MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers

[Ame®icano]

After all the cooked data, exposed emails, and disastrous Michael Mann hockey stick lie why anyone believes these global warming nuts is beyond me.

Deniers that way----------------------->

What exactly am I denying?

 

[Crick]

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.

 

[Slyhunter]

Solution; lock up all the communist global warming alarmists.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.

Problem is, the scientists have still not made a strong enough case to the public....which is the ONLY thing that matters in the real world. If "the science" does not transcend beyond the field, its but a little factoid like lithium on the periodic table. I mean, what a snoozefest.

The public has been well aware of the scientific consensus on AGW for 15 years at least...but the public could not possibly be yawning any wider. You are too much into banner gazing s0n.....most folks are waaaaaaaay too busy to care.

 

[sparky]

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.

Problem is , the sceintists have still not a strong enough bank account to present their case to the public....which is the ONLY thing that matters in the real world

~S~

 

[Ame®icano]

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.

*global warming*

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Greenland Ice Cap Sees 2nd Year Of Above Average Growth

You lefties need much more evidence that giving trillion of dollars in carbon credits to billionaires will save the planet. The truth is, leftist hysteria will end when the money dries up.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.

*global warming*

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Greenland Ice Cap Sees 2nd Year Of Above Average Growth

You lefties need much more evidence that giving trillion of dollars in carbon credits to billionaires will save the planet. The truth is, leftist hysteria will end when the money dries up.

Lol......

 

[cnm]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Peter Ferrara Contributor I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.
May 31, 2012, 03:26pm​

Deniers that way---------------------->

 

[skookerasbil]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Peter Ferrara Contributor I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.
May 31, 2012, 03:26pm​

Deniers that way---------------------->

s0n.....hate to break it to you but clearly, a majority of the public are deniers!!

How do we know?

Because in the past 12 years, congress hasn't enacted dick to fight climate change. Nobody is calling their representative.........because nobody cares.

You have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Doy

 

[Ame®icano]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Peter Ferrara Contributor I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.
May 31, 2012, 03:26pm​

Deniers that way---------------------->

It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.

So, what about the other two articles you conveniently omitted?

And do you really think that calling us "deniers" gives you some power over us?

 

[Crick]

It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue. It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs". It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.

 

[skookerasbil]

Most people in the world dont give a wit about what the vast majority of scientists think. It's a veritable hobby s0n....for guys with few real responsibilities in life.

Gun grabbers are everywhere screaming out their pronouncements but it never adds up to dick in the real world. People like David Hogg.....a symbol only. The 2nd Amendment has never enjoyed greater popularity than it has now. Gun sales off the hook since 2013.

Its banner gazing.....just like the alarmists. Always banner gazing.

But feel free to take bows while skeptics win on everything....climate change action is non-existent.

 

[Crick]

It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue. It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs". It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.

I never had any faith that humanity would act sufficiently to stave off global warming. It was far too much to ask. Remember that line from 'Men in Black'? A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!

And boy, are there some of those people around here.

 

[Ame®icano]

It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue. It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs". It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.

According to "vast majority of scientists" you're referring to, we should be under hundred feet of water several times in the past thirty years or so, we would not have Eastern or Western coast and the rest of the country would have tropical climate, right?

Scientists have a track record of making catastrophic predictions for the near future that don't come true and everyone just pretends it didn't happen. Every time they "adjust" their computer models and re-cook the data and make more similar and catastrophic predictions whose sole purpose is to just get them more funding.

Since none of their predictions came true, they change the game, new predictions are based on what will happen in a 100 or more years if we don't do something now, knowing that none of us will be alive to laugh in their face when it doesn't happen again. With their computer models they cant accurately predict what will be in 10 years, why should we trust to their 100 year predictions? If their models are so precise and correct, why don't they take that data collected in the past 50 or 100 years and predict what climate we should have now? Nah, that's not proper way to do it, data is to complex and inconsistent, right?

The earth's climate is an immensely complex system. What's more, there is no control model analyzing the effects of a specific variable on a massive system without a control model is borderline pseudoscience. The more certain someone sounds when they tell you how it'll change in 50 years the less you should trust them.

Say it’s real for argument’s sake. The people proposing solutions directly contradict themselves with their stances on migration: "Inviting millions upon millions of third worlders with virtually no carbon footprints into first world countries so that they can all have massive first world sized carbon footprints like the ones we’re being told to reduce and giving them and their litters or children access to first world medical care so the global population can further explode when we’ve been told it’s already overcrowded."

Explain it. Explain how you reconcile that shit?

 

[Crick]

Sorry dude, but you obviously haven't a CLUE what scientists have actually been saying about global warming for the last few decades. So it's probably not a great idea to try to make it up in front of an audience that, for the most part, does.

 

[Ame®icano]

They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.

Exactly!

75/77 proves it.

Now it is time to discuss solutions.

Mexicans emit much less CO2 per capita than Americans..
Every illegal alien we boot helps to save the planet.

Settled science. Let's see how is settled...

In 2009, American Geophysical Union (AGU) sent an online survey to 10,257 earth scientists asking the following two questions:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of the about 3000 scientists who responded, 82% answered "yes" to the second question.
Of those 3000 scientists who responded, only 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals were considered in AGUs survey statistics.

That means that "98% of all scientists" referred to 75 of those 77 handpicked who answered "yes".

10,257 asked > some 3000 replied > 77 fit AGUs criteria > 75 agreed = 98% of ???

Consensus my ass.

 

[Crick]

Oh my. Are you really that uninformed?

I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.

From Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

"no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

"James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

Replication studies have shown that the 2% of climate science papers that rejected the scientific consensus on climate change in 2016 were methodologically flawed.[145]"

[141]Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
[142]^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
[143]^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
[144]^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.
[145]^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; Dorland, Rob van; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.

 

[danielpalos]

How the fuck am I denying it

By denying the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. By denying the temperature data presented and agreed by consensus. That means you are a denier. Your table is that way-------------->

we need new Cities in more optimal locations.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh my. Are you really that uninformed?

I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.

From Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

"no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

"James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

Replication studies have shown that the 2% of climate science papers that rejected the scientific consensus on climate change in 2016 were methodologically flawed.[145]"

[141]Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
[142]^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
[143]^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
[144]^ Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.
[145]^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; Dorland, Rob van; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.

Sure, everyone who doesn't agree with your dogma is uninformed.

Than you cite Wikipedia as a proof of you being informed.

By the way, have you experienced your climate grief yet?

'Climate grief': The growing emotional toll of climate change

 

[Crick]

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments. If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know. I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad