Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

[iceaura]

btw: in case anyone reading these threads has been on monastic sabbatical for the past couple of decades, here is a look at one of the sources of the language, talking points, "arguments", deflections, and general bs that Schmelzer thinks is his own thinking, and Sculptor has been tiptoeing around for months, and the corporate authoritarian rightwing Republican political media influence operation we are not allowed to call by name in the respectable media has been repeating for ten or twenty years now:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...york-attorney-general-investigation-tillerson

The New York investigation began three years ago, when then-Attorney General Schneiderman hit Exxon with a subpoena seeking documents spanning four decades of research findings and communications about climate change. Massachusetts investigators followed several months later with a separate subpoena.

The two investigations were announced following the publication of an investigative series of stories by InsideClimate News and later the Los Angeles Times that disclosed that Exxon had long understood the consequences of global warming but engaged in a campaign to cast doubt on the scientific conclusions.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28636123/exxonmobil-lawsuit-climage-change-new-york/
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Later that decade, in 1988, an internal report by Shell projected similar effects but also found that CO2 could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections.

Shell’s assessment foresaw a one-meter sea-level rise, and noted that warming could also fuel disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a worldwide rise in sea level of “five to six meters.” That would be enough to inundate entire low-lying countries.

Shell’s analysts also warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like. Looking on the bright side, the company expressed its confidence that “this problem is not as significant to mankind as a nuclear holocaust or world famine.”

Exxon's predicted temperature graph, quite similar to the one's from researchers it was paying professionals to libel and slander and trash in public: https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ns-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings#img-2

That's forty years of research, by Exxon et al, according to which (among other modifications of policy and engineering) Exxon quietly spent millions designing its drilling platforms and polar exploration tech to allow for rapidly rising sea levels and much stronger storms and other predictions of the people Exxon was spending millions to label "alarmists" and "corrupt" in public.

It's one thing to mislead the American citizenry and corrupt America's governmental preparation and response to an environmental disaster, betraying one's country and community and neighbors for private gain, ruining the public discussion with carefully calculated and lavishly funded repetitions of garbage like "ideal temperature" and "optimal climate" and "CO2 is good for plants" and "the science isn't in" and "alarmists are rigging their data because government grants" and "the climate is always changing" and yadda yadda yadda.

It's quite another to mislead one's investors about what's coming down. That's serious - there's Wall Street money on the line there.

 

[Quantum Quack]

btw: in case anyone reading these threads has been on monastic sabbatical for the past couple of decades, here is a look at one of the sources of the language, talking points, "arguments", deflections, and general bs that Schmelzer thinks is his own thinking, and Sculptor has been tiptoeing around for months, and the corporate authoritarian rightwing Republican political media influence operation we are not allowed to call by name in the respectable media has been repeating for ten or twenty years now:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...york-attorney-general-investigation-tillerson

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28636123/exxonmobil-lawsuit-climage-change-new-york/

That's forty years of research, by Exxon et al, according to which (among other modifications of policy and engineering) Exxon quietly spent millions designing its drilling platforms and polar exploration tech to allow for rapidly rising sea levels and much stronger storms and other predictions of the people Exxon was spending millions to label "alarmists" and "corrupt" in public.

It's one thing to mislead the American citizenry and corrupt America's governmental preparation and response to an environmental disaster, betraying one's country and community and neighbors for private gain, ruining the public discussion with carefully calculated and lavishly funded repetitions of garbage like "ideal temperature" and "optimal climate" and "CO2 is good for plants" and "the science isn't in" and "alarmists are rigging their data because government grants" and "the climate is always changing" and yadda yadda yadda.

It's quite another to mislead one's investors about what's coming down. That's serious - there's Wall Street money on the line there.

Didn't Trump employ an ex- exxon employee in his administration?
or was it another big oil company...

 

[iceaura]

Didn't Trump employ an ex- exxon employee in his administration?

Among others, he hired Exxon's most significant former CEO, Rex Tillerson (and the one most responsible for the coverup recently exposed) to be his Secretary of State. The obvious conflicts of interest inherent in such an appointment were simply ignored - they are features of every member of Trump's cabinet and most of his administrative appointments. Odds are that every single member of Trump's cabinet is vulnerable to impeachment, indictment for felony crime, or both.
Which of course makes them vulnerable to blackmail and coercion.

 

[Schmelzer]

You may well live in Canada, and feel that having it be warmer is a good thing. That's fine.

I have given a definition of the optimal temperature which does not depend at all on where I live.

Rapid temperature changes cause mass extinctions, every time. So the optimal temperature is the temperature that the biosphere has adapted to over the past few million years.

No, not every time. Anyway, the last few million years already cover a wide temperature range. And the mass extinctions caused by humans being there is anyway more important then what would be caused by warming.

And the sum will vary depending on that distribution, so that almost any global average temperature can be jiggered to produce any given total human population, depending on which of its many possible distribution regimes is assumed to be the long term stable one (such as one produced by, for example, the collapse of industrial human civilization and its CO2 boost under the stresses of AGW).

This does not make much sense. It seems you want to make the point that the average temperature does not fix the local temperature distributions. Therefore you may feel free to invent some good and bad distributions so that the number of people which would survive would heavily depend on this choice, thus, would be ill-defined. But you are not free to invent arbitrary temperature distributions. The climate models can predict the probable local distributions of temperature and precipitation for a given average temperature.

There may be, of course, some average temperatures where we really have quite different stable climate configurations which have the same average temperature. But I doubt this will be a big problem in reality. If it is, I would like to see papers which discuss this.

Distribution, not "average", will likely govern human population densities in the future as in the past.

And the distribution of the various climate zones will be defined by the average temperature. I have seen already such pictures of distributions of climate zones for some particular temperature.

For example: the research indicates that under AGW the distribution of rain and the distribution of temperatures are both and separately moving farther from any available human adaptation that preserves the current population, and are likely to continue doing so.

Some alarmist who refuses to support his claims by any evidence made such a claim. This indicates nothing at all about real research.

You declared that, without visible argument - that's silly, and I attribute it to you because you posted it.
Meanwhile, you also declared that AGW is approaching such an optimal level and can "reach" it. That's silly, and I attributed it to you because you posted it.

You attributed more to me, namely "where we will remain for some reason", without any base in what I wrote. If the optimum is higher, we will approach it for some time. Warming may stop before, no problem, but may also go beyond, then we have a problem. A triviality if the optimum is higher than today. Your fantasy has created, out of this, a quite strange suggestion which I have never made, namely that it somehow stops at the optimum.

According to the research and analyses, AGW will not produce an "optimal level" of anything - it will produce centuries of rapid, damaging, harmful, continual, and potentially catastrophic climate change on a global scale.

No. Only according to some particular alarmist, who refuses to support his claims with references.

 

[sculptor]

And, yet another political rant................
Anyone surprised?

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.agro.uba.ar/users/fernande/Karl&Trenberth2003.pdf
"Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1220&context=usgsstaffpub
"Observations have shown that the hydrological cycle of the western United States changed significantly over the last half of the 20th century. We present a regional, multivariable climate change detection and attribution study, using a high-resolution hydrologic model forced by global climate models, focusing on the changes that have already affected this primarily arid region with a large and growing population. The results show that up to 60% of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced. These results are robust to perturbation of study variates and methods. They portend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[iceaura]

And the distribution of the various climate zones will be defined by the average temperature.

No, they won't.

You know absolutely nothing about this matter, you know that you know nothing about this matter, and yet you post such assertions - you are perfectly willing to parrot Republican Party idiocy, wholesale, without the slightest effort at fact checking. Why?

En pointe: Other factors will matter. Examples: ocean circulation, ice melt, biological feedback from large ecosystems.
None of these factors will change in step with the warming - AGW is too rapid. So the distribution of various climate zones will not stabilize - for any reason, including any given global average atmospheric temperature - until long after the warming itself has plateaued. Nobody knows when that will be - successive estimates have shown a trend to longer runs of AGW, and scarier eventual plateaus.

The immediate matter for humans to consider is how fast AGW will occur. That unprecedented rapidity is what is predicted to cause the major harms, and it's still partly subject to human influence - it seems we can slow it down. That's lucky. We should not spit on our luck.

I have given a definition of the optimal temperature

And I have given a definition of a flying pig.

No. Only according to some particular alarmist, who refuses to support his claims with references.

That is you, denying AGW, using the word "No" itself - remember when you claimed you were not denying AGW?
This is simply an accurate description - for you to learn from, or at least remind you of all that research you haven't read.
This is what you will find, if and when you bother to inform yourself about the findings of the research into AGW:

According to the research and analyses, AGW will not produce an "optimal level" of anything - it will produce centuries of rapid, damaging, harmful, continual, and potentially catastrophic climate change on a global scale.

According to essentially everyone who has read the research, read about the research, reported on the research to various agencies and corporations and interested parties, or done any of the research, that is what the AGW research has found and published and recorded and reported to anyone willing to read it.

No, not every time. Anyway, the last few million years already cover a wide temperature range. And the mass extinctions caused by humans being there is anyway more important then what would be caused by warming.

The mass extinctions caused by human beings will of course include the ones human beings caused and are causing by launching AGW. They are predicted to be numerous and significant, and current research indicates those predictions are bearing out.

The last few million years inform us about the next few million, which is of little concern in a thread about AGW. AGW is hitting now and through the next few hundred - we hope it is self-limiting, but fear the mechanism.
Nothing like it has ever occurred, as far as anyone has found - the closest similarity seems to be the effects of a major meteor strike.

But you are not free to invent arbitrary temperature distributions. The climate models can predict the probable local distributions of temperature and precipitation for a given average temperature.

They have. They have predicted several, for before and after the Greenland and Antarctic sheets have largely melted, before and after the deep ocean circulation has completed a cycle, before and after the permafrost and northern peatlands have completed their melting or burning or conversion to scrubland that is their fate, and so forth. It's mostly speculation at such long ranges, of course - when the temperature has stopped rising, and climate zones can stabilize accordingly. But informed speculation.

There is no such thing as an optimal global average atmospheric temperature. That's a stupidity marketed to the ignorant by US professionals hired to protect the fossil fuel industry (and others) from governmental regulation and constraint. (If the discovery phases of the Exxon lawsuits yield well, we may even be able to identify the specific individual who came up with the "optimal temperature" deflection - it's been a good one, still in play after all these years).
- - - -

 

[iceaura]

And, yet another political rant................
Anyone surprised?

No surprise to find the word "rant" thrown in - good to have you out of the closet: shortens the response, when no explanation of your innuendo is needed.
Meanwhile, for the record: Not a rant from me in sight. "Rant" - like "ad hominem {argument}" and "strident" and so forth - is still an English word with a dictionary definition.

Politics, of course, has been your central concern in all your posts on this matter, and Schmelzer's central concern, and therefore the central topic of any response to you or him on the subject of AGW. Politics was Exxon's concern when it hired the best media pros money could buy to muddy the science and slander the scientists and abuse the public informants involved - the people who created the content and vocabulary of Schmelzer's posting, and most of yours, were and are politically motivated.

That is easily visible in their well-funded marketing and repetitive media promotion of various deceptive misrepresentations (we non-pros call them "lies") of various ordinary scientific circumstances - such as instrument calibration issues, or the statistical handling of data from different sources (to mention a couple of the specific issues you have cribbed from their feed and posted as innuendo on this forum).

You guys post Republican Party media feed crapola in a scientific matter ("ideal temperature" "ideal climate" "do nothing" "optimal temperature" "millions of years" - wtf? ) and use it exactly as your sources use it - as a cover for personal attacks on anyone who calls bullshit on bullshit.

AGW, as an issue and an emergency, has absolutely nothing to do with a theoretical "optimal" or "ideal" anything. What happened in MS11, or any other past era, is just another source of information for analyzing AGW and what it might cause to occur - and these sources of info have all been scrutinized, are being scrutinized, and will continue to be scrutinized, not only with interest but with some desperation -
because -
we need all the info we can get, especially before the Republicans cut too much more of the funding and restrict the research further; as long noticed and observed by the interested bystanders, the IPCC and similar "respectable" agencies have been underestimating and downplaying and "conservative" in their public releases: while they have been publishing center-range "most likely" estimates as their predictions, the subsequent reality has been coming in on the high sides of their hazard ranges pretty consistently for thirty, forty years now. Latest example? The melt rate underneath the major West Antarctic glacier as it hits the ocean was measured for the first time - at ten times the estimate being used to predict future sea rise from Antarctic ice loss.

Something similar just happened on the surface of the Greenland midisland ice sheet - a surface melt far greater than anything predicted. And the northern peatlands are shrubbing over and/or burning ten, fifteen, twenty years earlier than predicted. etc.

So it's not looking good, and the bubbledwellers have run out of slack - we don't have time to deal with another decades of repetitive bullshit about "optimal temperatures" and "ideal climates" and the like. Drop the political feed bs, and get a clue, eh?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

increasingly manifested

arctic sea temperature warming could well be the elephant in the paddling pool

the loss of the ice shelf's seems to imply an exponential effect

 

[paddoboy]

arctic sea temperature warming could well be the elephant in the paddling pool

the loss of the ice shelf's seems to imply an exponential effect

It would be more accurate in making it clear that what you quote me as saying, is actually from a linked paper....not that I disagree with it, but I do recall you making a previous comment about accuracy?

ps: It would also be nice if you came down to Earth just a tiny bit and made your posts less cryptic and more clearer?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

ps: It would also be nice if you came down to Earth just a tiny bit and made your posts less cryptic and more clearer?

less cryptic

what is your question ?

 

[paddoboy]

what is your question ?

It would be more accurate in making it clear that what you quote me as saying, is actually from a linked paper....not that I disagree with it, but I do recall you making a previous comment about accuracy?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

It would be more accurate in making it clear that what you quote me as saying, is actually from a linked paper....not that I disagree with it, but I do recall you making a previous comment about accuracy?

i wanted you to have a question
i wanted to prove myself wrong

but there you are

such is life

ps: It would also be nice if you came down to Earth just a tiny bit and made your posts less cryptic and more clearer?

what is your question ?

about

?

wants define our diversity equally to needs defining our desires

 

[Schmelzer]

En pointe: Other factors will matter. Examples: ocean circulation, ice melt, biological feedback from large ecosystems.

Of course, all these other factors have to be computed by those climate models. This is what they have to do. Think about what you want to claim - that all those climate models which claim to be able to compute the climate if CO2 is raising are fake science, because a lot of other factors which they are unable to handle will matter? Really? Fine, your choice.

If not, then no problem, all these other factors are already handled in these climate models.

None of these factors will change in step with the warming - AGW is too rapid.

Irrelevant, given that you talk now about something completely different. The definition of the optimal temperature is about the stable climate. Such a subdivision is important to distinguish long-term problems and those short-term adaptation problems.

Nobody knows when that will be - successive estimates have shown a trend to longer runs of AGW, and scarier eventual plateaus.

Whatever, this is completely irrelevant for the definition of the optimal temperature.

That is you, denying AGW, using the word "No" itself - remember when you claimed you were not denying AGW?

AGW means that there is global warming and that humans have caused it. Alarmists claim that it will be "rapid, damaging, harmful, continual, and potentially catastrophic". I say "no" to such alarmist exaggerations.

The last few million years inform us about the next few million, which is of little concern in a thread about AGW. AGW is hitting now and through the next few hundred - we hope it is self-limiting, but fear the mechanism.
Nothing like it has ever occurred, as far as anyone has found - the closest similarity seems to be the effects of a major meteor strike.

Typical alarmism.

They have. They have predicted several, for before and after the Greenland and Antarctic sheets have largely melted, ... It's mostly speculation at such long ranges, of course - when the temperature has stopped rising, and climate zones can stabilize accordingly. But informed speculation.

So, fine, once this is based on computer models, you can run them for whatever temperature you like, compute the corresponding local distributions of the climate zones, then compute how many people can live there. Quite simple.

There is no such thing as an optimal global average atmospheric temperature.

Decide for yourself: Can those computer models compute the distribution of the climate zones and the local climate for a given average temperature or not? If they can, fine, then there is no problem with computing the optimal average temperature. If not, explain what they can do. (Who knows, maybe the deniers are right and these programs are fake software computing nothing reasonable. Your choice.)

 

[billvon]

the loss of the ice shelf's seems to imply an exponential effect

Yep. Ice sheet moves into the ocean. Sea level rises. That moves the grounding line (the line where the ice meet land instead of water) inland. Ice sheet moves faster. Sea level rises. Grounding line moves more. Etc.

 

[paddoboy]

i wanted you to have a question
i wanted to prove myself wrong but there you are such is life ?
wants define our diversity equally to needs defining our desires

I prefer a Pork Roast.

 

[paddoboy]

Typical alarmism.

Typical "Stuff you, I'm alright Jack" attitude!
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
• 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." (2004)
• American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
• American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
• American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide 2012)
• American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)
• The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/208_07/10.5694mja17.00640.pdf

Climate change: a brief overview of the science and health impacts for Australia:
In 2017, The Lancet reported that “human symptoms of climate change are unequivocal and potentially irreversible — affecting the health of populations around the world today” and added that the “delayed response to climate change over the past 25 years has jeopardised human life and livelihoods”. 1 The gravity of this situation warrants inspection, and urgent action. In this article, our aim is to provide an overview of the most recent scientific and organisational literature to inform readers about the current state of knowledge on climate change and its relationship to human health. The issue has global relevance, but here we focus primarily on Australia.

Summary:
The scientific relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures has been understood for over a century.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels have contributed to 75% of the observed 1C rise in global temperatures since the start of the industrial era (about 1750).

Global warming is associated with intensifying climatic extremes and disruption to human society and human health.

Mitigation is vital for human health as continued current emission rates are likely to lead to 4C of warming by 2100.

Further escalation of Australia’s hot and erratic climate will lead to more extreme climate-related disasters of heatwaves, droughts, fires and storms, as well as shifts in disease burdens.

Conclusion:
Australia’s climate is changing. Adaptation is required and, perhaps more importantly, mitigation to avoid the worst of future health burdens. Current trends suggest a future of increasing heatwaves, even greater rainfall variability, and more fires. Additional heat is likely to generate fewer winter respiratory deaths yet more heat exposure morbidity and mortality. Further exacerbations of Australia’s extreme rainfall variability will intensify water shortages and storm and flood damage, compounded by likely societal interruptions and health challenges. The picture for climate-sensitive vector-borne diseases remains unclear, although cases spreading to southern regions remain possible. A realignment of health services to address the shift in disease burden is required to secure Australia’s current high level of health care.

 

[iceaura]

: Can those computer models compute the distribution of the climate zones and the local climate for a given average temperature or not? If they can, fine, then there is no problem with computing the optimal average temperature.

They can, to some extent, compute the many and various possible distributions of climate zones and local climates for a given global average temperature.
There are hundreds of them, of course, depending on other factors. These other factors include matters such as "does human industrial civilization exist?" and "when, exactly, relative to AGW among other factors, are you specifying as the time of optimal temperature?"

You can see, then, that there is no such thing as "the optimal average temperature", so of course it can't be computed.

Of course, all these other factors have to be computed by those climate models

That's what they try to do, yep. Obviously, some things are input as assumptions.

Think about what you want to claim - that all those climate models which claim to be able to compute the climate if CO2 is raising are fake science, because a lot of other factors which they are unable to handle will matter?

No such claim appears in my posting.
They can handle the factors that matter, more or less. And they can compute the changes in the climate as AGW continues, under various assumed conditions (such as human civilization responses). They are not dealing with a stable climate, of course.

The definition of the optimal temperature is about the stable climate.

There is no "the stable climate". There are many possible slowly changing climates, far in the future, that we call "stable" on a human scale.
There is no climate stability at all under AGW, or for hundreds of years after it ends, on any relevant scale. AGW destabilizes the climate - that's the problem with it, remember?
Meanwhile, there is also - separately - no optimal temperature. Definitions do not create things that don't exist.

Typical alarmism.

So you regard the fact that AGW is currently underway, and has never happened before, as "alarmism".
Sober, ordinary, research and theory established, simple and obvious physical fact; Something anyone can see for themselves, or find with a quick netsearch;
is "alarmism".
At least you find it alarming. That's a sign you are not completely clueless. Baby steps.

So, fine, once this is based on computer models, you can run them for whatever temperature you like, compute the corresponding local distributions of the climate zones, then compute how many people can live there. Quite simple.

Quite impossible, in theory or practice.
For starters, you will get hundreds of possible "local distributions" for any given average temperature, depending on other factors.
You will not get a specification of any "optimal temperature". There is no such thing. It's a propaganda invention from a familiar source, designed to conceal the reality of AGW behind a curtain of gibberish and sciencey sounding nonsense so Exxon et al can continue to make high profits and avoid taxes or regulation,
and you have been well and thoroughly punked by that source - you (like the other AGW deniers, victims of Republican media feeds) have been conned into posting some of the most idiotic bs ever seen on this forum, and defending it at length.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

optimal

...
describe a scientific principal ...
"boo boo"

mmmm kay