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.
Now "settled science" is a matter of polls?!?
Wikipedia is a known Leftist biased site. Anything they say will support the Leftist narrative, and agenda. But, to your point. True analytical science should not be beholden to politics, nor public opinion. It s obvious many if not most academics, and scientists have sold out to whomever is paying them as now funding, and material gain is more important than ethics.
It is a scam and saying that scientists are in nearly 100% agreement is a stone lie.No. I was addressing this statement by poster Pilot "Well MMGW is a hoax, and scam, and less, and less people believe in it every day. And that IS a FACT."
However, what is fringe science and what is settled science IS a matter of polls or surveys. It depends entirely on the degree of acceptance by the scientific community.
I have no idea who or what you mean by "Goebbels warming" or "Stone lies like this".
None of the predictions of the MMGW alarmists have come true. NONE. So why should we believe anything they say when they are batting .000? Why should we purposely raise taxes, energy costs, and the cost of every product and service when the people pushing it have been 100% wrong? Why would anyone with a half a brain do that? Ideology? Belief in a failed religion? Virtue Signaling?
Either have Jobs, and a booming economy, or policy based on FEEL GOOD nonsense. Pick one.
I couldn't care less what linguistic idioms you have or haven't heard of....Irrelevancies are irrelevant."stone lie". I have never heard that phrase before. I have heard "stone cold" used as an adjective for killer, sober, dead, but never for lie.
AGW is not a scam. It is supported my mountains of evidence. It is accepted by almost every climate scientist on the planet. Suggesting that they are all lying or incompetent is unsupportable nonsense.
Pretty colored charts and graphs prove no causation.....And Hansen is a proven hack.None of the predictions of the MMGW alarmists have come true. NONE. So why should we believe anything they say when they are batting .000? Why should we purposely raise taxes, energy costs, and the cost of every product and service when the people pushing it have been 100% wrong? Why would anyone with a half a brain do that? Ideology? Belief in a failed religion? Virtue Signaling?
Either have Jobs, and a booming economy, or policy based on FEEL GOOD nonsense. Pick one.
Gore’s Predictions Fall Flat
12 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.
1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!
2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.
3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.
4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.
5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.
6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.
7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!
8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.
9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”
10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.
Awhile back, the Washington Post stated in an expose’ that, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor.” Coincidental?
Pretty colored charts and graphs prove no causation.....And Hansen is a proven hack.
Then after that, what are the specific steps that will cool the planet to its "optimal temperature"?...What is that optimal temperature?....Where's the science that says that your efforts will be successful?....What do we do if you're wrong and your "solutions" do more damage?I can be convinced, the roblem remains that AGW Cult has yet to provide ANY evidence, especially with respect to the cornerstone of their theory: a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature on planet Earth.
I know that....But warmer hacks keep posting pretty 3-color charts and graphs as though they are, in and of themselves, definitive proof.Pretty colored charts and graphs prove no causation.....And Hansen is a proven hack.
NOBODY is saying that the Climate is not changing. Always has, always will. The MMGW alarmists can't tell us what part of the change if any is man made. It changes naturally anyway, so how can you tell the difference. You can't!
Q. How much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from ever changing again?Then after that, what are the specific steps that will cool the planet to its "optimal temperature"?...What is that optimal temperature?....Where's the science that says that your efforts will be successful?....What do we do if you're wrong and your "solutions" do more damage?I can be convinced, the roblem remains that AGW Cult has yet to provide ANY evidence, especially with respect to the cornerstone of their theory: a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature on planet Earth.
I you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
10.3.1.1.3 Attribution of observed global-scale temperature changes
The evolution of temperature since the start of the global instrumental record Since the AR4, detection and attribution studies have been carried out using new model simulations with more realistic forcings, and new observational data sets with improved representation of uncertainty (Christidis et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2011, 2013; Gillett et al., 2012, 2013; Stott and Jones, 2012; Knutson et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013). Although some inconsistencies between the simulated and observed responses to forcings in individual models were identified ( Gillett et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013) overall these results support the AR4 assessment that GHG increases very likely caused most (>50%) of the observed GMST increase since the mid-20th century (Hegerl et al., 2007b).
and
Although closely constraining the GHG and other anthropogenic contributions to observed warming remains challenging owing to their degeneracy and sensitivity to methodological choices (Jones et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013), a total anthropogenic contribution to warming can be much more robustly constrained by a regression of observed temperature changes onto the simulated responses to all anthropogenic forcings and natural forcings (Figure 10.4; Gillett et al., 2013; Ribes and Terray, 2013). Robust detection of anthropogenic influence is also found if a new optimal detection methodology, the Regularised Optimal Fingerprint approach (see Section 10.2; Ribes et al., 2013), is applied (Ribes and Terray, 2013). A better constrained estimate of the total anthropogenic contribution to warming since the mid-20th century than the GHG contribution is also found by Wigley and Santer (2013). Knutson et al. (2013) demonstrate that observed trends in GMST are inconsistent with the simulated response to natural forcings alone, but consistent with the simulated response to natural and anthropogenic forcings for all periods beginning between 1880 and 1990 and ending in 2010, which they interpret as evidence that warming is in part attributable to anthropogenic influence over these periods. Based on the well-constrained attributable anthropogenic trends shown in Figure 10.4 we assess that anthropogenic forcings likely contributed 0.6°C to 0.8°C to the observed warming over the 1951–2010 period (Figure 10.5).
I you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
But I'll suspend disbelief for a moment to ask the following....
What's the "proper" temperature for the planet?
What is your can't-miss proposal to stop and reverse those trends?
Where is your methodology to prove that your cant-miss solution will work?
What if you're wrong and your "solution" doesn't work?
What if you're wrong and do more damage?
I want real answers, not "doing nothing isn't an option".
I'm not here to argue, the science is settled. This thread is a discussion of th deniers, not climate change.Those are all out there son, but I ain't gonna bother posting them again just so you can pretend they aren't real.We will never convince the deniers. .
Not without
1. Observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
2. Observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
3. A published paper in which the hypothetical warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
We all know that you can produce none of those...and without them, the real question is "What convinced you?"
So you guys keep saying...but none of you seem to be able to produce the first bit. Why do you suppose that is? I started a thread specifically based on the 3 statements above...more than 1200 posts in now and still not the first shred of observed, measured evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above...so no...they are not out there..and you are a bald faced liar if you claim to have ever posted such observed, measured evidence...
In fact, you don't post evidence...you post opinions...when asked for evidence to support the opinion someone else gave you, you are inevitably at a loss to produce...you are a puppet....a useful idiot...a poor slob with no informed opinion of his own...only the one someone with a political agenda gave you.
Your answers mostly amount to appeals to authority and "I don't know".....The notion that you can say what's in my best interest better than I, is the height of statist snobbery and indicates that you're more about political power than anything else.I you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
That wasn't wasn't bullshit and its not my fault if you were baffled. That was science talking about the studies that concluded the majority of warming since 1880 and particularly since 1950 is the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
But I'll suspend disbelief for a moment to ask the following....
What's the "proper" temperature for the planet?
There isn't one and I never said there was. I am unaware of any climate scientist ever giving such a value. What we seek is a condition in which the Earth's temperature does not change at a catastrophic rate.
What is your can't-miss proposal to stop and reverse those trends?
Wean ourselves from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Where is your methodology to prove that your cant-miss solution will work?
The IPCC, in particular Working Group II whose job is to assess impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability
What if you're wrong and your "solution" doesn't work?
We will have shifted humanity away from fossil fuels. We will certainly be no worse off than had we done nothing.
What if you're wrong and do more damage?
What sort of damage are you talking about? Make it even hotter?
I want real answers, not "doing nothing isn't an option".
I'd like real questions. I'd also like to talk to someone who isn't so bloody afraid to act in his own best interest and of those he or she holds dear.
