Why is climate science political?

[Oddball]

Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.

What kind of answer do you expect to a quesion like that?

Is the answer 15%, 1/2 or just 42?

No one can give you a precise figure, and no one precise figure would remain true when we are looking at systems which are in perpetual flux anyway.

Think of a better question - one which would meet your own standards - and you might get better answers.

The question is quite direct....

Quantify.

How much of the total atmospheric CO2 is directly and verifiably attributable to man's activities?...Exactly?

How much of an increase in the infinitesimally present atmospheric gas will account for what increase in temperature?...Exactly?

How do you positively account for all of the possible variables?...Exactly?

C'mon...Science.....

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do.

There's an overview here, or choose anyone of a hundred other sites:
RealClimate: How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

But really - this is such a red herring, isn't it?

At what point will you list the scientific bodies who do not believe human acitivity plays a part in climate change?

 

[Oddball]

Don't tell me what question is better, deflectasaurus rex.

Answer direct questions with verifiable and quantifiable evidence.

That's science.

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

I think it is more of a red herring in this case, but the answer couldn't be much easier to find.

This site says 5.53% of CO2 released is from human acivitity....that's fairly close to what I've seen on other sites. Feel free to use another figure if you prefer.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Asking for thr 4th time now - which scientific bodies do not believe human acitivity plays a role in climate change?

 

[Oddball]

No red herring.

You cannot put direct and independently verifiable numbers to your claims....No quantification.

You appeal to authority...A logical fallacy.

You lose.

 

[Saigon]

Oddball -

Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose.

And even though I have listed 50 scientific bodies from the around the world who back my position - and you have not 1 who backs your position, you think I lose.

Jesus wept....

 

[Oddball]

5% (assuming that is objectively verifiable) of .038% of the total -a statistical rounding error- is significant.

I linked to over 30,000 of legitimate scientists who disagree with your chosen cliques....You disregard them out of hand.

But there's no backing to my claim.

 

[westwall]

Oddball -

Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose.

And even though I have listed 50 scientific bodies from the around the world who back my position - and you have not 1 who backs your position, you think I lose.

Jesus wept....

Jesus. How appropriate. Yet more confirmation that it really is all just a religion.

 

[wirebender]

You fool no one.

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

 

[wirebender]

Exactly my point - new science (and climate change dates back to only 1860) takes a long time to win over the establishment. It's only natural that there is cynicism, but eventually some kind of near-consensus is reached.

And professor Wood's experiment proving the hypothesis wrong dates to just a few weeks later in 1860 but I wager that you never heard about that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Oddball -

Right - so eve though we have established the undisputed scientific fact that around 5% of CO2 released is from human acitivity, you think I lose.

And even though I have listed 50 scientific bodies from the around the world who back my position - and you have not 1 who backs your position, you think I lose.

Jesus wept....

Ummm. It has not been established at all. Nice try.

Try basing it off of the tons of CO2 released, versus how much CO2 is in the atmosphere by tonnage. It's more like 0.06% when you run the math. Math so simple even I can do it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Again, here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

There are 50 major organisatins here - would anyone like to post a list of scientific bodies who DO NOT accept human involvement in climate change?

Another "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy.

If all of those organizations said that 2+2=22, it does not make it so... does it?

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread clearly speaks to the age old phrase, 'There is a sucker born every day!!"

 

[bripat9643]

Oddball -

Well, that is a slightly better question - though one which you could google an answer for in about a half second. In fact, I'm sure you know the answer as well as I do.

There's an overview here, or choose anyone of a hundred other sites:
RealClimate: How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

But really - this is such a red herring, isn't it?

At what point will you list the scientific bodies who do not believe human acitivity plays a part in climate change?

That question is nothing but a ruse. In the first place, it's a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority." How many astronomers in the year 1500 believed that the Sun was the center of the solar system? Answer: all of them.

In the second place, the leadership of "scientific bodies" are politicians more than scientists, and they are totally dependent on government for their status, income and authority. One may as well ask how man Cardinals in the catholic church dispute the divinity of Christ.

Here is one more example of the dishonesty of the warmist cult. They claim to believe in science, yet the reject all the fundamental precepts of science, two if which are logic and skepticism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"that they believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change"

Excellent! How large a role?
And if they think we should spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.1 degrees by 2080, then I part ways with them.

Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.

What kind of answer do you expect to a quesion like that?

Is the answer 15%, 1/2 or just 42?

No one can give you a precise figure, and no one precise figure would remain true when we are looking at systems which are in perpetual flux anyway.

Think of a better question - one which would meet your own standards - and you might get better answers.

No one can give you a precise figure

And yet we're expected to give up our freedoms, and trillions of dollars, to fix the unquantifiable problem.

 

[Big Fitz]

This thread clearly speaks to the age old phrase, 'There is a sucker born every day!!"

Amen PT Barnum. There'd be a good avvie for you Skook.

 

[Big Fitz]

Quantification: Another well established acid test of science completely ignored by the hoaxers.

What kind of answer do you expect to a quesion like that?

Is the answer 15%, 1/2 or just 42?

No one can give you a precise figure, and no one precise figure would remain true when we are looking at systems which are in perpetual flux anyway.

Think of a better question - one which would meet your own standards - and you might get better answers.

No one can give you a precise figure

And yet we're expected to give up our freedoms, and trillions of dollars, to fix the unquantifiable problem.

He hasn't said whether or not he'll buy my "Tiger Repellant Rock". I mean a tiger free life for $10k? Who wouldn't want that?

Or perhaps he doesn't believe it's a good investment of his money? Hmmmmmmmm......

Perhaps there's something to this?

 

[Saigon]

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


Come on gentlemen - if your case has so much science behind it - let's see the list of scientific organisations who agree with you.

 

[Saigon]

You fool no one.

Well, there are 50 major scientific bodies in my corner.

And not one single law of physics or even a small shred of anything that could be honestly called hard evidence. What should that tell a thinking person?

That should tell any thinking person that you have misunderstood the question. You seriously think you know more about physics than the American Society of Phycisists.....in the name of God, man, get a grip on your ego!!!

I have a choice between believing you - and believing the opinion of almost every major scientific body in the world.

It is not a difficult choice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apart from a lot of whining, I aren't seeing much in the way of science or facts being presented.

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change:

I ask again for a list of scientific bodies who disagree:

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of 32 countries.

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Chemical Society[41]

American Institute of Physics[42]

American Physical Society[43]

Australian Institute of Physics[44]

European Physical Society[45]

European Science Foundation[46]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies[47]

American Geophysical Union

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union


Come on gentlemen - if your case has so much science behind it - let's see the list of scientific organisations who agree with you.

Let's try again. Here is a list of 50 bodies who believe human acitivity plays some role in climate change

Yeah, some role. So what? How much should we spend to ameliorate that role?