Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[westwall]

So how do you explain it? You know, the way that denialism is restricted to the right-wing fringe, while AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world.

But let me guess. You're going to invoke that favorite cult conspiracy, "THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON A SOCIALIST PLOT!".

It's not. the only fringe is you clowns. AGW skepticism runs across all political spectrums, classes and scientific fields.

 

[Foxfyre]

The main thing we learn from this thread is how every denialist is a member of the lunatic extreme-right-wing-fringe cult. AGW science crosses all political boundaries, being that it's, you know, science. But denialism is restricted to a small number of right-wing ultra-partisans, because it's purely a political movement.

On some level, even denialists all know that they've been worshipping fraudsters, just to get brownie points in their political cult. That's why they should be looking for an exit strategy now. Denialists, don't wait until they're walking you to the Koolaid vat before you decide joining the cult wasn't such a hot idea. Start planning now to quietly slip off into the jungle.

Project much? Does it make the AGW Fibber Society more truthful?

Maybe the rightwing isn't so fringe or lunatic or extreme as it is rightwing because it is more objective, seeks accurate information rather than what fits the PC assigned talking point of the day, and doesn't settle for propaganda and self-serving rhetoric. Maybe those on the left are leftwingers because they ARE willing to be told what it is right to think and believe?

Either are capable of being correct. And either are capable of being wrong. But I think those who identify themselves as rightwingers are more likely to want to actually get it right rather than try to bully others into believing something is right because they were told it was supposed to be.

And those on the left put it out there whether or not they understand it or can defend it or even articulate it, just because it fits the doctrine and dogma of the AGW religionists. And if anybody objects, they are to be demonized and insulted as much as possible.

Or maybe some are just incurably stupid? Who knows?

 

[freedombecki]

So how do you explain it? You know, the way that denialism is restricted to the right-wing fringe, while AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world.

But let me guess. You're going to invoke that favorite cult conspiracy, "THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON A SOCIALIST PLOT!".

No, the AGW Fibber Society is a lot less special than that. They're after the funds that conservatives set aside for seeking the truth in foundations after they die, when interloping failures who have no moral compass whatever, compete to take those funds away from true scientists by using made up, obfuscated, and altered data, and who also try to get other scientists to fall into their web as was evidenced by outed emails showing just that.

That's not a socialist plot, but it is knocking on the door of criminality in all its ugly greed and even gore.

Yet, you throw up smokescreens to conceal how bad the situation is in order to prop up the very idiots who saw a lot of money, just sitting there, and decided they should have a piece of the pie they had no hand in making, and for lies to boot.

 

[orogenicman]

You might want to check that assertion there olfraud. As far as climate scientists go, science doesn't do high priests interpreting the Word of God. Any competent scientist can interpret what they present and in the case of anyone who isn't affiliated with the fraud, demolish it. Rutan has done more work, that is far more impressive than any of the clowns who's cock you suck.

According to that theory, any scientist can perform brain surgery without the requisite training and experience. Good luck with that.

You might want to check your bullshite statement.

No, but let's look at reality. A PhD geologist for example can teach any climatology class, both under grad and graduate level. There are third year geology classes that are beyond a PhD in climatology. It's as simple as that.

Climatology is a soft science. Geology is a hard science, or it's an EXACT science if you prefer, while climatology is an INEXACT science. Look up the differences....I dare you.

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

 

[Foxfyre]

According to that theory, any scientist can perform brain surgery without the requisite training and experience. Good luck with that.

You might want to check your bullshite statement.

No, but let's look at reality. A PhD geologist for example can teach any climatology class, both under grad and graduate level. There are third year geology classes that are beyond a PhD in climatology. It's as simple as that.

Climatology is a soft science. Geology is a hard science, or it's an EXACT science if you prefer, while climatology is an INEXACT science. Look up the differences....I dare you.

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

Geology is not a 'hard science?" If we needed no other evidence of the brain washed ignorance from the left, that sentence alone should settle it.

Definition of Geology:

Geology is the study of the Earth, the materials of which it is made, the structure of those materials, and the processes acting upon them. It includes the study of organisms that have inhabited our planet. An important part of geology is the study of how Earth’s materials, structures, processes and organisms have changed over time.

What Does a Geologist Do?

Geologists work to understand the history of our planet. The better they can understand Earth’s history the better they can foresee how events and processes of the past might influence the future. Here are some examples:

Geologists study earth processes: Many processes such as landslides, earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions can be hazardous to people. Geologists work to understand these processes well enough to avoid building important structures where they might be damaged. If geologists can prepare maps of areas that have flooded in the past they can prepare maps of areas that might be flooded in the future. These maps can be used to guide the development of communities and determine where flood protection or flood insurance is needed.

Geologists study earth materials: People use earth materials every day. They use oil that is produced from wells, metals that are produced from mines, and water that has been drawn from streams or from underground. Geologists conduct studies that locate rocks that contain important metals, plan the mines that produce them and the methods used to remove the metals from the rocks. They do similar work to locate and produce oil, natural gas and ground water.

Geologists study earth history: Today we are concerned about climate change. Many geologists are working to learn about the past climates of earth and how they have changed across time. This historical geology news information is valuable to understand how our current climate is changing and what the results might be.

What is Geology? - What does a Geologist do? - Geology.com

Probably more climatologist however get their degrees in geography or meteorology than they do geology. But you don't get a geography degree without a lot of geology courses.


Definition of hard science (n)
Bing Dictionary
hard sci·ence
1.natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

 

[orogenicman]

No, but let's look at reality. A PhD geologist for example can teach any climatology class, both under grad and graduate level. There are third year geology classes that are beyond a PhD in climatology. It's as simple as that.

Climatology is a soft science. Geology is a hard science, or it's an EXACT science if you prefer, while climatology is an INEXACT science. Look up the differences....I dare you.

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

Geology is not a 'hard science?" If we needed no other evidence of the brain washed ignorance from the left, that sentence alone should settle it.

Definition of Geology:

Geology is the study of the Earth, the materials of which it is made, the structure of those materials, and the processes acting upon them. It includes the study of organisms that have inhabited our planet. An important part of geology is the study of how Earth’s materials, structures, processes and organisms have changed over time.

What Does a Geologist Do?

Geologists work to understand the history of our planet. The better they can understand Earth’s history the better they can foresee how events and processes of the past might influence the future. Here are some examples:

Geologists study earth processes: Many processes such as landslides, earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions can be hazardous to people. Geologists work to understand these processes well enough to avoid building important structures where they might be damaged. If geologists can prepare maps of areas that have flooded in the past they can prepare maps of areas that might be flooded in the future. These maps can be used to guide the development of communities and determine where flood protection or flood insurance is needed.

Geologists study earth materials: People use earth materials every day. They use oil that is produced from wells, metals that are produced from mines, and water that has been drawn from streams or from underground. Geologists conduct studies that locate rocks that contain important metals, plan the mines that produce them and the methods used to remove the metals from the rocks. They do similar work to locate and produce oil, natural gas and ground water.

Geologists study earth history: Today we are concerned about climate change. Many geologists are working to learn about the past climates of earth and how they have changed across time. This historical geology news information is valuable to understand how our current climate is changing and what the results might be.

What is Geology? - What does a Geologist do? - Geology.com

Probably more climatologist however get their degrees in geography or meteorology than they do geology. But you don't get a geography degree without a lot of geology courses.


Definition of hard science (n)
Bing Dictionary
hard sci·ence
1.natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

 

[Foxfyre]

But then, a PhD geologist is an Earth scientist. And the Earth's climate is part and partial to the study of the Earth. Geology is not one of the hard sciences. Only physics, chemistry, and possibly biology can make that claim. Geology relies fundamentally on all of those scientific fields, but is itself an investigative science, not a fundamental science. There is only one fundamental law that can be said to have originated in geology - the law of superposition.

But that has nothing to do with the problem of you claiming that the aerospace engineers you cited have any expertize in climate science.

Geology is not a 'hard science?" If we needed no other evidence of the brain washed ignorance from the left, that sentence alone should settle it.

Definition of Geology:

Geology is the study of the Earth, the materials of which it is made, the structure of those materials, and the processes acting upon them. It includes the study of organisms that have inhabited our planet. An important part of geology is the study of how Earth’s materials, structures, processes and organisms have changed over time.

What Does a Geologist Do?

Geologists work to understand the history of our planet. The better they can understand Earth’s history the better they can foresee how events and processes of the past might influence the future. Here are some examples:

Geologists study earth processes: Many processes such as landslides, earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions can be hazardous to people. Geologists work to understand these processes well enough to avoid building important structures where they might be damaged. If geologists can prepare maps of areas that have flooded in the past they can prepare maps of areas that might be flooded in the future. These maps can be used to guide the development of communities and determine where flood protection or flood insurance is needed.

Geologists study earth materials: People use earth materials every day. They use oil that is produced from wells, metals that are produced from mines, and water that has been drawn from streams or from underground. Geologists conduct studies that locate rocks that contain important metals, plan the mines that produce them and the methods used to remove the metals from the rocks. They do similar work to locate and produce oil, natural gas and ground water.

Geologists study earth history: Today we are concerned about climate change. Many geologists are working to learn about the past climates of earth and how they have changed across time. This historical geology news information is valuable to understand how our current climate is changing and what the results might be.

What is Geology? - What does a Geologist do? - Geology.com

Probably more climatologist however get their degrees in geography or meteorology than they do geology. But you don't get a geography degree without a lot of geology courses.


Definition of hard science (n)
Bing Dictionary
hard sci·ence
1.natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

How many sources would you like to define what is a 'hard science"?

World English Dictionary
hard science — n
a. one of the natural or physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or astronomy
b. ( as modifier ): a hard-science lecture

From Biology Online:
Hard science
Definition
noun
Any of the natural or physical sciences wherein facts or truths are derived from empirical investigations or experiments based on scientific method.

Physical science
Definition
noun
Any of the sciences concerned with the study of non-living systems, such as the nature and properties of energy, in contrast to biological sciences that study living systems.

Supplement
Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and other disciplines concerned with the study of non-living things are examples of physical science.

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

 

[orogenicman]

Geology is not a 'hard science?" If we needed no other evidence of the brain washed ignorance from the left, that sentence alone should settle it.



Probably more climatologist however get their degrees in geography or meteorology than they do geology. But you don't get a geography degree without a lot of geology courses.


Definition of hard science (n)
Bing Dictionary
hard sci·ence
1.natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology, or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're relying on Bing dictionary for your argument? Lol.

Is geology a natural science? Yes. Is it a fundamental physical science like physics or Chemistry? No. Geology is primarily a historical, investigative scientific discipline. It utilizes the fundamental principles of physics, chemistry, and biology in its investigations of Earth processes, but is NOT in itself a fundamental science. As I've pointed out, the only law ever ascribed to geology is the law of superposition, and yet it is based simply on the law of universal gravity, which is a fundamental physical law.

By the way, I am a degreed geologist. And you?

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper. I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science. Nor can you find any credible source that would even suggest that it is. As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

 

[Impenitent]

"Killer"
(Thriller)

It's close to midnight
The waves are rollin past last night's mark
Under the moonlight
You see a sight that almost stops your heart
You try to scream
But terror takes the sound before you make it
You start to freeze
You know there's no high ground left to take it
You're paralyzed

'Cause its a killer
Killer in every right
And no one's gonna save you
From the heat about to strike
You know it's a killer
Killer coming at you so many ways
You're fighting for your life
Outside a killer
Killer tonight, yeah

You feel the waves slap
And realize there's nowhere left to run
You pray for a cold snap
Then realize it's too late - you're undone
You close your eyes
And hope that this is just imagination
But all the while
You feel the temperature creepin'' up behind
You're outta time

'Cause this is a killer
Killer at night
There ain't no second chance against co2's St. Vitus dance
Against the
Killer
Killer at night
You're fighting for your life
Inside a killer
Killer tonight

Someone tripped a sensor
Who'll kill you for a can of beans
Where 's your Roy Spencer
He and Lindzen and other men with means
Are on Antartica it seems
They get to pass on man's genes
Free from starvation and cutthroats
And these stinking bodies afloat
But what about you and me
Now gimme that can of beans
And you will see

That mankind caused a killer
Killer in the air, the land, and the sea
What good is a balanced budget
And personal responsibility
If to merely stay alive
A man becomes a
Killer in the night
Judge and jury
In his own right
In this anthropogenic anarchy

Gore soliloquy:
"Darkness falls across Greenland
The ice gone, now only barren sand
Animals crawl in search of food
In packs or alone in two-legged neighborhoods
And whosoever shall be found
Without the soul for the killing ground
Must stand and face the hounds of hell
And rot inside a corpse's shell'

'The foulest stench is in the air
The funk of two hundred years
And grizzly ghouls from every tomb
Are closing in to seal your doom
And though you fight to stay alive
Everybody dies in this thriller
For no mere mortal can resist
The evil of the anthropogenic killer"

 

[orogenicman]

If the theories are testable and the tests are repeatable, it is hard science. Pure and simple. Scientists know that. Sadly, so many AGW religionists do not.

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".

And sir, based on the quality of your posts I have seen thus far, if you are a degreed geologist, I am the Queen of Sheba. I HAVE degreed geologists in my family and among my closest associations including one tenured professor at the University of New Mexico here. And I'm pretty sure not a single one of them would say that geology is not a hard science.

Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper.

Yes, by your definition.

I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science.

You're singing to the choir, not that you get it.

As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

Right. He used to be the department chairman. He is a paleontologist who specializes in crinoid paleozoology. We have been co-authors in the past, and have been on many field trips together.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I'm one of those authors. The other two are my friends. One is my best friend, and is the curator at the Falls of the Ohio River Interpretive Center.

Oh, and by the way, the friends I mention don't mind me mentioning them because they are also real scientists who have worked for decades in the public domain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many scientific disciplines have theories that are testable and repeatable. That alone does not make them a Hard science (i.e., fundamental science). By your definition, psychology is a "hard science".



Some of my closest friends are tenured professors in Geology, such as Dr George Lager, Dr. James Conkin, And Dr. William Ausich. Whether or not any of the people you know would say that geology is a hard science" is debatable since it isn't even clear that you've ever asked them that question. Being a geologist, I don't have to ask. I already know the answer.

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper.

Yes, by your definition.

I can give you some excellent reasons without referring to any other source why psychology is not and will likely never be a hard science.

You're singing to the choir, not that you get it.

As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

Right. He used to be the department chairman. He is a paleontologist who specializes in crinoid paleozoology. We have been co-authors in the past, and have been on many field trips together.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I'm one of those authors. The other two are my friends. One is my best friend, and is the curator at the Falls of the Ohio River Interpretive Center.

Oh, and by the way, the friends I mention don't mind me mentioning them because they are also real scientists who have worked for decades in the public domain.

Impressive if true. But based on the strength of your arguments in this thread, or rather the lack of strength, I'm sorry. I just don't believe you.

 

[orogenicman]

By my definition "Psychology is a hard science?" That is really pathetic and you keep digging the hole deeper.

Yes, by your definition.



You're singing to the choir, not that you get it.

As for your list of 'closest friends', anybody can make a list. But I really think a competent degreed geologist would not put his friends' names out here on a message board without getting permission from those same friends. But why don't you ask them whether geology is a hard science and get back to me on that.

In fact, I am pretty sure one of my friends knows Dr. Ausich, if that is the same professor as the one at Ohio State. (My friend worked on some project at Ohio State a few years ago.) I'll ask him to ask him.

Right. He used to be the department chairman. He is a paleontologist who specializes in crinoid paleozoology. We have been co-authors in the past, and have been on many field trips together.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I'm one of those authors. The other two are my friends. One is my best friend, and is the curator at the Falls of the Ohio River Interpretive Center.

Oh, and by the way, the friends I mention don't mind me mentioning them because they are also real scientists who have worked for decades in the public domain.

Impressive if true. But based on the strength of your arguments in this thread, or rather the lack of strength, I'm sorry. I just don't believe you.

That, of course, is your problem, not mine.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not a problem at all. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people have misstated their credentials, especially on these environmental threads. And if I have misjudged you, well, that doesn't really matter either does it?

 

[daveman]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

BTW, what actually warms the Earth?


That big yellow ball in the sky. Temperatures on Earth are directly related to Sun spot activity.

You could boil water on the moon in the day, then deep-freeze it at night.

Same sun. Different atmosphere.

Gee, we would be so ****ed if somebody screwed with our atmosphere...wait!

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

 

[daveman]

So how do you explain it? You know, the way that denialism is restricted to the right-wing fringe, while AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world.

But let me guess. You're going to invoke that favorite cult conspiracy, "THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON A SOCIALIST PLOT!".

New Survey: Half Of American Meteorologists Believe Global Warming Mostly Man-Made | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

A comprehensive survey has been conducted of the American Meteorological Society membership to elicit their views on global warming. Only 52% state that the warming is mostly anthropogenic.​

 

[Foxfyre]

So how do you explain it? You know, the way that denialism is restricted to the right-wing fringe, while AGW science crosses all political boundaries all across the world.

But let me guess. You're going to invoke that favorite cult conspiracy, "THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN ON A SOCIALIST PLOT!".

New Survey: Half Of American Meteorologists Believe Global Warming Mostly Man-Made | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

A comprehensive survey has been conducted of the American Meteorological Society membership to elicit their views on global warming. Only 52% state that the warming is mostly anthropogenic.​

Then again, in February of this year:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. . . .

More here:
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

 

[orogenicman]

It's not a problem at all. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people have misstated their credentials, especially on these environmental threads. And if I have misjudged you, well, that doesn't really matter either does it?

Not at all. You seemed curious, so I told you. Whether or not you believe it is on you.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not a problem at all. It certainly wouldn't be the first time people have misstated their credentials, especially on these environmental threads. And if I have misjudged you, well, that doesn't really matter either does it?

Not at all. You seemed curious, so I told you. Whether or not you believe it is on you.

Well one of your buddies here on the thread has been passionately defending your credentials. Seems really important to him that I believe that you and he are esteemed scientists. But oh well. Ya'll make a cute couple.

 

[Impenitent]

Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.

BTW, what actually warms the Earth?


That big yellow ball in the sky. Temperatures on Earth are directly related to Sun spot activity.

You could boil water on the moon in the day, then deep-freeze it at night.

Same sun. Different atmosphere.

Gee, we would be so ****ed if somebody screwed with our atmosphere...wait!

Psssst! The moon doesn't have any atmosphere.

Atmosphere of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level.​

The point being made, is that the difference is the cause of Earth's atmosphere, not the sun, so it is reasonable to be concerned if it is being anthropogenicly changed.