13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, there's another category. There are a handful of things that were never a consensus. You're relying on sensationalist claims by one person--which were only ever held by a small fringe of people--to claim a consensus, like the gas mask thing.

I am old enoug that I lived through those years. We had the same Establishment/Media goffballs then that we are being led by the nose with today, and there was a consensus of the same sort; major media story after story where scientists were trotted out to say the corporate line and create hysteria and doom-gloom.

It is all bullshit and everyone realizes that actually grasps how science works and doesn't simply mindlessly repeat the latest corporate media science bullshit.

Which is the whole point of the article, numbnuts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.

The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect.

Wow!
You're actually getting dumber.

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you'd see that atmospheric CO2 increased in 2007, in 2008, in 2009...in every year on your graph.

 

[RealDave]

I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

What does that link have to do with my simple question?

Now tell us how much is it man made and how much is it natural.



.

Your simple question was answered, sad that you could not understand it. I'll repeat it, so you may find someone to explain it to you:

"I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co."

What does a scientist have to do with my simple question?


You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?










Oh yeah no one knows.


And there lies the problem to your fantasy of environmental social justice.


.

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

And once again you and your so called " junk scientist" think 30 years or less worth of data is an accurate representation of an earth 4.5 billion years old?


.

They combine that 30 years of data with previous year's data.

Why do you think data 30 years ago is not valid?

Do you think we had zero data on climate in 1990?

We had sufficient data to know we had a problem with rising CO2 & rising temperatures.

Scientists saw this & recognized the need to study it further. They put in more measuring stations & improved the measuring devices.

And because they did this, you think it invalidates climate science.

Wow., You really are quite the ignorant ass.

 

[RealDave]

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.

You quote a known skeptic.

We know that the Earth removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Do you think it always removes the same amount??? This guy thinks that the more man emits, it must reflect in the total amount but is this necessary the case???

 

[RealDave]

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?

So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate. Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream. Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform. Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2. Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods. All drastically affecting agriculture. We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change. To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.

You are a narcissist, so you think if we didn't burn fossil fuels /deforest the climate wouldn't change?






.

.

if "we" was everyone, yes.

As an individual, you would be part of a larger movement and yes.

I don't ignore history,...



The climate will change if we are here or not and not a damn thing we can do to stop it narcissist.


.

So you now claim there is another reason out temps are rising this fast.

What is it?

 

[RealDave]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

Zero.

So, we should ignore the danger. How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

 

[RealDave]

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

Zero.

So, we should ignore the danger. How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

So, we should ignore the danger.

Why should we ignore the danger of CO2?

How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

 

[RealDave]

So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.
t you think the earth was put here for
You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

 

[Olde Europe]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

3. Science - rightly understood - never claims to be in possession of the truth. They just claim to be in possession of the best explanation for observable phenomena at that time. The OP rests on the false conception that having been wrong destroys science.

4. Science was frequently wrong. We learn about that because of science, because it is self-examining and self-correcting.

5. Delingpole is a moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.

 

[RealDave]

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

Zero.

So, we should ignore the danger. How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

So, we should ignore the danger.

Why should we ignore the danger of CO2?

How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.

One in how many years?

I am not ignoring the dangers of too much CO2, you are.

 

[RealDave]

So you are obviously for reducing emissions. Right?

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.

Are you claiming there were no nuclear plants in Illinois that leaked?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines,

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?

Yet.

Zero.

So, we should ignore the danger. How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

So, we should ignore the danger.

Why should we ignore the danger of CO2?

How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.

One in how many years?

I am not ignoring the dangers of too much CO2, you are.

One in how many years?

Can you not read?

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.

Do I need to explain the number of years in a decade?

I am not ignoring the dangers of too much CO2, you are.

I'm willing to build dozens of new nuke plants, to save us from CO2.
Mentioning nuclear power seems to make you wet yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.

Are you claiming there were no nuclear plants in Illinois that leaked?

You made the claim, post your list. Unless you were lying...….

 

[RealDave]

Your backyard?

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.

Are you claiming there were no nuclear plants in Illinois that leaked?

You made the claim, post your list. Unless you were lying...….

https://projects.bettergov.org/power-struggle/leaks.html

Leaky, leaky leaky. Ahhh whats a few thousands gallons of radioactive water.

Because these facilities are safe? They built them to withstand the largest earthquake in that region. Well, at least they told us that but then they told us they wouldn't leak.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987. These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

I'll only address this one topic to say you are quite wrong. CFCs are totally man-made and if they weren't there in the first place, ther'd be no hole over Antarctica. There is still a weak zone over Brazil. We barely averted a disaster had we continued to churn out CFCs. Without ozone, all land life would perish. Now we have to just worry about the HFCs that replaced them. You just don't mess with the ozone.

none of these doomsday scenarios ever come true and the logic behind them is the same thing con men have been using for centuries, "global warming is the reason it snowed in the desert"..."man made pollution is the reason the only continent without indigenous human life has a hole in its ozone"...no contradictions are allowed to surface in a scam...I have been surviving earth shattering, life ending, ecological disasters of all kinds since the 50's, throw what ya want at me, I'll not only survive, I'll thrive...bring it on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.

I remember, the ones the leaked. Explains a lot.

You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.

Are you claiming there were no nuclear plants in Illinois that leaked?

You made the claim, post your list. Unless you were lying...….

https://projects.bettergov.org/power-struggle/leaks.html

Leaky, leaky leaky. Ahhh whats a few thousands gallons of radioactive water.

Because these facilities are safe? They built them to withstand the largest earthquake in that region. Well, at least they told us that but then they told us they wouldn't leak.

Leaky, leaky leaky. Ahhh whats a few thousands gallons of radioactive water.

Well, at least it won't kill us all, like CO2, eh?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987. These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

I'll only address this one topic to say you are quite wrong. CFCs are totally man-made and if they weren't there in the first place, ther'd be no hole over Antarctica. There is still a weak zone over Brazil. We barely averted a disaster had we continued to churn out CFCs. Without ozone, all land life would perish. Now we have to just worry about the HFCs that replaced them. You just don't mess with the ozone.

none of these doomsday scenarios ever come true and the logic behind them is the same thing con men have been using for centuries, "global warming is the reason it snowed in the desert"..."man made pollution is the reason the only continent without indigenous human life has a hole in its ozone"...no contradictions are allowed to surface in a scam...I have been surviving earth shattering, life ending, ecological disasters of all kinds since the 50's, throw what ya want at me, I'll not only survive, I'll thrive...bring it on.

"We have to save the nation/humanity/the planet and we have to do it now, imme3diately or all is lost!"

"No, you don't have time to collect evidence, verify sources and give it thought! Speed is of the essence! We must act now or we will all perish!"

"Yes, I am making millions off all this in the meantime, but that is irrelevant, we must ACT NOW!"