Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report Hilariously flawed

[ttystikk]

The Alfred P. Sloan Chair of Meteorology at MIT. Alfred P. Sloan was the guy who founded the modern GENERAL MOTORS. Biased? Ya think maybe a little bit?

Bill Gray lives in my town, I've delivered electronics to the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Natural Resources College of Colorado State University. I've spoken with him (usually about hurricane prediction, his real specialty) and I posed a question be could neither answer nor refute; "So tell me how ten thousand coal fired power plants and a billion automobiles could NOT affect climate?" He admitted it had to do something, no matter what the sun was doing. So much for Bill Gray, anti global warming crusader. BTW, that's not second hand info, a quotation or hearsay; the man said that to ME.

SoCal, you've utterly failed to show any kind of conclusive support for the contention that global warming isn't occurring due to human activity. Your quotes are wrong- above- and the EPICA ice core study you mentioned- the one that showed global temps for 600,000 years? Yeah, that's the very same one that shows the last ten thousand years have been the warmest in the whole sample, and that today's measurements build on that, spiking even more.

The main 'mystery' left about that core is why it started ten thousand years ago, at the end of the last ice age. It does coincide with more atmospheric carbon, so we know something burned continuously for most of that time... like cooking fires and fires for slash n burn agriculture.

 

[ttystikk]

In other words, human activity has been affecting climate for ten thousand years now. How much is an open question, but what is no longer in doubt is that we DO affect climate, we've been doing it for a very long time and it's getting steadily warmer.

I wonder how many periods of 'global cooling' mirror periods right after large volcanic eruptions- which shade the planet and thus reduce temperatures temporarily.

 

[SoCal 420]

So, I guess it would be "Fair to Say" that during the "Peak" levels of CO2 as All the data above shows... for the Past 15 Years like I have said "All Along"... Temperatures have been "Declining" and as post 14 shows oceans are "Cooling"... Post 12 Sea Levels are "Falling" at the "Premiere Carbon Data Collection Location" on the planet while CO2 levels are approaching 400 ppm... Still Elevated, but no decline in CO2??? Care to "Explain" the "Cooling Trend" DOWN approaching 1 degree from years 2000 to 2015 in roughly the "Same Amount of Time" it took to Rise 1 Degree???

I am posting "Here" the Same Question asked of the Creators of the "Model" which "Climate Alarmists" :wideyed: refer to Over and Over... That simply "Failed" to "Predict" the current trend... Currently UN-Answered and No Explanation... o_O So just What Do "They" know or can their "Model" predict and How Accurate is it??? The Longer the Trend Continues, the More the "Credibility" of Climate Alarmists :wideyed: and "The Model Says" falls... :(

P.S. If you want to "Complain" about "Temperature Levels" being Collected in England Do Your Self A Solid and "Complain" about Carbon Level Data being Collected at the Top of A Fuckin' Volcano blowing Smoke and Ash in Hawaii...

 

[SoCal 420]

The funniest part is--
I wouldn't have even bothered posting in this thread if it wasn't for the Al Gore bashing...

Al Gore... You mean "The Vanishing Al Gore" :woot:

 

[SoCal 420]

http://www.greatglobalwarming.com/

Question 4 - Why have all the global warming predictions from climate models been so wrong?
Answer - Yep, Al Gore and friends have been way off on their forecasts. As in - there is no real climate change in a decade. Ok...so maybe this goof up is on the humans this time too. But really, why should we believe these smart guys when they say the world will end in a 100 years due to global warming when they can't predict the weather anywhere for next month?

 

[SoCal 420]

The futility of trying to limit CO2 emissions

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Verity Jones

Could controlling the output of Man-made CO2 make a significant difference to Global Temperature? Guest post by EDMH

Update: Ed emailed this week with updates to this information. Here they are as downloads: Word document CO2 Greenhouse calcs (10 pages); Powerpoint presentation: Co2 calcs 4-11 v (51 slides). Verity Jones (29th April 2011).

In 2005 Bjorn Lomborg, (the sceptical environmentalist) now much vilified by his by his previous Green colleagues, said:
“Even if everyone (including the United States) applied the Kyoto rules and stuck to them throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming for a mere six years in 2100 while costing at least $150 billion a year.”[1]
There are QUESTIONS to be asked:
Can the massive efforts and extreme costs now being expended and anticipated for the future be justified to partially reduce the man-made CO2 emissions by a limited number of Nations for such minimal and doubtful effects on world temperature?
or
Are controls on CO2 a rational way to save the world (and from what precisely)?
And, as the remedies proposed are so vast and so onerous
Where are the cost benefit analyses?
Where is the due diligence?
There is no difference between Man-made CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and the CO2 molecules that are generated within the biosphere and occur naturally. Man-made CO2 molecules are not especially potent in affecting climate and temperature. Photosynthesis is impeded and plant life is stressed at CO2 levels of less than 200 ppm. Additional atmospheric CO2 significantly improves all plant growth and enhances drought tolerance.
By far the greatest bulk of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, approximately 95%. Of the remaining 5% greenhouse effect caused by other Greenhouse Gases only ¾ is attributable to CO2, both Man-made and Naturally occurring. This differential [¾ CO2 - ¼ other GHGs] accounts for the much greater greenhouse effect of the other lower concentration gases such as Nitrous Oxide and Methane and CFCs [2].

Man-made additions to CO2 in the atmosphere are only a part of the overall CO2 level. The most reasonable calculation seems to be that ~40% of the additional CO2 since 1850 is a Man-made contribution, (CDIAC, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center of the U.S. Department of Energy[3]) or about 44 parts / million, 11% of the current total ~390 ppm.

CO2 levels have been increasing naturally but they are also augmented by Man-made additions at a rate of about 1 ppm per year. 1 ppm per year is equivalent to an annual increase in warming from whole world Man-made additions of about 0.0032°C per annum.
Transposing the World Greenhouse Effect into °C

But the precise value 0.14°C is practically immaterial because:

• Achieving 100% in any national economy is impossible.
• Achieving even as little as a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions would be enough to cripple any Western economy.
• The world as a whole is Not Joining-In.

So at almost any reasonable level for the temperature increase attributed to Man-made CO2, the actual value is virtually irrelevant.
Nonetheless using 0.14°C as the temperature effect of whole world CO2 emissions since 1850, the Temperature reductions that could be achieved by the 100%, i.e. complete closure, of the Carbon economies of the individual major emitter Nations can be assessed: they are measured in thousandths °C. But these values would be less, (pro-rata), according to the actual level of CO2 reduction achieved in any particular Nation.
Temperature effect of closing the whole Carbon Economies of individual Nations [5] [6]: based on world temperature increase due to Man-made CO2 additions as being CO2≅0.14°C

 

[SoCal 420]

In other words, human activity has been affecting climate for ten thousand years now. How much is an open question, but what is no longer in doubt is that we DO affect climate, we've been doing it for a very long time and it's getting steadily warmer.

I wonder how many periods of 'global cooling' mirror periods right after large volcanic eruptions- which shade the planet and thus reduce temperatures temporarily.

I am going out on A limb here but think it would be "Safe to Say" Human Activity "Pre" 1800 probably had "Zero" Measurable Effect on Global Warming or Cooling for that mater compared to Naturally Occurring Events... Like to See "Data" showing other wise and by "Who" Perhaps Al Gore... ;)

 

[ttystikk]

I am going out on A limb here but think it would be "Safe to Say" Human Activity "Pre" 1800 probably had "Zero" Measurable Effect on Global Warming or Cooling for that mater compared to Naturally Occurring Events... Like to See "Data" showing other wise and by "Who" Perhaps Al Gore... ;)

Slash and burn agriculture has climate consequences far out of proportion to the carbon load it releases on the spot. This was- and remains to this day- a popular if shortsighted method to convert wild land into farmland. It tends to deplete soils and nutrients, leads to erosion- and is thus self perpetuating. Individual farmers, on foot, with axes and machetes and torches are the ones who are making the Amazon rain forest disappear, not high technology.

 

[SoCal 420]

So... Hear it is, by Scientists, (Just like Global Warming) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Released in 2006 No Less. No Talks / Global Cow Alarmists... Nothing. Chew that Over for A Few... ;)

Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?

Surprise!

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html


Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning#.UlXE-X_leSr

29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today

When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.


TRANSPORTATION AND GLOBAL WARMING

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/

Because of its near-total dependence on petroleum fuels, the U.S. transportation sector is responsible for about a third of "our" country’s climate-changing emissions. Globally, about 15 percent of man made carbon dioxide comes from cars, trucks, airplanes, ships and other vehicles.

 

[SoCal 420]

Any Body care to do A Little "Simple Math" W/ U.N. Numbers? 15% of 1degree Fahrenheit? To Immediately Eliminate "All Transportation" Globally??? Another 18% of 1degree Fahrenheit to Immediately "Loose" All the Cattle on the Face of the Planet... for A Grand Total of 33% of 1degree Fahrenheit Over How Many Hundreds of Years to "See" The Net Result??? Starting to See "The Bigger Picture" Yet?

Looks to me Like 1/3 of 1 degree net Gain Not Realized for Hundreds of Years, If @ all... To Eliminate "All" Transportation and "All" Cattle (food source)... Globally. Think about that for A Minute ;)

Everybody on the Planet standing "Together" Flapping their arms and "Blowing" about Global Warming to "COOL" The Planet would Have A Greater Likely Hood of "Success" than Ever Eliminating "All" Transportation and Cattle...

 

[deepthought]

Eliminating all transportation and all cattle (what does that even mean, exterminate them?) is a ridiculous idea. One I personally have never heard espoused by anyone.

I believe the idea is to use other/cleaner energy sources. Regardless of whether "smog" causes/effects global warming we should still move beyond fossil fuels.

1. Smog is unhealthy. 2. We are dependent on foreign oil (and the crazy world of oil speculation) and this weakens our country for a number of reasons. 3. There are a number of emerging technologies that provide alternative fuels that are simply more efficient then fossil fuels.

Finding and using a better/cleaner fuel (as well as more efficient and cleaner energy sources) is simply a smart move any way you look at it.

Unless, that is, you are an oil company. In which case any new fuel source is a threat to your profits and possibly to the very existence of your company. And of course you already have vast resources you can use to manipulate the government and the people so that these alternatives are not implemented.

 

[SoCal 420]

In Cause you didn't notice... The "Largest" man made contributor to CO2 Emissions is... Ta Da... The Live Stock sector... And Number 2, Transportation, so What else is there? Naturally Occurring and All Ready Existing, Correct? I didn't "Imply" removing all Transportation and Cattle as the "Solution" I mocked the "Suggestion"... The point is 100% Removal of Both from this point forward, by Every Nation on the Planet "Simultaneously" (Never Happen) statistically does "Nothing" to Reduce Green House Emissions to A Level that would Have any Measurable Effect on Global Warming for 100's of Years, If @ All, Let Alone, The Obvious Repercussion of that. Naturally Occurring and All Ready Existing, Cant do much about that can we...

Better Fuel, Great Idea... What? Where is it? How do you suggest replacing The current form of transportation as we know it, Run Primarily on Fossil Fuel? Where is the Infrastructure to support that? How will "All" people Afford it? Will you "Punish Those Who Can't? Current Hybrid Cars Are "Dirtier" to Manufacture, Contributing Again to Green House Emissions... What About All the Toxic Batteries and Their Disposal if "Millions" of these Cars Replace the Current Ones Rapidly Enough to "Make A Difference" and The Current Vehicles in Service and the $$$$ People Have Invested in those? Do they Just Take A Loss to "Make it Happen? Planes and Big Rig Trucks???...(Biggest Polluters) And Again Where are "All" the Power Stations @ Work Places and Along the way to "Anywhere" you may choose to Drive if 100% Electric? How will you "Create" the Electricity to Charge "Millions" of Cars (Running 100% Electric is Currently Very Inefficient) and Who "Pays" for it All? Once Again, Great Idea, Support it 100%... Making it Happen? are You Paying Attention to "Making Things Happen in the United States Lately???

 

[deepthought]

In Cause you didn't notice... The "Largest" man made contributor to CO2 Emissions is... Ta Da... The Live Stock sector... And Number 2, Transportation, so What else is there? Naturally Occurring and All Ready Existing, Correct? I didn't "Imply" removing all Transportation and Cattle as the "Solution" I mocked the "Suggestion"... The point is 100% Removal of Both from this point forward, by Every Nation on the Planet "Simultaneously" (Never Happen) statistically does "Nothing" to Reduce Green House Emissions to A Level that would Have any Measurable Effect on Global Warming for 100's of Years, If @ All, Let Alone, The Obvious Repercussion of that. Naturally Occurring and All Ready Existing, Cant do much about that can we...

Better Fuel, Great Idea... What? Where is it? How do you suggest replacing The current form of transportation as we know it, Run Primarily on Fossil Fuel? Where is the Infrastructure to support that? How will "All" people Afford it? Will you "Punish Those Who Can't? Current Hybrid Cars Are "Dirtier" to Manufacture, Contributing Again to Green House Emissions... What About All the Toxic Batteries and Their Disposal if "Millions" of these Cars Replace the Current Ones Rapidly Enough to "Make A Difference" and The Current Vehicles in Service and the $$$$ People Have Invested in those? Do they Just Take A Loss to "Make it Happen? Planes and Big Rig Trucks???...(Biggest Polluters) And Again Where are "All" the Power Stations @ Work Places and Along the way to "Anywhere" you may choose to Drive if 100% Electric? How will you "Create" the Electricity to Charge "Millions" of Cars (Running 100% Electric is Currently Very Inefficient) and Who "Pays" for it All? Once Again, Great Idea, Support it 100%... Making it Happen? are You Paying Attention to "Making Things Happen in the United States Lately???

You are right that there are people (some) that want to pretty much eliminate Livestock and there are others (more) that want to significantly reduce. I'm not arguing that point.

Also I do understand that you weren't suggesting we eliminate transportation. You were saying that, as far as you can see, that would be the only option as you don't believe there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels and so people that are calling for change might as well be calling for the elimination of all transportation.

What I was trying to say is that I believe this statement to be a gross exaggeration that does not serve your point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also I am not concerned so much with how CO2/fossil fuels effects Global Warming (at least not within this response) what I am trying to say is that there are other concerns, other reasons why we should stop using fossil fuels. These being Public Health and Economic Security/Freedom (from foreign oil exporters and from the oil market in general).

I believe you agree, that for these reasons, we should use a better alternative. Your point is that no viable alternative exists at this time. I believe that is debatable, however, even if there were a viable alternative fuel you are right to point out that the infrastructure for that fuel does not exist.

So, all that being said, this is my point=

We obviously should not, and can not, change to a different fuel source overnight. However, finding a new fuel source and designing and implementing the infrastructure for that source (or sources) should be a national priority. Hell it should be an international priority. And yet, it is NOT. It is not now, and it is not been. We should have made this a priority twenty or even ten years ago. The alternate fuel we need, we should already have, and probably would have...had our nation put forth more than a token effort to develop the technology.

We need to get on this NOW. Forget environmentalism, it will make our nation stronger.

But like I said any alternative fuel source (and any infrastructure for it) is a threat to oil company profits. Oil companies have vast resources they wield to do everything they possibly can to make sure no other fuel source is accepted. One of their greatest weapons is disinformation. Discredit individuals or organizations that espouse alternative fuels. Provide disinformation to the government and to the public, including reports using false or doctored data (or omitted data) not just in reports from organizations publicly controlled/influenced by oil companies but another tactic is to create (or gain control) a false-flag organization that purports to be "liberal" or "pro alternative fuel" and then use that organization to spread disinformation (from a source that seems reputable to the opposition (opposed to corporatists).

Corporations have been hiring agents/analysts/management from the intelligence sector for decades. They use (sometimes simple but often vast and complex) intelligence operations to accomplish their goals.

An example is that a number of "tea party" organizations were created from the ground up by corporations as a vehicle for disinformation campaigns. (not the entire tea party movement)

A movement rises up against you? Overtly oppose it while covertly infiltrating and manipulating it.

Anyway.....it's lunch time. Peace.

 

[SoCal 420]

Good Points ^^^^ They Call it "Big Oil" for A Reason! The solution to Alternative Fuels have been viable and well known for decades. I look @ it like some of my friends that Love to Ride Dirt Bikes. Have to have the Newest and the Latest and Greatest... Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki... Doesn't Matter. They (manufacturers) know What and How they will release things A Decade in Advance. Why not manufacture that Bike Now? $$$$... Bad for Business to release something so advanced in One Fail Swoop when you can just make "Small" changes and keep More People as Repeat customers for A Longer Period of Time... Get Where I'm Going With This? Oil Drives Nations my Friend and if You think some corporation or someone will release something So Advanced (Fuel / form of Transportation) before they are done Sucking Every Last $$$$ Out of the Ground That can be Found, You are Naive (No Insult Intended)

 

[deepthought]

Good Points ^^^^ They Call it "Big Oil" for A Reason! The solution to Alternative Fuels have been viable and well known for decades. I look @ it like some of my friends that Love to Ride Dirt Bikes. Have to have the Newest and the Latest and Greatest... Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki... Doesn't Matter. They (manufacturers) know What and How they will release things A Decade in Advance. Why not manufacture that Bike Now? $$$$... Bad for Business to release something so advanced in One Fail Swoop when you can just make "Small" changes and keep More People as Repeat customers for A Longer Period of Time... Get Where I'm Going With This? Oil Drives Nations my Friend and if You think some corporation or someone will release something So Advanced (Fuel / form of Transportation) before they are done Sucking Every Last $$$$ Out of the Ground That can be Found, You are Naive (No Insult Intended)

I agree completely.

 

[SoCal 420]

The other thing that dawned on me is the fact that California has some of the "Toughest" Emission Standards on the Planet... If "King" Obama and "Environmentalist" and "Modest Man" of "Modest Means" Al Gore really Give A Flying Fuck, Al Gore could go back on the Campaign Trail for Global Warming and Barack Obama could "Sign an "Executive Order" Mandating that "ALL 50 States" comply to the California Emissions Standard ;) Instant Reduction in CO2 Levels... It's Easy, Test your Car / Truck "Every Other Year" and if you don't "Pass" your Registration is canceled and you "Buy A New Car" or "Pay Never Ending Fines and Fees"... This will do much to "Make Environmentalists Happy" and "Level the Playing Field" across the country... After all, Cars / Trucks "Pollute the Same" regardless of "Where They are Located" :)

Being that the 2006 estimate (link below) of vehicles in the U.S. was 134,012,369 and in California 19,632,257 and there are Surely More "Everywhere" Now... Maybe it's time All the Other States Have "Skin in the Game" as our "Fearless Leader Often Says" so we can All SEE how well that goes over... in All Other States. (Blue or Red) :cigar:

Al Gore's "Super Duper Energy Efficient" House... Must have the New "Invisible" Solar Panels

Gore’s 19,000 square foot Nashville home…yup, still no solar panels…skylights yes, A couple of gas-hogging SUV’s but no solar panels.

 

[Funkadelic]

The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.

“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.​

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”​

​

​

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz2gsBHDAlR​

​

http://libertyunyielding.com/2013/0...es-warming-stoppage-because-of-govt-pressure/​

​

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...xplain-Earths-barely-got-hotter-15-years.html​

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.[1] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He is a well known skeptic of the scientific consensus about climate change[2] and critic of what he states are political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called Climate Alarmism.[3]

Total horseshit.

Sorry but the realities of man made climate change are seen across all fields of science, including the life sciences as well as atmospheric.

Climate change deniers are idiots. Scientific consensus and data trump all.

Explain away the migratory patterns, co2 ppm in the air, disintegrating glaciers, extinctions, rise in sea levels, disappearance of the alpine beetles, ad infinitum.

Oh, you can't. That's because climate change denial is right wing non scientific horse shit.

Consensus wins. Paid studies by fossil fuel corporations aren't science and can eat a dick.
So can reactionary deniers.

 

[Funkadelic]

Anyone posting photo shopped pictures of or talking about a politician is pushing a political agenda here and is not a scientist.

Thanks for playing. Before you go, Faux "News" isn't news. Not at all. It's punditry to get you to vote GOP. They're lying to you.

Also before you consider spouting their lies and propaganda, you should produce ONLY PEER REVIEWED studies.
Oh, and study the Scientific Method again.

Data talks and fake hockey stick non scientific non PEER REVIEWED opinion walks. That's how science works.

You're welcome.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

The Alfred P. Sloan Chair of Meteorology at MIT. Alfred P. Sloan was the guy who founded the modern GENERAL MOTORS. Biased? Ya think maybe a little bit?

Bill Gray lives in my town, I've delivered electronics to the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Natural Resources College of Colorado State University. I've spoken with him (usually about hurricane prediction, his real specialty) and I posed a question be could neither answer nor refute; "So tell me how ten thousand coal fired power plants and a billion automobiles could NOT affect climate?" He admitted it had to do something, no matter what the sun was doing. So much for Bill Gray, anti global warming crusader. BTW, that's not second hand info, a quotation or hearsay; the man said that to ME.

SoCal, you've utterly failed to show any kind of conclusive support for the contention that global warming isn't occurring due to human activity. Your quotes are wrong- above- and the EPICA ice core study you mentioned- the one that showed global temps for 600,000 years? Yeah, that's the very same one that shows the last ten thousand years have been the warmest in the whole sample, and that today's measurements build on that, spiking even more.

The main 'mystery' left about that core is why it started ten thousand years ago, at the end of the last ice age. It does coincide with more atmospheric carbon, so we know something burned continuously for most of that time... like cooking fires and fires for slash n burn agriculture.

i'm glad you said this so i didn't have too:D

 

[SoCal 420]

Total horseshit.
Explain away the migratory patterns, co2 ppm in the air, disintegrating glaciers, extinctions, rise in sea levels, disappearance of the alpine beetles, ad infinitum.

Oh, you can't. That's because climate change denial is right wing non scientific horse shit.
Consensus wins. Paid studies by fossil fuel corporations aren't science and can eat a dick.
So can reactionary deniers.

Right Back @ Ya... All the things You listed as "Examples of Global Warming" ALL Occurred "Multiple Times" Before Man Ever "Discovered" or "Used" Fossil Fuel Einstein...