF file in Bold.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Considering the track record of the Loonies, I'll put my money on Casey.

[Guest Guest]

Most scientists have concluded that "solar hibernation" has little effect on global temperatures. Greenhouse gases are having and will continue to have a greater effect on climate. The IPCC concludes that a solar hibernation will have "minimal consequences" on global warming. (KOTW Note: the following is link to a fairly large PDF file) (See the IPCC report here, scroll down to section 8.4.1.) And in fact, Earth has continued to warm despite the relative lack of solar irradiance for several years; so far, at least, the facts do not support Casey's claims.

The difference between you and me is that I base my conclusions on the facts. You, on the other hand, decide what you wish to believe and try to find facts to back you up. But they don't.

The climate-change deniers just never stop. Trillions of dollars are at stake, and the oil companies (and others) don't want to let go of the profits. We all have to be concerned about how this will affect our economy. But we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend we aren't causing global warming. We need to plan a transition away from fossil fuels.

[Guest Guest]

Three researchers have analyzed solar irradiance and global temperature fluctuations since 1610. Their paper, published in 1995, explains that solar irradiance accounted for approximately half of the temperature fluctuations from 1800 to 1995 but only one-third of the fluctuations from 1970 to 1995. This is easily explained by the increased role of carbon dioxide in the later years. When researchers analyze the data since 1995, you can bet that the role of solar irradiance will be less than that. Why - because the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater now than at any other time during this period, why is why climatologists have concluded with a high degree of certainty that human activity is causing global warming.

Sorry if this is over the heads of the climate deniers but this is the kind of information you have to study to understand this subject.

[Guest Guest]

In this months issue of Newsmax magazine, former space shuttle engineer, NASA consultant, and climatologist John L. Casey is warning that a shift in global climate is underway, and that Al Gore and other environmentalists have it all wrong. The earth he says is cooling, not warming.

The Loonies got it wrong again. I'm not surprised, they voted for zero too.

Assume that Casey is right and "other environmentalists" are wrong. That wouldn't change the long-term trend toward global warming. He refers to a cyclical factor. If atmospheric carbon remains high, that will only shift the curve up from its natural cycle. That's basic statistics.

Under those conditions, a downturn in the natural cycle of solar activity will only mask the some of the effects of atmospheric carbon for the period of time when solar activity is unusually low. When solar activity goes into an upturn again, all hell will break loose.

Shake, wiggle and dance all you want. If we want to prevent global warming, we're going to have to reduce atmospheric carbon.

[Guest Guest]

"Loonies?" You mean the climatologists all over the world, who generated the IPCC and NOAA and other reports that clearly say the earth is warming because we are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere? You're calling them "Loonies"? You use that word a lot.

And why isn't Casey a Loony? He has a background in climatology. What makes him different, except that he says what you want to hear?

[Guest Guest]

Casey's argument, which is not widely shared by scientists, is the we are beginning a 30-year-long global cold snap. Only the data don't show that. We're still having record high temperatures globally, with effects on sea levels, precipitation and weather instability.

And even if Casey was correct, 30 years still wouldn't represent a shift in the cycle. When those 30 years are over, we're still going to have to deal with atmospheric carbon and its effects. It's not like climate science is some far-out science fiction. We know how carbon acts to trap heat in our atmosphere. This is well-established science.

To understand the weakness of Casey's argument, imagine that the Sun was going into an unusually active period instead of an inactive period. The deniers would be telling us not to worry about rising global temperatures, because they're due to sunspot activity, and when the cycle ends everything will return to normal and we'll be fine. Only it's not happening that way, so instead, they're arguing that we don't have to worry about the global warming that all the data prove is occurring, because any day now we're going to enter something like an ice age. Yep, any day now. Both arguments are flawed because they ignore the long-term effects of atmospheric carbon. Solar irradiance is indeed cyclical. A little scientific literacy tells us that we can't base long-term projections on a cyclical factor.

But the kicker is Casey's argument that the scientists in Russia have it right, and all the other scientists in the world have it wrong. We should listen to the Russians and ignore everyone else. Imagine what the right wingers would be saying if anyone but them made a silly argument like that.

[Guest Guest]

Well, if Al Gore and our lying president Obama said it, it must be true.

[Guest Guest]

The Newsmax article quotes Casey as saying: ". . . if any government scientist dared stand up and say what I'm saying today, they wouldn't be around in their job very long."

Let's think about that statement. If scientists, working for a government or the IPCC or any of the other reputable climatology organizations, had information and analysis that showed that global warming was, as Casey puts it, "the greatest scientific fraud in history," they could market that information to the oil companies, who would be delighted to pay them excellent salaries to continue their research and debunk global warming. They could easily make far more money relying on the trillions of dollars in profits from the oil industry than on government salaries or salaries from scientific organizations, which struggle for funding.

So without even knowing that the vast body of data clearly prove that global warming is happening - putting all of that aside - Casey's comments alone show that he is a scientific fraud with an axe to grind.

So to recap: Casey is saying that scientists can only make money working for the government or scientific organizations; they can't make money working for the oil companies. What a fairy tale!

[Guest 2smart4u]

Gobbledygook.

[Guest Guest]

" . . . climatologist John L. Casey . . ."

Not according to his own biographical data in his book, which are sketchy at best. If he was a climatologist, his biography would say that. You can't even find his degrees online, if he has any. He doesn't list any. And if you look at the credentials of the reviewers, they're not climatologists either. Casey does not appear to be qualified as an expert in this subject matter. "White House consultant"? Whose White House? Consultant, how?

And the book publisher is Trafford Publishing, which is a self-publishing house. Tell you anything?

He makes wild statements accusing most of the world's climatologists to be perpetrating a fraud; essentially, he's a conspiracy theorist. So he appears to be a nut-job who fancies himself an expert on a subject, when he isn't.

So, 2Stupid4Words, now that you've gotten your ass kicked yet again, let's see you ignore this topic and open another one. No doubt it will be equally as inane as your others.

[Guest Guest]

I just wrote Mr. Casey the following letter at the e-mail address provided through his "company." Let's see if he answers it. (The very fact that he's Mr. Casey tells me that he doesn't have a PhD in climatology or anything else.)

Dear Mr. Casey:

Someone suggested I check out your work. Because I am very interested in climate change, I decided to do that.

A check of the biographical information available about you online suggests a rather thin resume. What are your credentials in climatology, beyond what you say publicly? For example, do you have a degree? In whose White House were you a consultant, for how long, and what did you do? If you had to present a resume to Mobil Oil for a job as a climatology expert, what training and experience would you list on it?

Your website says your paper was peer reviewed, but I can't find it except on your site. Who reviewed it, and what are their qualifications?

And of course, I'm troubled, to say the least, that your book challenging the world's leading climatologists is self-published.

All the same, I want to keep an open mind. So I would appreciate if you could give me more information that would help me understand why I should take your work seriously.

[Guest Guest]

Well, if Al Gore and our lying president Obama said it, it must be true.

No, stupid. Climate scientists all over the world say it.

How long did your parents have to spend toilet training you before you finally got it?

[Guest Guest]

So, 2Dim, who is your next climate "expert" - Daffy Duck?

[Guest Guest]

Giving up on the discussion so soon, 2Dim? Instead of opening another topic and lying about climate change, how about staying with this one and admitting you're wrong.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The consensus among worldwide scientists is this climate change issue is being caused by zerO. This POS has taken about 300 fund raising trips to the left coast on the polluting AF One. Add to that the hundreds of overseas trips, golfing excursions, Hawaii trips, etc. and you have half of the CO levels in the atmosphere. Expect the CO story to go away around the second half of 2016.

[Guest Guest]

The consensus among worldwide scientists is this climate change issue is being caused by zerO. This POS has taken about 300 fund raising trips to the left coast on the polluting AF One. Add to that the hundreds of overseas trips, golfing excursions, Hawaii trips, etc. and you have half of the CO levels in the atmosphere. Expect the CO story to go away around the second half of 2016.

That's the best you got?

Not that you haven't made it obvious before, but what will it take for you to see it? Your words are empty. You use them only to insulate yourself from having to think. You do it all the time. It's just more obvious with something like this.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The founder of the Weather Channel was on CNN yesterday. This is a guy who's been in the business for 36 years, studying weather pattern and trends around the world and he says this climate change talk is all nonsense. He says the ice fields at the poles are large and the polar bears are thriving. Now I have a dilimma, do I believe Loonies like zerO and Al Gore or do I go with an expert.

[Guest Guest]

The founder of the Weather Channel was on CNN yesterday. This is a guy who's been in the business for 36 years, studying weather pattern and trends around the world and he says this climate change talk is all nonsense. He says the ice fields at the poles are large and the polar bears are thriving. Now I have a dilimma, do I believe Loonies like zerO and Al Gore or do I go with an expert.

The founder of the Weather Channel is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. If you wanted to go with the experts, you would rely on the IPCC and NASA reports. Their reports are written by the leading climatologists from all over the world (IPCC) and the United States (NASA), respectively. I've provided links to their sites. Please read them, then come back and try to comment intelligently.

Pay particular attention to the IPCC report, which just came out on Saturday. Greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in 800,000 years. You have to be willfully ignorant to imagine that this isn't causing global warming.

The NASA report lists 18 other scientific organizations that concur.

[Guest Guest]

The founder of the Weather Channel was on CNN yesterday. This is a guy who's been in the business for 36 years, studying weather pattern and trends around the world and he says this climate change talk is all nonsense. He says the ice fields at the poles are large and the polar bears are thriving. Now I have a dilimma, do I believe Loonies like zerO and Al Gore or do I go with an expert.

I didn't see the program but I can read. Here is a print story from CNN. Coleman hasn't been associated with the Weather Channel for decades, and his opinions do not reflect its views, which are contrary to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Founding a TV channel makes him a businessman, not a climate expert.

Coleman argues that climatologists have a motive to falsify their conclusions, or they won't receive funding. Are you freaking kidding me? The oil companies don't have any money to pay climatologists to analyze the data and draw contrary conclusions? Give me a break.

So one unqualified clown goes on CNN, and 2dim calls him an expert. And if you agree with the IPCC scientists, who just issued the most dire report yet - based on the new data - you're a "Loony." Open the link and select "Summary for Policymakers" - Chapter.