Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist.

[Rucati]

Listening to this guy talk about climate change is similar to listening to Bill Gates talk about quantum computers.

Sure, they're sort of related in their fields, but co-founding the weather channel doesn't make you an expert in meteorology, just like Bill Gates founding microsoft doesn't make him an expert in quantum mechanics.

There's so much overwhelming evidence out there proving just how much humans can impact the climate and global warming in general that listening to one guys opinion when he presents no facts is pretty idiotic. Doing research on your own is a much better idea than listening to someone else talk with no facts, and that goes for just about everything.

I could tell you that for sure the sun revolves around the Earth, because we're the center of the universe for sure, and I PROVED that it was true by sharing all of my opinions. So I hope you believe me too because obviously I just proved it.

[purebalance]

So it's just the opinion of one news weathercaster, and he does not show us any proof to back up his claim?

Wow what an amazing end to this debate.

What proof do you have contrary to it? His claim isn't a claim he's saying the evidence presented does NOT support the climate change side. Stop misreading things.

[Brosemon]

I like that you completely ignored my point. Which is correct btw. You comment saying "You and your logic..", it has nothing to do with that. The whole article isn't the least bit credible and any serious climatologist would never even consider it because, hey, there's literally nothing backing it up. It's not a matter of logic. To make an argument, and for it to be taken serious, you need proof. It's as simple as that. You don't have that? Your argument is nothing. If Obama starts saying that climate change is causing world hunger, that'd sure be interesting, but if he just says it and there isn't one bit of scientific evidence for it, than it's utter bs.

[medvedev]

In before the incoming shitstorm of backlash.

That said, I'm always going to be skeptical of the data provided by scientists when their funding money comes directly from inducing the fear that 'if we don't do something now the world will end! Give me another XX million dollars so I can study this further.'

I'm not sure how you're expecting science to be funded outside of corporate R&D if not for grants and charity. What form of income would make you trust them? Besides, I'm more apt to trust people whose jobs are to investigate the truth (not implying they always get it right) asking for a few million over a business structure with billions to gain by obfuscating reality a little bit longer and has repeatedly shown themselves to be highly manipulative and self-serving.


Maybe climate change is untrue, idk, but I'm puzzled why this is commonly used as valid argument against it.

[Deleted]

No, but you clearly didn't read. The article is saying there is 0 proof that this IS unnatural climate change and that we ARE causing it. HUE HUE someone disagrees with you so you have to try to make fun of them.

To first prove your own theory, you have to disprove the current. That's how science works.

- - - Updated - - -

What proof do you have contrary to it? His claim isn't a claim he's saying the evidence presented does NOT support the climate change side. Stop misreading things.

And there is actually proof from studies on both sides of the issue that conclude there is evidence that in some way we are having an impact.

[Orlong]

Dumping the amount of harmful chemicals and pollution we do, into to atmosphere has an affect. That's good enough reason to seek greener energy systems. End of story.

They just float out into space

[Revi]

What proof do you have contrary to it? His claim isn't a claim he's saying the evidence presented does NOT support the climate change side. Stop misreading things.

I'm... what? How does this make sense to you?

He is dismissing peer-reviewed proof by waving his hand and saying "not true!", without offering any contradictory evidence or any flaws with their methods or results. You can't just choose to not believe proof, and claim that makes your counter-claim valid, that's incredibly illogical.

They just float out into space

Oh dear..

[Deleted]

They just float out into space

Which impacts how the suns heat is reflected/contained within out atmosphere. Science, ever study it past the age of 12?

[Chelly]

What proof do you have contrary to it? His claim isn't a claim he's saying the evidence presented does NOT support the climate change side. Stop misreading things.

What these guys said:

To first prove your own theory, you have to disprove the current. That's how science works.

I'm... what? How does this make sense to you?

He is dismissing peer-reviewed proof by waving his hand and saying "not true!", without offering any contradictory evidence or any flaws with their methods or results. You can't just choose to not believe proof, and claim that makes your counter-claim valid, that's incredibly illogical.

[Kathandira]

So don't automatically agree with the official story?! That would make you a conspiracy theorist which is why the term is so popular.

What I mean is that you must look at all sources. Here we have 2 conflicting positions on the topic. You must consider both before drawing a conclusion.

[Orlong]

The conspiracy is Climate Change. DON'T YOU SEE? OPEN YOUR EYES LIKE THAT GUY HAS!

It is. The climate change promoters are like a big cult, all spouting the same excuses and talking points. And like the article in the OP said, ALL of the "scientists" that promote it are funded by the government so obviously they are going to find what the government wants them to find so they can keep getting money. Like the author said, EVERY climatologist and scientist that are NOT funded by a government of some type, say climate change is BS

[Deleted]

Oh dear..

You were expecting something reasonable?

[Deleted]

As long as it's livable here i'm fine.

[Ghostpanther]

Dumping the amount of harmful chemicals and pollution we do, into to atmosphere has an affect. That's good enough reason to seek greener energy systems. End of story.

Pollution is a real concern, which you can easily see the effects on the environment by simply walking down the beach along most of the US coast line. And we should for certain takes steps to reduce that. But global warming is a different matter and pollution may not be having any or very little effect on that. No matter, if it is, then a concerted effort to reduce air and water pollution can have a positive benefit to all and if it is affecting global warming, it would address that issue also.

[Deleted]

It is. The climate change promoters are like a big cult, all spouting the same excuses and talking points. And like the article in the OP said, ALL of the "scientists" that promote it are funded by the government so obviously they are going to find what the government wants them to find so they can keep getting money. Like the author said, EVERY climatologist and scientist that are NOT funded by a government of some type, say climate change is BS

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...gII_spm_en.pdf
The supporters of human made climate change.

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/c...licymakers.pdf
The counter organisation.

Now the contents of these two studies are very different, the NIPCC's conclusion makes them seem like childish twats who cry because they don't get their own way, it's a good way to lower credibility.
Both reach the conclusion that we impact it, they just disagree on the level of impact we have. Sucks to be you don't it.

[Underverse]

We've changed the climate before with particulate matter. Just because we have a huge ocean buffer system, doesn't mean it's unlimited.

[Balazaar]

Does the climate change naturally? Yes. Does it cycle through warmer and colder periods? Absolutely.

However, natural climate change cycles happen over the course of millenia. The changes we are seeing now are happening in less than one century. That isn't natural.

Think of a huge swimming pool filled with nice clean water. Now start adding tiny, tiny drops of food coloring. What happens? Nothing noticeable at first but as you keep adding drops the water will change.

Our atmosphere is the pool. The drops are CO2. We know for a fact increased CO2 leads to a warmer atmosphere. So just think it through. If CO2 concentration keeps happening, do you really think it won't have an effect? Only a fool would ignore this.

Sure the effect may be exaggerated but it is a real threat. It may take longer than we think but it WILL happen if we keep on this course. The cost of doing something now is far less than the cost is going to be dealing with this, and its related consequences, later.

[Deleted]

1 meteorologist vs thousands of others.

Someone is on the payroll of the oilindustry

Listening to this guy talk about climate change is similar to listening to Bill Gates talk about quantum computers.

Sure, they're sort of related in their fields, but co-founding the weather channel doesn't make you an expert in meteorology, just like Bill Gates founding microsoft doesn't make him an expert in quantum mechanics.

There's so much overwhelming evidence out there proving just how much humans can impact the climate and global warming in general that listening to one guys opinion when he presents no facts is pretty idiotic. Doing research on your own is a much better idea than listening to someone else talk with no facts, and that goes for just about everything.

I could tell you that for sure the sun revolves around the Earth, because we're the center of the universe for sure, and I PROVED that it was true by sharing all of my opinions. So I hope you believe me too because obviously I just proved it.

People want to hear that its a lie, what people want to hear = publicity. The truth is irrelevant.

I like this analogy

[Grummgug]

Well two things:

1. I used to joke 10-15 years ago that the "global warming" alarmists would be FORCED to change the name of their movement to "climate change" so that they can set up a huge canard where they claim conservatives believe the climate never changes. Then, if the climate gets hotter or colder, they could claim victory. Hilariously, they have actually attempted to do this.....

2. Global warming is actually a "lie of omission". They cherry pick scientific results to fit their model. When a valid scientific study comes out that says, at our current rate of burning fossil fuels, Earth will be several degrees warmer in 100 years, that becomes gospel. Of course, when another valid scientific study comes out that says solar power to effectively replace all fossil fuels 100% by 2030, they MUST turn right around and be science deniers and attempt to discredit that study because it does not align with their liturgy. That study says there will be virtually no global warming, and we'll even begin cooling by end of century.

So, its just more attempts to brainwash via the usual boring rhetoric of word games, assertions, and lies of omission.

[thatmikeguy]

Everything is in cycles. The numbers may be up, but that does not change the fact that it just happens. So yes, many of the things they are saying are simply not true.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/