At what point does misrepresentation of facts become lies? A general definition of the word lie is “an intentionally false statement”, but this applies to a single statement and the key word is “intentional”. A single misunderstanding or a misstatement can occur, but what if there are a series of misstatements from an individual or group? What happens when many statements are proved incorrect, but they continue to repeat them or fail to acknowledge they were false?

There is a long and growing list of statements by promoters of human CO2 induced global warming that have proven incorrect. Yet they continue to push their claim by ignoring the evidence and diverting attention with new specious and spurious claims. Most politicians and mainstream media continue to believe because they don’t understand or don’t want to understand for political reasons. However, even they must understand when the predictions are consistently wrong. Science is simply defined as the ability to predict, so the failure invalidates the science even if you don’t understand the science. People who persist only have a blind belief and as the adage says, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

What a terrifying basis for devastating and totally unnecessary energy and economic policies.

Of course, all that visible light, which is far more energetic, passes right through unclouded sky and warms the ground directly, espeically trees and oceans, but never mind all that energy, nothing to see there, move along..,

Oxygen, nitrogen, and argon, do NOT directly absorb a photon in the infrared spectrum…ideally. For those of us who studied spectroscopy we know that, they can, and do, constantly collide with all the absorbers in the atmosphere, trading rotational energy, and on occasion, collide hard enough to deliver enough energy to cause greenhouse gasses to RE-EMIT infrared light. The whole atmosphere is in fast equilibrium on the molecular level. On a macroscopic level, one gets pressure differentials, and phase changes like clouds, but those are in constant flux as well, based on how The main crime of climate scientists is that they neglect all these processes in the atmosphere (and terrestrially) that occur, that don’t suit their political ends. Hence their models suck, and eventually cannot perform any predictive role.

To answer the causal part your question, you might have to look at it the other way where the rise of CO2 is the effect, rather than the cause. The rise of carbon dioxide can signal a decline — a completely reversible or even periodic decline, mind you — in the ratio of plants to animals in the biosphere. That may be a natural or articifically induced condition.

In fact, naturally, this happens yearly without fail since the beginning of Keeling data acquisition. The famous Keeling curve, neglectfully smoothed over with an average line by climate change frauds to accentuate the general upward trend, shows the effect I’m describing when taken in its unadulterated form. Every spring, the plants of the Northern Hemisphere wake up, bud and produce leaves, and take the CO2 levels down 6 or 7 ppm, in the span of three months. That dive includes the deciduous plant life that begins its autumnal slumber in the Southern Hemisphere. The whole annual process is buffered by a largly constant oceanic contribution to atmospheric CO2.

Now, the general upward trend may be real, but it may not necessarily be cause by Mankind. Of course, the uncertainty about the cause has provided the AGW proponent with a fearful cudgel, allowing a false correlation with CO2 and global temperature rise to stand without a positive refutation.

Taken to an extreme an ice age, or a meltdown might occur (Ice Ages have for sure, meltdowns never have, of course). A good model, written to account for the physical processes that naturally occur might shed some light on the underlying cause. But the current protocols never will.

Remember: Bad statistics and mathematics produce worse-than-useless answers. Bad statistics and mathematics run on a supercomputer arrive at the same, exact worse-than-useless answers at breakneck speed. Good for an Academy Award, but not for much else.

The subtle name change of their position from “climate warming” to “climate change” shows just how foolish they truly are.

After all, another name for “climate change” is “weather.”

Do you have any responses or not???

First you bragged about being “a scientist” and condescendingly puffed that you “liked debating with a non-scientific audience.”

Well, hot shot, here’s your chance. Answer chemical sam or shut the f+++ up…

I hope the normally hapless Republican leadership won’t drop the ball on this. They should be waiving this every day and demanding accountability on these ridiculous policies from Obama and his Czars AND the EPA.

Don’t screw this one up (R)’s.

You know when I got suspicious? When the naming convention changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. I knew these guys were adjusting (wink wink) data and theories.

Today I heard pollution on Cavuto’s show from some idiot. So they know they are losing the argument.

Disregard that, and it’s a lovely theory – except that after a decade and billions in research grants, they have tons of “evidence” but STILL have no actual proof.

In the lab, we called it “fudging”, in the real world, it’s called fraud. I don’t see how that can be defined as “good intentions” regardless of what you “beleived”.

Anyone who knowingly abets this kind of manipulation has no right to call himself a scientist.

I don’t want to say much more than that. I think I’ve been vague enough that they can’t be identified, and the methods are good. I’m more certain of that because they were used to confirm things for sales, and if either party were regularly getting screwed for bad methods, it would be worth making a stink about it.

The big mistake that the nuclear winter people made was that they didn’t find a tie-in to big money and power. The people who pulled this one apparently learned from that mistake. They bought complicity from the scientific world through a system of federal research grants designed to punish dissidents and reward the faithful, they set the moneyed class up to make a fortune through crony capitalism of cap-and-trade and “green job creation”, and they bought off the political class by giving them the opportunity to create a water empire in which they could reward the politically reliable and punish everyone else on a whim.
It’s my firm hope that once the dust settles from all of this, the world will have learned an important lesson on power, trust, and credibility.

Whoever this savior us, he/she had better hope that the Powers that Be aren’t able to prove that he/she ever got back too much change at a gas station, or it will be called a kickback from the oil companies.

So we are apt to beat ourselves up over things that are not true. Scientists come along with “data” saying that we’re dangerously heating up the planet, and people just go along with it, don’t even put up a fight or raise the smallest skeptical eyebrow.

Well of course, it’s a fairly safe assumption that the earth is warmer than the last ice age, since there are no standing glaciers in Florida. But I still make them prove it, with some reliable data, from reliable sources not named “United Nations”.