Gavin Schmidt : 8 More PPM CO2 To Raise Sea Level 20 Metres

ScreenHunter_05 Jan. 22 07.16

Twitter / ClimateOfGavin: Pliocene, perhaps 400ppm CO2 …

h/t to  Tom Nelson and Marc Morano

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Gavin Schmidt : 8 More PPM CO2 To Raise Sea Level 20 Metres

  1. Glacierman says:

    What a smug little tool. Gavin thinks CO2 controls the climate. One good thing about modern technology is everything is saved for all to see – you can’t won’t be able to hide from this Gavin:

    • Sundance says:

      @ “Gavin thinks CO2 controls the climate”

      What am I missing? From your 2010 link Gavin states:

      “By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

      To me his position is the same in 2010 as it is now. What do you feel he is hiding from?

      • Glacierman says:

        I don’t think he is hiding. I don’t think he will be able to hide from the opinion that CO2 controls Earth’s temperature by acting like a thermostat in regulating the temperature of the Earth, as they have stated:

        “A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle”

        Their assumptions and statements are wrong. Eventually, there will be a post – post-normal period of science when they will be laughed at.

    • Sundance says:

      Thanks for clarification.

      • Glacierman says:

        A good scientist might want to explore why it is 3 degrees cooler now and sea level is 20 m lower than when CO2 was at the same concentration – given thier belief that CO2 controls the climate!

        Will he/they admit when temps don’t go up 3 degrees and sea level doesn’t rises 20 m that maybe, just maybe they are wrong? Or just pump out more BS to a low-information populace?

  2. Lou says:

    What a dumbass.

  3. gator69 says:

    Before they were heavily regulated, insurance salesmen would show prospective clients horrific pictures of fires and accidents, in order to frighten people into surrendering large sums of money to their employers.

    Science is something that benefits society, like insurance, but we need to reign in and regulate the salesmen.

  4. gator69 says:

    Look out Gavin! Gov Dave Heineman wants to drown us all!

    “Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman notified the Obama administration Tuesday that he has approved the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline to traverse his state, marking a significant step toward reviving the project after President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sidelined it.”

    Read more:

  5. Eric Simpson says:

    Members of the Chicken Little Brigade, like Schmidt and Mann et al, are little more than professional bullshitters, paid by govt dole.
    My liberal warmist brother, a biochemist, has said that there is nothing wrong with the political objectives of the scare mongers. So, my brother explicitly agrees with ex-Senator Tim Wirth who said: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” Moreover, when I suggested that, with there being two scientific camps on AGW, and with the issue unresolved, it would up to the people to decide the issue, he scoffed, implying that the people are too stupid, and saying that it would be best if society was “run by the top 5%, or even 1%” [of scientific or other technocrats]. Amazing. We can assume he would be counting on that 1% totally agreeing with him.The main thing about my warmist brother is that he discounts the contrary evidence. I think he fully subscribes to the idea that the de-industrialization goal of the warmists is good, and that the “science” could just as well be a propaganda veneer, and he is prepared to be a foot soldier in furthering that propaganda. They key point that my brother has not been able to dispute is that there is no causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures, as pointed out in this must see and share 3 minute video:
    Recently my brother was attempting to mock me for not believing in global warming. Now I had to stand up for myself in just a few words because it was a quick passing conversation. So, and I had previously showed him the video I link to above (he had no rebuttal), so anyway I say “I don’t know how you continue to push global warming when there is no evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. ” My brother just kind of nods his head, he can’t rebut my point. So I think if we have to be extremely to the point, let every other point in the AGW debate go, and concentrate solely on the key point that there is no causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. And, the point about CO2 is contrary to the earlier (and now retracted) IPCC claims. The theory was built fully on this posited causal correlation. But that correlation, as in my linked video, is shown to be non-causal.
    NON-causal. Do you know what that means?
    Temperature drives CO2, CO2 does not drive temperature. Another point, if temperature drives CO2 (not disputed now by the doomsayers) and CO2 drives temperatures, it would be a self-reinforcing loop and we would have long ago entered a runaway greenhouse scenario where the oceans would have boiled away. That didn’t happen.

    • I don’t think sceptics fully appreciate that if you show many in the public evidence of maleficence they are not interested. This is because they view these interest groups as being “on their side” so it doesn’t matter what they do or how they go about doing it.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Exactly, Will. So we need to target independents that don’t have a dog in the fight, and would be upset if they understood the deceptive non-scientific practices that these warmist scientists propagandists employ. Figure out how to demonstrate to the independents that it is about politics not science for the warmists. And show when they are caught with their pants down in obvious deception. One thing we could do is reexamine the CGate emails, and Tom Nelson’s archive (link is in the top right corner of the TNelson home page) could be very useful in this:
      And pound home my two main AGW debunking points: 1> There is nothing unusual about current temps (the hockey stick was required for this, and that has been fully debunked) (in other words, there is nothing wrong with the climate!), and 2> there is no evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 & temps; indeed, when you examine the video I linked to in my post above, you see the evidence is that if there was a causal correlation there would also have been a runaway ocean-boiling greenhouse effect. But there isn’t, and there hasn’t been (in times past when CO2 was as high as 7000ppm).
      Take these two main agw debunking points, add in the bit about the politicized & deceptive nature of the AGW proponents, and put them into a very well financed advertising campaign, and we can change public opinion. I know… that’s easier said than done. But just do it. Someone.

  6. Billy Liar says:

    So everything else was the same in the Pliocene?

    What about the Isthmus of Panama?

  7. peterh says:

    Uhuh. That is what qualifies as a climate expert.

    What a frickin’ idiot.

    Guess he has not heard of the Eemian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s