Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[ding]

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

Let's see you deny some more science, you ideological zealot.

You are free to cling to whatever your dogmatic ideology demands..

The scientific community will persist in objectively dealing with the credible empirical data that has resulted in the consensus.

Take whatever solace you can derive from Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) having an even higher proportion of people denying science than the U.S., and/or Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, South Sudan remaining apostates by not having yet ratified the Paris Climate Accord.

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

 

[schmidlap]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

 

[ding]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.​

 

[schmidlap]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.​

You are entitled to your ideological dogma, but your pretense that you are privy to vital data that mysteriously eludes all climatological associations, academies, and societies, all the scientific institutions, and all the nations on earth is a bit much.

Doesn't maintaining such a crackpot insistence make you feel very, very silly?

 

[ding]

dipschmidt is a prime example of a brainwashed dupe of communism. I know some of you may not be able to make that connection but I assure you that connection exists even if dipschmidt doesn't believe he supports communism.

 

[ding]

America has become communism lite.

 

[ding]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.​

You are entitled to your ideological dogma, but your pretense that you are privy to vital data that mysteriously eludes all climatological associations, academies, and societies, all the scientific institutions, and all the nations on earth is a bit much.

Doesn't maintaining such a crackpot insistence make you feel very, very silly?

You are a political ideologue, dipschmidt.

Here is the only science that has been done, dummy.


https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%.

 

[ReinyDays]

Other countries buy into the cradle to grave crap too.

Your appeal to that simply says that the U.S. is the one thing keeping us from making some seriously stupid decisions.

The United Sates, along with Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, are the hotbeds of science denialism, but that does not mean that the fringe element of dogmatic ideologues, impervious to the ever-mounting evidence, is anything more than that.

Whether all the world's scientific institutions, academies, and societies are corrupt or are all ignorant regarding the science, - either way duping virtually all the nations on earth who have ratified the Paris Agreement - is a comprehensive paranoia, indeed.

... impervious to the ever-mounting evidence ...

Whoa ... you have evidence of climate change? ... so far you've relied on political consensus ... which isn't evidence ... generally, the Alarmists use statistics, which are easily manipulated and disdained as evidence in science ... only politicians use statistics ... from "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics" we can derive "LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS" -- Benjamin Disraeli ...

For over 200 years, we had universal consensus about Newton's Laws of Gravity and Motion ... only one person dared to think otherwise ... Albert Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity was published without citations ... no one had ever considered this before ... not only did Einstein provide the rigid mathematical proof of Special Relativity, the principles were easily demonstrated in any university lab ... consensus immediately changed while that edition of Annalen der Physik was still warm from the presses ... if 100% of the world's scientists can change their collective mind in an instant, consensus is worthless in science ... (I only made a quick scan of the paper itself, here's the link to the English version) ...

The CO2 portion of AGW Theory lacks both these conditions ... there's a serious gap in the mathematical proof and there's no demonstration that man-kind's CO2 has anything more that a trivial effect on global temperatures ... thus I ask for this evidence no one else seems to know about ...

I don't know why my fellow denialists disdain Climatology so much ... it's certainly deeper than any biologist or chemist would understand ... what biologists or chemists learn in first year physics is all they'll every use ... anything to do with the atmosphere is physics physics physics, and all that God-awful math that goes along with physics physics physics ... fluid mechanics with heaping doses of chemistry and geology and we have meteorology ... now blend in with astrophysics and we have climatology ...

"Appealing to Authority" is a logical fallacy ... I have the deepest respect for biologists who brought us this Covid vaccine ... amazing workmanship ... but that doesn't mean I'd trust them with a sling psychrometer around children ... once we get to Navier-Stokes-land, the typical scientist pees their pants ... this is the consensus you rely on? ... <sicilian voice>"morons, all of them"</sicilian voice> ...

I expect that the science-denying ideologues will persist in attacking the world's scientific academies, societies, and organizations as well as the 197 nations and all governmental agencies that acknowledge the science.

Their being in a tizzy has no impact upon science.

Ummm.........but that has been so for almost 20 years. So what? What beyond symbolism has that impacted? Answer? Nothing.

The folks who make western energy policy arent caring a lick. Here...........check the US EIA report from a few months ago.........

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/

The 97% "consensus" hasnt done dick in terms of impacting anything outside of the field. Its not even debatable. Only progressives spike the ball based upon symbolic stuff. Only matters who is winning and who is not.

After 20 years of the "97% consensus", solar/wind still only combine to generate less than 8% of the electricity in the US. By any measure.........laughable. And if you click that EIA report with projections out to 2040, its grim if one is a climate crusader.

The "97%......" stuff is as valuable as a fossil in 2021. Meanwhile, the skeptics routinely get to observe the abject failure on the resume's of climate activists. Think of the millions of internet posts over the years that havent added up to dick.

The relatively few and increasingly isolated hardcore ideologues who persist in vehemently opposing science will not sabotage the inclusive international effort to mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, nor cause the scientific community worldwide to falsify its empirical data that increasingly confirms the reality.

If a few crackpots fantasize that global warming is a Chinese hoax contrived to adversely impact U.S. manufacturing, responsible folks need not be concerned about them.

Mayors, especially, are confronted by the disastrous consequences of climate change, and it is not a partisan nor an ideological issue for them. It is a practical one, a growing problem that must be confronted:

Over 140 mayors from cities across the country are calling on congressional leadership today to push for aggressive climate measures in their infrastructure legislation that they say will benefit localities. The group, which ranges from the heads of country’s 10 most populous cities to the leaders of small rural towns, wrote to the lawmakers to press them to address climate change through the lens of equity as the country emerges from the pandemic.​

​

“The climate and equity crises we face are interrelated and have been compounded by Covid-19, and therefore must be addressed through collaborative, holistic thinking and bold, innovative ideas,” the mayors write. The signatories are members of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group that formed in 2014 and ballooned following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.​

​

The mayors outlined a host of climate measures, focusing on expanding programs that directly finance cities, promote job quality and help disadvantaged communities. Among the items is at least $4 billion in direct appropriation on top of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities funding to reduce communities’ risks to natural disasters and hazards and at least $200 million to support community development and implementation of wildfire defense plans — just as wildfires ravage a dozen Western states.​

​

[Mayors push climate infrastructure action]​

You haven't answered my question ... why do you put so much trust in biologists and chemists in matters wholly unrelated to their field of expertise? ... do you also get investment advise from a fast food workers? ...

The appropriate question for an ideological denialist is "Why do you imagine that you know more about climate than climatologists?"

Besides the understandable concerns of the nations mayors confronting the immediate consequences, and the U.S Department of Defense necessarily attuned to the national security repercussions, agriculture is, obviously, seriously impacted.

View attachment 513190​

Agriculture in a Changing Climate​

Changes in climate and extreme weather have already occurred and are increasing challenges for agriculture nationally and globally. Many of the impacts are expected to continue or intensify in the future. Because of the sensitivity of agriculture to weather and climate conditions, these impacts can have substantial direct and indirect effects on farm production and profitability.​

The effects of a changing climate and climate variability are already being seen across the Midwest Region; over the past century, temperatures have risen across all seasons, growing seasons have become longer, precipitation patterns have changed, and extreme precipitation events have increased in frequency and severity. The impact of climate on agricultural production in the Midwest varies among years particularly in grain, vegetable, and fruit production. The diversity of the annual and perennial crops across the Midwest creates a range of responses to climate and weather. One of the goals of the Midwest Climate Hub is to work with each of these different commodities to determine the impacts that different conditions have on production.​

Climate impacts on livestock and agricultural production are detectable via data-based observations in the United States. The following links give more information on these changes and observations....​

​

[Agriculture in a Changing Climate | USDA Climate Hubs]​

"Why do you imagine that you know more about climate than climatologists?"

First off ... climatology is easy to understand ... statistics involves basic arithmetic ... any amateur astronomer will know enough about radiative physics to understand all this about the greenhouse effect ... I guess we'll need high school algebra to derive the form of SB we're using ... there's on-line calculators that will give you fourth roots if your wrist watch doesn't ... dynamic meteorology is difficult ... only stupid people resort to a climatology degree because third year calculus is too hard for them, poor babies ...

You haven't even bothered to understand ... which makes you look totally ignorant ... I'm sorry, just about all climatologists interviewed on tofu-puking NPR all say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I don't know either, that makes me as smart as climatologists ... you accept the word of some biologist ... how stupid is that? ...

Now you're posting the opinions of farmers ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

 

[schmidlap]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

Every reputable climatological organization on earth supported by every scientific one, have confirmed the impact of anthropogenic global warming to the satisfaction of virtually ever nation on earth. Even your Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan are signatories to the Paris Accord, even if they have yet to ratify it.

Why can't to get their attention with your astounding exposition of such monumental fraud and/or error?

 

[schmidlap]

you're posting the opinions of farmers ...

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is a matter of great concern for farmers, and so the Department of Agriculture, like the Department of Defense, Commerce, and other responsible entities, like the hundreds of mayors throughout America, are conscientiously attempting to mitigate the scientific reality.

[Climate Change and Agriculture]

For them to defer to a crackpot ideological fringe rather than heed the global consensus of experts would be criminally negligent.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

Every reputable climatological organization on earth supported by every scientific one, have confirmed the impact of anthropogenic global warming to the satisfaction of virtually ever nation on earth. Even your Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan are signatories to the Paris Accord, even if they have yet to ratify it.

Why can't to get their attention with your astounding exposition of such monumental fraud and/or error?

Which point on Earth's surface are you referring to? ...

Please provide your confirmation of AGW ... climatologists say there is none yet ...

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Please provide these documents ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is tracking the largest of these disasters. Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained close to 300 major weather-related events with a total cost close to $2 trillion. In 2020, 22 such events occurred, and the cost of dealing with them was $95 billion. What would be the cost of prevention? A 2020 report by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projected that a global investment of $110 trillion in decarbonization by 2050 would set the world on a sustainable growth path (and allow the recouping of many of these initial costs). The U.S. share of this total would probably come out to about $30 trillion.

$2 trillion in weather costs between 1980-2020 is awful!!!!

We need to do something now. Today!!!
Quick, let's spend $30 trillion by 2050 ($1 trillion a year).

You assholes are bad at science and AWFUL at accounting.

 

[Oddball]

Why are you denying the science, you ideologue zealot?

if you are unable to address the pertinent matters I raised, I understand.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

After that, tell the class, under no uncertain terms, what the perfect temperature would/should be.

 

[westwall]

You must go fuck yourself. You are a semi sentient toad. I just gave you historical fact that blows the claims of the climatologists right out of the water.

An honest person, which you are not, would say "hey, thank you. I was not aware of those facts" but you resort to non sequitur attacks like the intellectual cripple you are.

Whatever data you evoke for your ideological dogma in denial of science has not been concealed from legitimate climatologists, scientists, or the community of nations. All legitimate and relevant empirical data is integrated into their analysis. Your cherry-picked, self-serving snippets are no substitute.

1) Please provide your list of all climatological associations, academies, and societies, anywhere on earth, that reject the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

2) Please name all the scientific institutions, anywhere on earth, that disavow the consensus of climatologists who document the reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

​

3) Please list all the nations on earth that are in denial of the documented reality of anthropogenic climate change.​

You may become flustered and need to rage and spew your vituperations, but please try to control yourself, be civil, and attempt to address these entreaties to be rational.

Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T monetarily benefit from the fraud.

We'll wait.

 

[schmidlap]

Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T monetarily benefit from the fraud.

I am unaware if the world's climatological and other scientific organizations, all the signatories to the Paris Accord, hundreds of U.S. mayors, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, or others are all being paid off by the dirty fuel cartel, but it sounds paranoid.

 

[schmidlap]

Please provide these documents ... pick any point on the Earth's surface, tell us what the climate was 100 years ago, what the climate is today and what the climate will be in 100 years ... if all three are the same, then climate isn't changing ...

After that, tell the class, under no uncertain terms, what the perfect temperature would/should be.

Rather than make up a snippet fake criteria, why not reference global expertise and the vast amount of data the most knowledgable and experienced have accrued and analyzed? The consensus is quite significant.

 

[westwall]

Provide a list of scientific societies who support the fraud that DON'T monetarily benefit from the fraud.

I am unaware if the world's climatological and other scientific organizations, all the signatories to the Paris Accord, hundreds of U.S. mayors, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, or others are all being paid off by the dirty fuel cartel, but it sounds paranoid.

I asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.

GO!

And it is quite apparent that you are unaware.

 

[mamooth]

I asked you to provide a list of societies who do not benefit monetarily from supporting the fraud.

All lof them. Why did you think that was a tough question?

Oh, I get it. Every person and organization on your own side is corrupt. Your side runs entirely on bribe money and paid propaganda, so you project your own lifestyle on to that of moral people.

Always remember that we are not like you. Your side's corruption and immorality is unique to your side.

 

[schmidlap]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are also crackpots whose ideological dogma compels them to rave against lepidopterists, vulcanologists, cardiologists - or experts in any other scientific discipline.

It's odd, but some folks are just not rational in such matters.