I fell for it too. I had been working as an engineer overseas when I had my son. He was born with lung problems. I sold my business and pursued a masters in bioengineering with the intent on developing tools and methods to help tackle pollution. I still hold out hopes, but most of our tech is readily ignored.

For most projects, you have to mention climate change to receive funding. But it was during my graduate studies that I came to see the fraud. I had been overseas for most of my career and I came back to a rapidly degenerating nation. The hope of change post-Bush was already clearly not going to happen. So I was somewhat skeptical of things being sold by the MSM.

Part of my studies were in Sustainability. We were quickly indoctrinated. I already kind of generally believed in global warming, but then I started questioning the things we were presented with.

A graph was shown using a 400,000 year timeline of CO2 levels and temperatures. They lined up quite closely and we moved on to the supposed population dilemna. We were put through discussions and asked to write about how it was necessary for people to die to protect the rest. One project involved showing how we can't be energy independent.

People started bringing up solutions. They were either immediately hostily shot-down or ignored.

At this point I started to dig. I looked at the graph in more detail. CO2 increases followed warming by 600 years. I discussed this and people lauded a new report suggesting that it followed by only 300 years. To me it was blatantly disingenuous of the professors to show a graph and claim it proved global warming without adding this little fact.

Every time someone questioned the narrative, we were told that big oil funded the counterclaims. I looked this up. Yes, apparently it's true to a certain extent. A few problems with that though:

1. Governments make more off oil than oil companies due through tax. 2. Oil companies would earn higher profits if oil was restricted but no alternatives were available. 3. The BBC had internal discussions on whether or not to report on contradictions to the global warming theory in the 90's and decided not to. 4. There is significantly more funding for climate change research than against it.

For a long time I have been stating that global warming theory is a friend to big oil. They have just requested a carbon tax.

There is a lot more, but this post is getting long. In short, no part of climate change theory has been proven, the 97% figure includes climate skeptics and people who secured funding for unrelated research by including the term "climate change". And Agenda 21.

Big oil doesn't deny climate change, they are promoting a carbon tax as linked in OP.

You mean the one titled "Paying for Carbon" signed by the six largest oil suppliers in the world, published on BP's own website? Which states:

"For us to do more, we need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy frameworks. This would reduce uncertainty and help stimulate investments in the right low carbon technologies and the right resources at the right pace. We believe that a price on carbon should be a key element of these frameworks. If governments act to price carbon, this discourages high carbon options and encourages the most efficient ways of reducing emissions widely, including reduced demand for the most carbon intensive fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, the use of natural gas in place of coal, increased investment in carbon capture and storage, renewable energy, smart buildings and grids, off-grid access to energy, cleaner cars and new mobility business models and behaviors. Our companies are already exposed to a price on carbon emissions by participating in existing carbon markets and applying ‘shadow’ carbon prices in our own businesses to test whether investments will be viable in a world where carbon has a higher price. Yet, whatever we do to implement carbon pricing ourselves will not be sufficient or commercially sustainable unless national governments introduce carbon pricing even-handedly and eventually enable global linkage between national systems. Some economies have not yet taken this step, and this could create uncertainty about investment and disparities in the impact of policy on businesses. Therefore, we call on governments, including at the UNFCCC negotiations in Paris and beyond – to:  introduce carbon pricing systems where they do not yet exist at the national or regional levels  create an international framework that could eventually connect national systems."

I won't be replying to you anymore.

Feel free to try to prove it.

Here is an article on a John Hopkins study http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140202111055.htm:

"Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say."

Have the climate changists incorporated this into their models?

Article on a Nasa study http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html:

"NASA's Langley Research Center instruments show that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity, but that in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space. The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."

Here is an image of the carbon cycle with the hydro cycle:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/carbon_toolkit/images/carbon_cycle.jpg

Notice that CO2 reaches above the clouds? So how much warming is CO2 causing in the lower atmosphere vs cooling in the upper? According to NASA, it blocked out 95% of in the upper atmosphere.

Where are the revisions to the theory based on these discoveries?

There has been significant amounts of provably false data that has been submitted claiming to prove climate change. Where's the proof that it's real? Can I get a hotspot? Can I get some warming over the last 18 years?

Fuck it right, the debate is over according to one side. Does that mean they will all give up their funding and move it towards solutions to the problem? According to their predictions, we're fucked if they don't, so I'm sure they won't mind giving up their positions and salaries.

Directly from NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

"For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

In human terms, this is a lot of energy. According to the New York City mayor’s office, an average NY household consumes just under 4700 kWh annually. This means the geomagnetic storm dumped enough energy into the atmosphere to power every home in the Big Apple for two years.

“Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”"

Original link used:

http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html

NASA:

"CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere"

I don't see why you're confused.

It was "fed to me" and you and the scientific community by NASA based on direct observations.

This isn't particularly new, since we have long known that eruptions cause cooling.

Don't be shy, perhaps you can try to prove any of the testing has met the requirements to validate the theory you support.

You didn't say they were coolants, NASA did. You tried to hide behind bullshit.

What don't you understand about "CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere"?

Yes, look at overall trends. Overall trends show that the planet warms, creating more habitat, creating more life, which then dies and emits CO2. The warming stops, CO2 continues to rise as the life starts to die and then follows the temperature down.

These are overall trends, not a few years of altered data to "hide the decline" or using knotty pine to make an incline.

I told you I won't reply, but you and friends have managed to leave this thread in oblivion so I guess no one will ever know.

Second paragraph, first line: excess carbon in the atmosphere warms the planet:

True. When deforestation happens, i.e. removing carbon from the atmosphere, it causes cooling. When deserts are reforested, it causes warming.

Nothing to do with CO2.

3rd paragraph, 2nd line: Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapour concentrations.

False on many levels. The sun provides the heating. Since NASA, the author, also states that CO2 is one of the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, we can't really take the rest of the paragraph and by extension the proposed process seriously.

You can't say: when CO2 concentrations drop, Earth cools, therefore causing ... when you have elsewhere stated that CO2 in the upper atmosphere blocks out radiation from the sun which heats the planet.

And the sun doesn't live in the earth's crust.

That same sun which is reflected by the CO2 in the thermosphere, is the same one that provides the heating for the CO2 near the surface.

If you are getting paid for this, I feel sorry for you.

If you aren't, then I feel worse.

Big oil doesn't deny climate change, they are promoting a carbon tax as linked in OP.