Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again:
I'll stick with the gist of my last.
You're preaching to the Choir.
I hate ***** china for several reasons. (Currency and trade manipulation, Ethnic Cleansing, Lack of Free Speech, Hong Kong, etc)
But FIRST we have to agree what the problem is and you are 'answering'/attacking the wrong person because of your obsession with China.
First you have to convince all the Deniers here (all RWers/Ding, Sunset, etc) ("Or OVERSEAS" in my last) that burning coal, etc, is even bad and has any effect.
Many, MAYBE MOST, do Not believe in AGW.
Instead you attack me on China.
I talk climate in this section.
`
I don't believe he knows how climate deniers prevent the world from reducing emissions even though that is what he is claiming.Attack you?? Really?? You may be a tad dramatic - just saying.
I am simply saying that if you have a strategy to address the climate you have to be able to execute it and without compliance all you have is talk.
Why is everybody so afraid of China??
.
1. And to get a strategy you can't have a President who thinks warming is a 'Chinese Hoax.'Attack you?? Really?? You may be a tad dramatic - just saying.
I am simply saying that if you have a strategy to address the climate you have to be able to execute it and without compliance all you have is talk.
Why is everybody so afraid of China??
.
So what is it you want deniers to do and how will that change anything?1. And to get a strategy you can't have a President who thinks warming is a 'Chinese Hoax.'
2. They're scared of losing China's 1.3 Billion customers/potential customers.
ME? I am prescribing giving Taiwan a Few Nuclear tipped subs to stop China's threatening nonsense.
Quite easy really.
China will be pissed So TFW?
And (bonus) giving the Ukrainians Ground-to-Ground missiles that can reach Moscow.
Casualties are about Putin's only worry. The number is a state secret.
`
1. And to get a strategy you can't have a President who thinks warming is a 'Chinese Hoax.'
2. They're scared of losing China's 1.3 Billion customers/potential customers.
ME? I am prescribing giving Taiwan a Few Nuclear tipped subs to stop China's threatening nonsense.
Quite easy really.
China will be pissed So TFW?
And (bonus) giving the Ukrainians Ground-to-Ground missiles that can reach Moscow.
Casualties are about Putin's only worry. The number is a state secret.
`
I'm saying we can't do anything about China's Fossil Fuel burningAnd I was starting to believe that we couldn't agree on anything - I'm on board with your Taiwan and Ukraine idea but; and this may end our new found entente,:
Biden is now president.
Are you saying that China can't be forced to live by new environmental rules because Trump pissed off Xi??
We are the biggest consumer market in the world and we should be able to leverage that to get the Chinese on board.
.
Due to your You're OCD stalking/baiting/repeats I am putting you on Ignore and will be saying so in every thread (and maybe post) of mine I think you are in.So what is it you want deniers to do and how will that change anything?
I'm saying we can't do anything about China's Fossil Fuel burning
Especially with the rest of the world not on board... and we're not on board.
We need a smart and strong Prez for openers.
None in a while and none in the cards.
More warming is already baked in no matter what we do, even if we capped CO2 at ie, 410 PPM we are now.
It's going up at least 2C save a worldwide AOC/GND.
It may no not help, but it can't hurt to have someone making an issue of it, be it AOC or that 'Gretta girl.'
Millennials and younger are the biggest advocates because they will pay the price for their elders burning.
Can't stop China/India save for war or tech miracle: Fusion.
`
It's your point, dummy. You brought it up. It's the point of the OP for crying out loud.Due to your You're OCD stalking/baiting/repeats I am putting you on Ignore and will be saying so in every thread (and maybe post) of mine I think you are in.
Which of course WILL be any thread I OP or post in.
Lately your stalking has extended to the Sci section where you don't post except for harassing mine.
So expect to see::
""Ding is on Ignore for his baiting OCD replies (that have already been answered)"" in EVERY one of my threads (and some posts) multiple times daily. Maybe 30 or more because of your stalking.
Late for Dinner.
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..
`
`
Yes!
Consensus is for textbooks and is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.Yes!
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
Opposing
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] NO longer does ANY National or International scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that Almost ALL climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change...
`
How much research is being done on the flatness of the planet Earth? None? How about whether the sun will rise in the east or the west? None? How about whether disease is caused by spirits and demons? None? How about whether or not large doses of dioxin will cure acne? None? Jesus H Christ, science is already running backwards. These lazy fools have bought into the status quo and are failing to do their duty challenging these widely accepted - but NEVER PROVEN - ideas. What is WRONG with them?!?!?Consensus is for textbooks and is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Poor little 12 Year Old anecdote ya got there!Exactly which is why AGW is not settled despite best efforts to strong arm its critics.
"...Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, claims many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions. “It’s gotten so polarized that scientists who go against the mainstream worry they’ll be treated poorly in the press,” she says. “People will just say, ‘Oh, they’ve been bought off by the oil industry,’ but that’s not always true.”
A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism
So then you believe that Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who claims that many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions is lying?Poor little 12 Year Old anecdote ya got there!
Scraping the fringes of google has not been nice to you.
Wiki
Opposing (the AGW consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] NO longer does ANY National or International scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that Almost ALL climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change...
[...........]
`
More non sequitur Idiocy/Anecdote/exceptionSo then you believe that Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, who claims that many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions is lying?
Why would she lie about that?
It seems that the Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by Human activity is largely Nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Do you believe that Claire Parkinson, a climatologist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Space Flight Center, is lying when she said, many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions?More non sequitur Idiocy/Anecdote/exception
She is Just "she."
how about a BIG consensus "THEY" again, and now much more.
It continues.
"...Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
Opposing
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] NO Longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[31][33]
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that Almost All climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
[......]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[138][139][140][141]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries....
..Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), NONE said they did not agree at all.
[.......]
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[144]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change".
They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]
Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149]
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.[150]
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.[151]
James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 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%.[152]
In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]
A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]
Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]
..................
Clair who?
From 2010?
LOFL.
`
