Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[Toddsterpatriot]

What percentage of AGI did they receive?

About 20%.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has not produced a single one of these papers he claims exist. Not one. Perhaps you can do your master one better and actually find one. James Powell found a few. A very few. His three studies found that the published literature supports AGW at over 99%.*

What a lying piece of excrement you are...I posted plenty, but if you want more, there are hundreds to choose from...pick a topic and I will gladly post more...by name, title, and publication...unlike your vague IPCC address...

 

[Crick]

What percentage of AGI did they receive?

About 20%.

What is the source of your numbers Todd?

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update | Tax Foundation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What percentage of AGI did they receive?

About 20%.

What is the source of your numbers Todd?

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update | Tax Foundation?

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2018 Update

 

[skookerasbil]

Your lot seemed to have forked over your wallet so the upper 1% could live life without taxation. How much "reasoned level of thinking" did that involve?

As you've been told multiple times, doing nothing will cost far, far more than doing something. That's a very general rule with problems of all sort. Ignoring them and putting them off is NEVER the best solution. It's the stupid solution or the cowardly solution. How can you not see that?

I get upset with you fools for several reasons, but the biggest are my children, whose lives you seem determined to fuck up.

And skooerashole, NO ONE CARES THAT YOU THINK NO ONE CARES.

You're getting pissed again s0n! The optics suck for board members who's head is in constant explode mode.

The comment on "costs" is purely theoretical. Then there are the real costs I identify. Nobody is going to believe in the boogie man as a threat as compared to the tax man who is very real.

Climate alarmists have been speaking incessantly about the "very real and expensive threat" for 20 years! To what end? Who has it moved?

The answer is....almost nobody because people are naturally far, far more concerned about economic threats staring them right in the face daily as compared to some boggie man intangible, unquantifiable and largely imaginary threat! If people were buying into the imaginary threat well, the Paris Treaty wouldnt be dead. Cap and Trade would be the law of the land and wind and solar power would be providing waaaaaaaaay more than 5% of our electrcity!

I never have spent one second in here trying to change the minds of the climate hysterical. But providing the curious in here the landscape about what's happening in the real world on the state of climate change action.....lol......making alot of people in here look pretty fucking st00pid!!!

 

[Crick]

Again, no one cares that you think no one cares. Find something else to say: something that might indicate you actually have a functional mass of grey cells on top of your shoulders.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again, no one cares that you think no one cares. Find something else to say: something that might indicate you actually have a functional mass of grey cells on top of your shoulders.

Good idea!!

So since we are talking about elected representatives who are deniers took a gander over to DRUDGE just now and found THIS >>

TRUMP 50%!!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports®


The top story by the way!!

And we thought deniers were some fringe entity!!

Crick dude....take up another fight. Being a member of a group navel contemplation outfit makes head banging on brick walls a daily activity. Just fail to see the sense of it. Find a group that wins....at least a little! Green candidates routinely go down hArD in elections. Would you like me to post up the 2016 and 2018 House results on DUM candidates who ran on a green platform?

 

[Flopper]

I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.

I think it can be stopped. Will it be stopped is an entirely different issue. C02 and Methane will eventually dissipate in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans and combining with other substances. So if we actually eliminate man's contribution, greenhouse gas levels will fall and eventually reverse the effect. Of course extinction to animal and plant life can never be reversed.

Most people seem to believe that with increasing effects of climate change, nations of the world will come to believe that working together to reduce greenhouses gases is the only option.

I have a different take on it. The nations of this planet have never worked together and made sacrifices needed to avoid a crisis. Why would they start now? There are many people on the planet who don't trust governments, have a vested interest in continuing on the current path, or they are simple unwilling to make sacrifices that will take many generations before seeing any improvement. The most likely course would be rationalization, distrust that scarifies required would work, or a fatalist view that it's all God's will so nothing can or should be done. Of course it will eventually be reversed if we do nothing. As population decrease do to lack of food, so would greenhouse gases so eventually climate change would reverse. Of course life on the planet would be far different than today.

 

[Flopper]

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

97% of all climate scientists,

75/77. Who can argue with that?

So when 97% cardiologist tell you you need medical care, you go to the dentist for a second opinion.

I might...Not very long ago, 97% of gastroenterologists would have told you that your stomach ulcers were caused by stress...today, they tell you a different story. Not very long ago 99% of cardiologists would have told you that cholesterol caused heart disease...today, the will tell you something different...and I could go on ad nauesum about all the things across all branches of science that a consensus once believed which is no longer true. That is the nature of science...you keep adding to your knowledge...rejecting and refining hypothesis to get you closer to the truth,

The man made climate change, on the other hand is said to have sprung forth complete and true...settled science right out of the gate...after all these years, and repeated predictive failures, no change has been made to the fundamental hypothesis...and those who "believe" still claim the science is settled...That isn't science...that is a quasi religion...or maybe a full fledged religion...in either case, it isn't science.

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

No one had much interest in the subject until scientist started investigating these gases in the atmosphere. Scientists learned that these gases dissipate and dissolve into the oceans. Our great forests, volcanic eruptions, animal and human life adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere thus maintaining a fairly stable climate with seasonal changes. Then scientist started looking at man's contribution to these gases in 2nd half of 20th century which proved to be substantial and growing. By the end of twenty century, 4 important facts were know:

• Increases in greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the earth
• The temperature of earth is rising
• Concentrations of Greenhouse gases are rising
• The contribution of the burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, raising of livestock were largely responsible for the increases in greenhouse gases.

AGW did not just sudden appear. It grew out of experimentation and observations that stared over 150 years ago with the greenhouse effect.

What is relatively new is the religious zeal of supporters and denies of AGW. This has lead to a huge amount of pseudo-science on both sides. Cottage industries on the Internet supporting and denying AGW have become a rather profitable business creating pseudo-science theories and data to support them. Outlandish predictions and projection on one side of this pseudo-science debate are countered by new theories equally outlandish. However, the real science is there. You just have to look hard to find it among all horse shit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.

Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.

SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.

Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

 

[Flopper]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.

Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?

An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.

True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?

You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.

Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?

An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.

True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?

You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.

Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers

Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.

Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.

You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.

 

[Flopper]

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.

Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.

SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.

Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.

So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.

Bullcrap.

The entire community has made it toxic to not agree.

By consensus, I mean consensus of peers in academies of science, scientific societies, and research groups. Methods and conclusions have to be defended with solid scientific evidence.

 

[SSDD]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

 

[SSDD]

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Nope... Consensus of peers is how we arrive at a consensus that will eventually be overturned by actual science. In actual science, a single predictive failure is enough to ether bring about a major change to a hypothesis, or to have it rejected entirely and work begin on a more workable hypothesis...The AGW hypothesis has littered the landscape with failed predictions over the past 30 years...and yet, no change has been made to the basic hypothesis. This is important...in real science, a single predictive failure can doom a hypothesis...in pseudoscience, however, any number of predictive failures is fine so long as the funding continues.

Consensus has no place in science unless it is backed by an overwhelming amount of observed, measured evidence that support the hypothesis over the null hypothesis (in this case natural variability of the climate) and reams and reams of repeatable experiment demonstrating the accuracy of the hypothesis...consensus under any other condition is the result of politics...not science.

 

[Crick]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.

Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?

An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.

True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?

You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.

Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers

Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.

Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.

You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.

It is you, Tommy, that are mistaken about the value of consensus among experts. That past consensuses (consensi?) were overcome by new evidence is a marvelous confirmation of the scientific method. It is not a repudiation of consensus. If someone actually falsifies AGW, its consensus will disappear in short order. But that it is currently held as correct by a huge majority of the experts in the field DOES mean it is the dominant theory, that it is "very widely accepted" and that there is no debate among those experts on its validity.

If it were NOT held correct by a large majority of the experts in the field, it would NOT be the dominant theory, it would NOT be widely accepted and there WOULD be debate among the experts on its validity.

 

[SSDD]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.

Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?

An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.

True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?

You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.

Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers

Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.

Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.

You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.

It is you, Tommy, that are mistaken about the value of consensus among experts. That past consensuses (consensi?) were overcome by new evidence is a marvelous confirmation of the scientific method. It is not a repudiation of consensus. If someone actually falsifies AGW, its consensus will disappear in short order. But that it is currently held as correct by a huge majority of the experts in the field DOES mean it is the dominant theory, that it is "very widely accepted" and that there is no debate among those experts on its validity.

If it were NOT held correct by a large majority of the experts in the field, it would NOT be the dominant theory, it would NOT be widely accepted and there WOULD be debate among the experts on its validity.

Name another branch of science where consensus is held up as evidence that the trending mainstream hypothesis is correct...name another branch of science where practitioners state that the science is settled...even when they have a good body of observed, measured evidence that supports that hypothesis over the null hypothesis...

 

[Crick]

Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong...repeatable evidence is the cornerstone for acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is about evidence...consensus doesn't carry an ounce of authority.

Can you point to any other branch of science in which a consensus opinion is offered up in support of the present prevailing theory rather than evidence gathered via the best adherence to the scientific method possible? Any at all?

An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.

True enough..but that isn't how climate science operates. You believe that CO2 causes warming and that most of the warming we have experienced has been due to our CO2 emissions...and yet, there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses....Not a single paper....and yet, that is precisely what you believe. How did you arrive at that conclusion when there are no published scientific studies which make that claim and show clear observed, measured evidence to support the claim?

You believe...that is all. You haven't been convinced by the body of evidence...you haven't been convinced by the repeatable experiments, you haven't been convinced by the scientific method...You believe...and neither belief, nor consensus has any place in actual science.

Consensus of peers is how we arrive at accepted and discarded theories. We need accepted theories so they can be used as tools until disproved. Without accepted theories to use as tools the researcher would have to evaluate competing hypotheses making his job somewhere between more difficult and impossible.

Oh dear another terrible consensus babble, since it is reproducible papers that drives science, NOT how many people believe in it. Surely you are aware of how often "consensus" positions have been wrong, wrong because they didn't rely on reproducible research, they had relied on a belief system that can last for many years, and resist the true understanding.

Alfred Wegener-- Continental Drift
J. Harlan Bretz-- The Missoula floods
Barry Marshall-- Ulcers

Each one had bucked the consensus position, with reproducible research. It was research that destroys consensus because it was reliance on data/evidence and reality. There are many more examples of failed consensus that even killed people because they were barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong country.

Those three men went out there into the physical world, getting their hands dirty, which is why they found the answers, while Consensus are the lazy kids laying around the pool, who drinks kool aid all day, without doing reproducible research to back them up.

You need to drop that dumb consensus argument, as it is devoid of cogent usefulness and doesn't provide any wisdom either.

It is you, Tommy, that are mistaken about the value of consensus among experts. That past consensuses (consensi?) were overcome by new evidence is a marvelous confirmation of the scientific method. It is not a repudiation of consensus. If someone actually falsifies AGW, its consensus will disappear in short order. But that it is currently held as correct by a huge majority of the experts in the field DOES mean it is the dominant theory, that it is "very widely accepted" and that there is no debate among those experts on its validity.

If it were NOT held correct by a large majority of the experts in the field, it would NOT be the dominant theory, it would NOT be widely accepted and there WOULD be debate among the experts on its validity.

No responses?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

Your theory of "matter at equilibrium stops radiating" has never been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of your misinterpretation.

 

[Flopper]

That's not quite right. The greenhouse effect was first observed in 1827 and expanded on by many scientist. It was widely acceptable in the early 20th century. The theory simply stated is greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere reflect heat back to the earth thus forming a blanket around the earth. Without these gases the planet would go into a deep freeze. Too much and temperature rises to a point of treating life on the planet.

That isn't quite right either...A greenhouse effect was first thought to have been observed, and was written up in a paper in 1827....shortly afterwards, one professor woods performed a series of experiments and discredited that first paper on the greenhouse effect. He demonstrated that what was thought to have been a greenhouse effect was actually nothing more than blocking of convection by glass panes... The present day climate crisis is based on a failed experiment done in the early 1800's.

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.


To date, there has not been a single paper published in any scientific journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses. That being the case, exactly where does the certainty that we are altering the global climate come from?

No greenhouse effect has ever been observed, or measured in reality...it is all the product of models.

The Greenhouse Effect is demonstrated and observed in just about ever high school in the country.



Similar experiments have been duplicated many times in large atmospheric chambers containing various concentrations of CO2, methane, water vapor, and trace gases. Temperature changes of course vary by concentrations and mixtures but it always shows increases in temperatures compared to the control.

The results are confirmed by measurements at Mauna Loa and Baring Head. In addition the Greenhouse Effect has been used by planetary astronomers to help explain temperature differences between planets. Furthermore every modern weather forecasting model has a radiative transfer model in its core, which is based on the Greenhouse Effect. People who don’t accept the greenhouse effect are simply not dealing with reality.

There is no way to directly measure temperature change in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, agriculture, ocean absorption, or other sources because there is no way to isolate a single source. We can calculate the amount of greenhouses gases produced by various sources and thus determine which sources are of greatest concern. However, due to political and economic reasons reducing the greatest contributor may not be possible. In the end, the most important thing is reducing amount of greenhouse gases. How we do it will be a political decision.