Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
97% of peer reviewed papers published that said 'yes' or 'no' said yes, yet you go with the 3% that said no

That's what a denier does, dismisses the overwhelming evidence against him to justify keeping a false belief

34 national science academies that reached a conclusion all reached the same one, unanimously, but if you want to take the Fiji academy of science's word for it instead of the collective consensus of the educated world, don't let facts get in your way

This reply is expected at this point, and the opposition to the overwhelming scientific consensus hasn't produced any evidence that supports their position, and damn sure haven't had 97% of peer reviewed papers to agree with them
And this is why I made the claim that either the politicians or the media is where you are getting this information from.

We've went over the reliability of the Skeptical Science website many times.
The owner of the site is not a scientist, he's a blogger and a cartoonist.
His 97% consensus has be debunked, even many of the scientists included in his consensus ripped him apart for the misinformation. Why do you keep trying to slide this garbage into your debate?
 

god1

Well-Known Member
So in your opinion is there more absorption of radiation in water vapor or co2?
If you're asking me, low frequency ir energy is not attenuated by the water molecule.

And around 2/3 of the papers reviewed said don't know/unsure/need more data. That is exactly why the debate is not settled.

There are 60+. And that's being generous.

Doesn't sound like the science is settled to me.
Some observational stuff is not in question; it's all this political maneuvering without defined consequences that drives people nuts.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Then why can't the opposition provide any amount of credible evidence not tainted by financial conflicts of interest?

Why are republicans who take bribes from the fossil fuel industry the only politicians in office who oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus?
You continue to bring up financial conflict when it suits your narrative.
But ignore the financial conflict of scientists who rely on government money to keep their research afloat, if they don't research AGW, they don't get grants, it's as simple as that.

Your bias is blatant.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The owner of the site is not a scientist, he's a blogger and a cartoonist.
His 97% consensus has be debunked, even many of the scientists included in his consensus ripped him apart for the misinformation. Why do you keep trying to slide this garbage into your debate?
Dismissing the fact that the 97% figure comes directly from NASA, the Hadley Center, NOAA and the Japanese Meteorological Agency and Cook simply reports the exact same information on skeptical science, how would him being a blogger or a cartoonist render any of those other organizations findings moot or incorrect?

Red herring


You continue to bring up financial conflict when it suits your narrative.
And you still have yet to address it

But ignore the financial conflict of scientists who rely on government money to keep their research afloat, if they don't research AGW, they don't get grants, it's as simple as that.
I asked you to provide evidence of this claim, instead you just say "you ignore it!". What do I ignore? Provide some evidence of funding from the government going directly or indirectly into a scientists pocket (as I did with 5 republican politicians) for purposefully falsifying the data to bolster the ACC consensus. I'd be happy to look at it
 

UncleBurnie

Active Member
Unfortunately I see this as a wicked problem. I believe the science, but I don't believe there's a solution at this point. If we stopped all emissions today, we may not stop catastrophic change. Today's society is unable to maintain itself without fossil fuel. The answer is grim. If this debate had taken place in the early 60's we might have been able to plot a different course, but today, we're in bed with the devil and he's going to get his.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I see this as a wicked problem. I believe the science, but I don't believe there's a solution at this point. If we stopped all emissions today, we may not stop catastrophic change. Today's society is unable to maintain itself without fossil fuel. The answer is grim. If this debate had taken place in the early 60's we might have been able to plot a different course, but today, we're in bed with the devil and he's going to get his.
According to science, we have a window of opportunity to act
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Citation please. I'd love to know what we can do. Any type of link would be of great help. Thank you.
No you wouldn't. You would just like to criticize valid solutions because you don't recognize their significance, don't believe it would change anything, don't believe humans can affect the climate, and don't understand science
 

UncleBurnie

Active Member
According to science, we have a window of opportunity to act
First, I agree with all your posts that I've read Pad. Second, what action must we take? They keep moving the "do not cross line". I'm all for doing what we can, but just like climate, society doesn't change course like flipping a light switch... And at this point, no meaningful action is even on the horizon. I think climate scientists know we can't keep change at 2'C. They have a pretty good idea about feedback loops that are a hair trigger away. It's just too disturbing to discuss openly. Mother Nature bats last.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
what action must we take?
There are a lot of things average citizens can do, namely become more energy efficient. That could be anything from adding solar power to your house to buying a more fuel efficient vehicle. I've seen homes that are 100% green who pay nothing for electricity or gas. If every home in America did that it would be a big step in the right direction.

Imo, the most important thing individuals can do is educate themselves and stop listening to doctors telling them tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.. Our political process has been carefully developed over the past few decades to create as much division between political parties as possible, which is why the only opposition comes exclusively from the right
 

UncleBurnie

Active Member
Well, I drive (drove) a Prius (totalled it on Tues) and I'm on solar (for obvious reasons, being I'm on this site). BUT, if EVERYONE did that TODAY, it wouldn't be enough. We need change NOW and we aren't even looking for change tomorrow. Oil made it easy for us to ignore alternate energy options back when we should have been paying attention. We let the genie out of the bottle and in typical genie fashion it granted our wish and twisted it against us at the same time.

I'm thinking it's kind of a "Saw" type situation...
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Well, I drive (drove) a Prius (totalled it on Tues) and I'm on solar (for obvious reasons, being I'm on this site). BUT, if EVERYONE did that TODAY, it wouldn't be enough. We need change NOW and we aren't even looking for change tomorrow. Oil made it easy for us to ignore alternate energy options back when we should have been paying attention. We let the genie out of the bottle and in typical genie fashion it granted our wish and twisted it against us at the same time.

I'm thinking it's kind of a "Saw" type situation...
I disagree, if everyone lived in a 100% energy efficient home and switched to electric vehicles, it would eliminate more than 75% of carbon emissions. Right now, the fossil fuel industry is the leading producer of CO2 emissions, if nobody buys their product (oil, gas, coal, etc.) they can't stay in business, so it would be somewhat of a domino effect, which has been gaining traction for years. The only thing preventing immediate innovations like the things Tesla is working on is republican opposition, and to a lesser extent democratic pandering, which the American political process is used to, and that's a whole other thread..

The bottom line is progress happens whether there is opposition or not, just like with CRC's, Tobacco and evolution, the amount of opposition defines the speed of the progress, and when the overwhelming majority reach a consensus, the progress reflects that. I'm not very optimistic about a lot of things, but this is one thing I'm virtually certain of. After all, it only took a few decades to convince the public tobacco causes lung cancer, now look at the number of smokers;




The window of opportunity is purposefully vague for this exact reason, most numbers range from 50-100 years before it becomes irreversible
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Dismissing the fact that the 97% figure comes directly from NASA, the Hadley Center, NOAA and the Japanese Meteorological Agency and Cook simply reports the exact same information on skeptical science, how would him being a blogger or a cartoonist render any of those other organizations findings moot or incorrect?

Red herring



And you still have yet to address it



I asked you to provide evidence of this claim, instead you just say "you ignore it!". What do I ignore? Provide some evidence of funding from the government going directly or indirectly into a scientists pocket (as I did with 5 republican politicians) for purposefully falsifying the data to bolster the ACC consensus. I'd be happy to look at it
Padawan, it's not only me that can see right through your thinly cloaked vail of bias, keep making a skeptical of yourself (pun intended)

Just so you know the facts. The 97% consensus crap was done by John Cook of Skeptical Science, the same John Cook that is the blogger and cartoonist, not a scientist.
Anyone can do a simple google search and figure all this media garbage out.
The study did NOT come directly from NASA or NOAA, do your research, Mr. Understands Science.

There I addressed it, and with indisputable facts.
 

god1

Well-Known Member
Here's an interesting and short article I read, it was written by Dr. Mike Sanacola
a 40 yr infrared astronomer from GE.
If you get the time to read it, his work may bring a new perspective on warming and greenhouse gases.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

Interesting read. I've seen similar claims without technical explanation; this could all be settled with a h2o vs co2 absorption calculation for the entire ir bandwidth. I vote we assign the task to Bucky, after all he's the math major, (and he is entertaining).
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Padawan, it's not only me that can see right through your thinly cloaked vail of bias, keep making a skeptical of yourself (pun intended)

Just so you know the facts. The 97% consensus crap was done by John Cook of Skeptical Science, the same John Cook that is the blogger and cartoonist, not a scientist.
Anyone can do a simple google search and figure all this media garbage out.
The study did NOT come directly from NASA or NOAA, do your research, Mr. Understands Science.

There I addressed it, and with indisputable facts.
Is that so, smart guy?

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)."

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program


"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice."

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.

http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf


John Cook, the mastermind cartoonist behind all these different organizations indepently agreeing on anthropogenic climate change, a global conspiracy spanning every continent and hundreds of thousands of people manipulating data to secure government funding...

Are you aware the average salary of these scientists is less than $50K-$100K/year?

No, of course you're not aware of that..

Meanwhile, McConnell & Inhofe rake in nearly a million and a half between them, in one year..

How you have the audacity to accuse me of ignoring the money trail is beyond my scope of understanding

You've been on this rock twice as long as me. I give you the benefit of the doubt since you didn't grow up with the internet like I did, but your ignorance is unjustifiable at this point. You have a goddamn internet business for fucks sake, you should know this stuff by now. Your ego and arrogance prevent you from acknowledging the facts because the facts contradict your worldview and you haven't learned how to say "I don't know" without feeling shame. I'm here to tell you, it's more than shameful to perpetuate such an egregious fairytale as climate change denial, and you do more damage to your character in that endeavor than you otherwise would by simply admitting your ignorance and moving forward.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Interesting read. I've seen similar claims without technical explanation; this could all be settled with a h2o vs co2 absorption calculation for the entire ir bandwidth. I vote we assign the task to Bucky, after all he's the math major, (and he is entertaining).
Do you think NASA has simply ignored this?

There are two options.. You either think everyone at NASA is an idiot or you think they're lying. There is no other way to justify climate change denial. So which is it?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
And this is why I made the claim that either the politicians or the media is where you are getting this information from.

We've went over the reliability of the Skeptical Science website many times.
The owner of the site is not a scientist, he's a blogger and a cartoonist.
His 97% consensus has be debunked, even many of the scientists included in his consensus ripped him apart for the misinformation. Why do you keep trying to slide this garbage into your debate?
But aren't you the guy who started a thread by citing the guy from channel 51? Yet you criticize the grad student with a BS in physics who authored peer reviewed research in the field we're discussing and you don't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
 
Top